Unpopular opinions

[frisco]

Highlight reel clips, while fun to watch, shouldn't be taken at all seriously when evaluating players. Especially, when there are such robust statistical records kept.

BTW, this really has nothing to do with the past few comments. It's just an opinion I have that might be unpopular.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

Highlight reel clips, while fun to watch, shouldn't be taken at all seriously when evaluating players. Especially, when there are such robust statistical records kept.

BTW, this really has nothing to do with the past few comments. It's just an opinion I have that might be unpopular.

My Best-Carey

I would say 'yes' and 'no.

Obviously, highlight reel clips are no way to evaluate a player. But, at the same time, there are few "robust statistical records" that can accurately determine a player's worth. Hockey is a complex game of 12 athletes (cycling out of 45 on two benches) in perpetual motion, in random positions, and perpetually making mistakes.

This is why younger fans cannot understand how 90% of fans / players thought Mark Messier was more valuable to his team than Mario Lemieux around 1990-1992. Neither the highlight reels nor the statistical record can explain that.

Sometime, you just have to have been there and actually watched full games.

 

[rmartin65]

This is why younger fans cannot understand how 90% of fans / players thought Mark Messier was more valuable to his team than Mario Lemieux around 1990-1992. Neither the highlight reels nor the statistical record can explain that.

Sometime, you just have to have been there and actually watched full games.

How do you feel about that 2018 Hart vote?

 

[daver]

You miss 90% of the shots you don't take.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

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 ?

The exact definition is that shooting above the league average for the era isnt repeatable in representative sample sizes.

Its basically just saying that it isnt a realistic strategy to try to gameplan around taking only high percentage shots as a individual player and especially as a team because shot quality tends to trend toward the same average as all the other players/teams over time.

My memory of this is very fuzzy, so please bear with me

 

[frisco]

I would say 'yes' and 'no.

Obviously, highlight reel clips are no way to evaluate a player. But, at the same time, there are few "robust statistical records" that can accurately determine a player's worth. Hockey is a complex game of 12 athletes (cycling out of 45 on two benches) in perpetual motion, in random positions, and perpetually making mistakes.

This is why younger fans cannot understand how 90% of fans / players thought Mark Messier was more valuable to his team than Mario Lemieux around 1990-1992. Neither the highlight reels nor the statistical record can explain that.

Sometime, you just have to have been there and actually watched full games.

Watching full games for sure. Especially over a long period of time. It's the highlight reel stuff that makes Pavel Bure look like ten times the player Brett Hull ever was, based on the flashy nature of his three minute "best of" goals spliced together. And this isn't a Bure vs. Hull argument as each got the job done in a different fashion. Bure with the more impressive looking markers.

And, hey, I'm a Gilbert Perreault fan, so maybe I should just be quiet.

I don't know if people actually thought Messier was better than Lemieux 1990-92. Mario dominated and would of walked away with the Ross/Hart each year. It was just he wasn't healthy. Plus, Mario put together two all-time playoff runs on a wonky bank during that time. So, that might not be the best example, although I get your point.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

How do you feel about that 2018 Hart vote?

The 2018 Hart? Watching it in real time and "being there", I thought the voters likely made a mistake, and still do. I would have voted for MacKinnon in April 2018. But it's not like there was any huge statistical distinction between him and Hall anyway.

My point is not that the voters always get it right.

 

[The Panther]

I don't know if people actually thought Messier was better than Lemieux 1990-92.

It's not a question of whether he was "better" but rather if he was more valuable to his team. You are right, though, that in both of Messier's Hart seasons, Lemieux missed 1/4 of the season.

Would he have won anyway, though, in 1992? If Mario scores 164 points (40 fewer than his pace three years earlier) and the Pens still finish, say, 15 points behind the Rangers, would he win the Hart? He would have gotten more votes, for sure, but Mess ended with 67 of 69 first-place votes in reality. And the Pearson.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's not a question of whether he was "better" but rather if he was more valuable to his team. You are right, though, that in both of Messier's Hart seasons, Lemieux missed 1/4 of the season.

Would he have won anyway, though, in 1992? If Mario scores 164 points (40 fewer than his pace three years earlier) and the Pens still finish, say, 15 points behind the Rangers, would he win the Hart? He would have gotten more votes, for sure, but Mess ended with 67 of 69 first-place votes in reality. And the Pearson.

Well Bourque was robbed of the '90 Hart by voters that left him off their ballot for being a defenseman.

In 1992, tough to claim he was the most "valuable" player in the league when his team had the 102 point Norris winner on it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The exact definition is that shooting above the league average for the era isnt repeatable in representative sample sizes.

Its basically just saying that it isnt a realistic strategy to try to gameplan around taking only high percentage shots as a individual player and especially as a team because shot quality tends to trend toward the same average as all the other players/teams over time.

My memory of this is very fuzzy, so please bear with me

Unless you're the Soviet National team.

 

[MadLuke]

The exact definition is that shooting above the league average for the era isnt repeatable in representative sample sizes.

For a team I imagine ?, but not for Alex Tanguay, Stamkos or Lindros.

Highlight reel clips, while fun to watch, shouldn't be taken at all seriously when evaluating players. Especially, when there are such robust statistical records kept.

That is true, but I feel there a bit of 2 categories, the Ovechkin, Lemieux, Gretzky type of highlight clip, for the part when they have the puck the highlight almost always end up with a goal after the spectacular play vs the Datsyuk where a lot of players look like fool but does not always end up with a goal

 

[frisco]

Would he have won anyway, though, in 1992? If Mario scores 164 points (40 fewer than his pace three years earlier) and the Pens still finish, say, 15 points behind the Rangers, would he win the Hart? He would have gotten more votes, for sure, but Mess ended with 67 of 69 first-place votes in reality. And the Pearson.

I think Mario if is healthy he wins the Hart/Pearson in 1992. A 50-point lead over Messier would be hard to ignore and the fact that the Pens might be closer to the Rangers in the standings had he played. And it would've been clear to just about everyone that Lemieux was the game's best player at that point.

There was a strong media bias toward Messier (justifiably) as he really transformed the Rangers but, like I said, Mario was just so much better he would have won out in a full season. Missing those 20 games or so gave Messier the opportunity. Just one man's opinion though.

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

Would he have won anyway, though, in 1992? If Mario scores 164 points (40 fewer than his pace three years earlier) and the Pens still finish, say, 15 points behind the Rangers, would he win the Hart?

Maybe, but that would have been a terrible mistake in hindsight, giving the Hart to someone that win just an extra game scoring those 33 pts, they would mean they were a bit empty calories, Lemieux barely better in reality than those who played his minutes and the cascading effect.

More realistically, the pens keep closer to their 34W-7T-23L Mario pace in those extra 16 game.

They end up with 97 pts or so, third in the east, trailing the rangers by 8.

The Pens played at a 97 pts rate with Lemieux .606% team, only 12pts on 32pts when he missed a .375% team not close to make the playoff without him.

Of if you mean he still play only 64 games but score 31 more points in them, we can imagine they won more of those games if that the case.

 

[steve141]

Unpopular opinion: The Hall of Fame should be more about fame and less about who scored the most points or happened to play for the Oilers in the 80s.

 

[MadLuke]

Unpopular opinion: The Hall of Fame should be more about fame and less about who scored the most points or happened to play for the Oilers in the 80s.

I feel it need to balance 4 things personally

Fame, having the visitor in mind and the younger player that dream to be in because of the famous people in it
The players themselves, it is because it is a big deal for them that it is fun to see them get in, so their opinion matter and what they did has well.
History tracking/generating fame for what is worth remembering.

And finally Prestige, like the Oscar or an university, it need to protect his prestige for the 3 above to work, regardless the level of fame achieved by the Tie Domi, Probert, Tiger WIlliams, Sean Avery, etc... the Hall of Fame should be only for the famous and career accomplishment mixed together, a pure popularity contest and it looses everything, even more than pure stat compiling would do.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

Unpopular opinion: The Hall of Fame should be more about fame and less about who scored the most points or happened to play for the Oilers in the 80s.

I feel that Lowe got in for the "fame" of being on the Oilers in the 80's above all else.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Unpopular opinion: The Hall of Fame should be more about fame and less about who scored the most points or happened to play for the Oilers in the 80s.

I think about this from time to time, and I agree to some extent. The best example I can think of is the NFL’s Eli Manning. As a pure player he doesn’t have the stats to get in, but even I, as an Eagles fan and hater of the Giants, think he belongs in the NFL HOF. He has the name recognition because of his brother and father. He played in NYC. He won 2 Super Bowl’s, he won 2 Super Bowl MVP’s, both Super Bowls were against the dynasty Patriots (one of the teams was undefeated), Giants were a wild card team and underdog both times, both Super Bowls were among the greatest of all time, both games featured a great play and throw by Manning in clutch time.

One can’t talk about the history of the NFL without his name being a big part in that era so I think he deserves to be in. I can’t really think of a comparison from the NHL or any other sport really

 

[Felidae]

This is why younger fans cannot understand how 90% of fans / players thought Mark Messier was more valuable to his team than Mario Lemieux around 1990-1992. Neither the highlight reels nor the statistical record can explain that.

90%? Are you basing that off the hart vote? Thought you yourself admitted it was a bizarrely overwhelming majority vote?

Sometime, you just have to have been there and actually watched full games.

Alright, then what made Messier from 1990-92 more "valuable" than Lemieux in spite of the wide gap in production?

Was his two way game/physicality enough to even the gap? Games played?

And its not just Lemieux. There is Leetch, who almost matched his production despite being a defenseman. Even Roy, who had one of the best seasons of his career.

 

[The Panther]

90%? Are you basing that off the hart vote? Thought you yourself admitted it was a bizarrely overwhelming majority vote?


Alright, then what made Messier from 1990-92 more "valuable" than Lemieux in spite of the wide gap in production?

Was his two way game/physicality enough to even the gap? Games played?

And its not just Lemieux. There is Leetch, who almost matched his production despite being a defenseman. Even Roy, who had one of the best seasons of his career.

The Messier example was just an arbitrary one that occurred to me. I'm not arguing for Messier's superiority Feel free to substitute another two players here if you like...

 

[The Panther]

Unpopular opinion: The Hall of Fame should be more about fame and less about who scored the most points or happened to play for the Oilers in the 80s.

It should never be about "Fame" -- that's an awful moniker that other "Halls" borrowed from baseball, I guess. If it's about fame, then Sean Avery is in. Ugh. It should be the Hall of Greatness.

The Oilers of the 1980s I would look at like this:
- Gretzky (duh)
- Messier (duh)
- Kurri (duh)
- Coffey (duh)
- Anderson (borderline, but I think he's in due to playoffs. Still borderline, though.)
- Fuhr (I would not have him in)
- Lowe (ridiculous choice; in due to cronyism)

But why use the 80s' Oilers as your example? At least they won 5 Stanley Cups, including one without Gretzky, Coffey, and Fuhr. The real overdone team in the early 90s' is the Buffalo Sabres, who won... nothing:
-- Pierre Turgeon
-- Dave Andreychuk
-- Phil Housley
-- Dale Hawerchuk
-- Pat Lafontaine
- -Grant Fuhr
-- Dominik Hasek

Mogilny will be in soon, too. (Not to mention Muckler and, someday, Tortorella.)

 

[MadLuke]

The would not be in the Hall would they not had a legendary career because they had the chance to a major piece of a legendary team that wrote its place in the stone of the sport a la Shutt on the Habs do not move me much, because of the Hall of Fame and about being great part.

It can go too far, Lowe, but it is perfectly hockey that having the chance in the playoff final and shine more than other affect who end up in the Hall of Fame, thats the best place for it imo, much more than when ranking players for example.

Like Claude Lemieux or Tikkanen could be too far, but that they have more chance than the equivalent good at hockey player stuck on bad teams for all their career for the HOF.

Selke winners almost never play on really bad teams and build track record, Norris or Hart winner almost always make it to the playoff, big time winners get more easily into the HOF.

Those are some of the most acceptable bias that can exist and do not compare to being friend with voters type.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Women should not be in the official HHOF. Women's hockey is a different sport, inferior in terms of importance and actual fame, and at least 95% of hockey fans don't care about it.

 

[Neutrinos]

But why use the 80s' Oilers as your example? At least they won 5 Stanley Cups, including one without Gretzky, Coffey, and Fuhr. The real overdone team in the early 90s' is the Buffalo Sabres, who won... nothing:
-- Pierre Turgeon
-- Dave Andreychuk
-- Phil Housley
-- Dale Hawerchuk
-- Pat Lafontaine
- -Grant Fuhr
-- Dominik Hasek

Mogilny will be in soon, too. (Not to mention Muckler and, someday, Tortorella.)

It's not like they were all on the Sabres at the same time. In fact, some of the players you listed were involved in trades for each other

 

[RJMA]

Kariya was better than Selanne

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

Dale Tallon's 2017 expansion draft fumble is the biggest asset management mistake in modern NHL history.

 

[The Panther]

It's not like they were all on the Sabres at the same time. In fact, some of the players you listed were involved in trades for each other

And yet they still played for the early 90s' Sabres, as I said.