Voting Record - quoipourquoi, Canadiens1958, steve141

[TheEye]

It's not what you say you would do that matters.
It's what you actually do.

Maybe when your body of work will contain something else than criticism of a specific user (and, also, of a specific group/people that I, mind you, am a part of), I'll bother.

But until then, expect to see a lot of "Where's your list?"

I have to say I'm completely unbothered by your take on the situation. I recognize you've interjected to rile me up, but I plainly don't care about how you feel. I have no problem with you and simply I don't care if you continue with the ad hominem attacks.

I have not called out a specific user without attempting to add some beneficial insight and opinion to the equation. If you have chosen to ignore my thoughts and focus solely on my stance against another's opinion, well, that's up to you. If you are only capable of replying by stating, "where's your list", I don't believe you possess considerable insight for matters relating to this discussion either.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I myself have said "let's see your list" on more than one occasion, but I don't feel providing one should be a steadfast requirement for constructive criticism. If somebody is diplomatic in their criticism versus being an imbecile (as we saw the other night in a different thread), it makes a big difference, at least to me.

Significant outlier opinions are going to face more scrutiny. Gretzky at #7 is probably the most outlier opinion in the entire project, so this isn't surprising. I can buy Gretzky being lower than Original Six all-timers based on higher league quality and the requirement of being elite at many different aspects of the game in that era. I do find it hard to fathom that Gretzky could rank below Lemieux under this criteria, though. Any criticism I can think of that applies to Gretzky applies to Lemieux to an equal or greater extent IMO. Based on C1958's opinion of Ovechkin (Lemieux-like in a lot of ways), I would have expected Lemieux to be a better candidate for an "outlier low" ranking than Gretzky.

Wingers may be compensated for defensively.Classic example is Lafleur being buffered by Lemaire and the Big 3.

Centers cannot be compensated for as easily. Both Gretzky and Lemieux bled GA. Gretzky more so than Lemieux,marginally despite having Kurri on his line. Without Kurri??????

Lemieux never played with a strong defensive forward.

 

[MXD]

I myself have said "let's see your list" on more than one occasion, but I don't feel providing one should be a steadfast requirement for constructive criticism. If somebody is diplomatic in their criticism versus being an imbecile (as we saw the other night in a different thread), it makes a big difference, at least to me.

Significant outlier opinions are going to face more scrutiny. Gretzky at #7 is probably the most outlier opinion in the entire project, so this isn't surprising. I can buy Gretzky being lower than Original Six all-timers based on higher league quality and the requirement of being elite at many different aspects of the game in that era. I do find it hard to fathom that Gretzky could rank below Lemieux under this criteria, though. Any criticism I can think of that applies to Gretzky applies to Lemieux to an equal or greater extent IMO. Based on C1958's opinion of Ovechkin (Lemieux-like in a lot of ways), I would have expected Lemieux to be a better candidate for an "outlier low" ranking than Gretzky.

I'd say Cyclone Taylor @ 7 is an even worse outlier, but on substance, I sortof agree.
(Yet, I'm defending C1958 here)

 

[DannyGallivan]

Wingers may be compensated for defensively.Classic example is Lafleur being buffered by Lemaire and the Big 3.

Centers cannot be compensated for as easily. Both Gretzky and Lemieux bled GA. Gretzky more so than Lemieux,marginally despite having Kurri on his line. Without Kurri??????

Lemieux never played with a strong defensive forward.

Could you say any Montreal players coached by Scotty Bowman were particularly weak defensively?

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'd say Cyclone Taylor @ 7 is an even worse outlier, but on substance, I sortof agree.
(Yet, I'm defending C1958 here)

As an outlier myself in a select few instances, I applaud a non-cookie cutter, outside-of-the-box selection as long as the reasoning is sound. I still would never in a million years rank Gretzky below the "Big 4", and personally, I had him at 2. However, I quite enjoyed C1958's rationale. Didn't agree with all of it, but it made me think. Sometimes... thinking is fun.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Could you say any Montreal players coached by Scotty Bowman were particularly weak defensively?

Pierre Larouche.

 

[TheEye]

Wingers may be compensated for defensively.Classic example is Lafleur being buffered by Lemaire and the Big 3.

Centers cannot be compensated for as easily. Both Gretzky and Lemieux bled GA. Gretzky more so than Lemieux,marginally despite having Kurri on his line. Without Kurri??????

Lemieux never played with a strong defensive forward.

Yes, poor Mario. Some notable line groupings during his prime:

Kevin Stevens, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr

Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr

On a related note, here's Ron Francis' Selke placings while with the Lemieux-led Pittsburgh Penguins:

1, 2, 4, 6, 6, 8, 21

Here's Kurri's Selke placing while playing with the Gretzky-led Edmonton Oilers:

2, 3, 4, 5, 10

Lemieux sure bled goals against when he played with Francis and Jagr in 1995-96, going only +10 despite scoring 160 points. Perhaps most importantly, Ron Francis finished second in Selke voting while playing on Lemieux's line during the 1995-96 season.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Pierre Larouche.

Touche.

Oddly enough, to this day he remains Montreal's only 50-goal center.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To give everyone an idea of how weak Gretzky was defensively,Kurri's only positive +/- with the Kings was 1992-93 when Gretzky missed 37 RS games.

Jari Kurri Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

1994-95 Ron Francis with Lemieux missing the season lead the NHL in +/-, plus 30, en route to winning the Selke.

Ron Francis Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Lemieux was a drag defensively on Francis but far from extent that Gretzky was on Kurri.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Touche.

Oddly enough, to this day he remains Montreal's only 50-goal center.

Montreal back to Cecil Hart demanded defensive responsibility from their centers.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Montreal back to Cecil Hart demanded defensive responsibility from their centers.

I guess that's why they never drafted Larouche when they had the chance... yet he did spend a big chunk of time there. Couldn't overlook the one dimension he was good at, especially since his teammates backed him up enough for him to have decent (although not awe-inspiring) plus minus numbers as a Hab.

 

[ted2019]

.... I was a Screener in this project.
The bad thing is, having hanged around for a while, I could often guess the author of the lists.

I had guessed, accurately, @quoipourquoi's list. I didn't agree a lot with it, except as to the amount of goaltenders deserving to make it, but it wasn't anything I'd call problematic. Malkin-as-2nd-best-Russian did feel odd ... but as someone who (now) agrees that the two best québecois players are born on the exact same day, it's possible.

I had guessed accurately @Canadiens1958's list (it was Super Mario Bros. 1-1 difficulty level). I didn'T expect Erik Karlsson ranked. Didn't agree with some aspects, but saw no issue.

I hadn't guessed @steve141's came up with that list. I personnally really liked it on substance, but there were two issues (who felt, to a certain extent, like one issue) : no one born between MSL (1975) and Ovie (1985), which would be …. well, be a tad unprecedented in the history of calendar years. It's not that Keith, Chara, Thornton, Lundqvist, Luongo, Bergeron, Datsyuk and Iginla (and Kane, and Doughty, and Karlsson, and Kopitar) are missing : it's that none of them are listed, unless I missed something or the list was edited accordingly later on. Also, only three active players listed (what's Jagr's status?)

Pretty sure now that Jagr's main job is to hang with Models and such.

 

[TheEye]

To give everyone an idea of how weak Gretzky was defensively,Kurri's only positive +/- with the Kings was 1992-93 when Gretzky missed 37 RS games.

Jari Kurri Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

1994-95 Ron Francis with Lemieux missing the season lead the NHL in +/-, plus 30, en route to winning the Selke.

Ron Francis Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Lemieux was a drag defensively on Francis but far from extent that Gretzky was on Kurri.

You are delivering nobody an idea of anything by continuing down this road of intellectual dishonesty. You in fact had to reach out to Gretzky's post prime in 1992, after his back injury and while playing on a very mediocre team to illustrate your point.

Again, quoting myself in response to you:

Suggesting that Gretzky declined due to the short-shift game reflects a glaring lack of understanding with respect to this particular player or simply an inability to dissect his game. Gretzky was exhibiting an inevitable age-related decline until September 14th, 1991. To suggest anything else is simply disingenuous.

After Gretzky's back issues became ongoing, he definitely appeared to lose a portion of his quick first step and also a bit of his ability to generate quick-transition offence. I also firmly believe he began to appear weak with respect to his defensive responsibilities from that point onwards. He increasingly became a defensive liability during those passing years, especially as he approached retirement.

From 1980 to 1988 Gretzky's +/- (if you like that stat) is as follows:

+41, +80, +61, +78, +100 (the highest by a forward in NHL history), +71, +61, +39 = +531

From 1988 to 1996 Lemieux's +/- is as follows:

+41, -18, +8, +27, +55, -2, +10, +27 = +148

If you want to look at goal differential, it's apparent who was the bigger drag defensively was over that time horizon. Before you chose the weaker team narrative, please consider many of these years include the period when the Penguins were a relative NHL powerhouse. Perhaps, most importantly, also consider the Los Angeles Kings were not a considerably formidable regular season team from 1991 onwards. I also realize there were many games missed by Lemieux during that time frame but I can think of no sufficient reason to believe his +/- differential would have been positively impacted by playing in additional games. If anything, the additional wear and tear may have negatively impacted his differentials.

 

[MXD]

You are delivering nobody an idea of anything by continuing down this road of intellectual dishonesty. You in fact had to reach out to Gretzky's post prime in 1992, after his back injury and while playing on a very mediocre team to illustrate your point.

Again, quoting myself in response to you:



From 1980 to 1988 Gretzky's +/- (if you like that stat) is as follows:

+41, +80, +61, +78, +100 (the highest by a forward in NHL history), +71, +61, +39 = +531

From 1988 to 1996 Lemieux's +/- is as follows:

+41, -18, +8, +27, +55, -2, +10, +27 = +148

If you want to look at goal differential, it's apparent who was the bigger drag defensively was over that time horizon. Before you chose the weaker team narrative, please consider many of these years include the period when the Penguins were a relative NHL powerhouse. Perhaps, most importantly, also consider the Los Angeles Kings were not a considerably formidable regular season team from 1991 onwards. I also realize there were many games missed by Lemieux during that time frame but I can think of no sufficient reason to believe his +/- differential would have been positively impacted by playing in additional games. If anything, the additional wear and tear may have negatively impacted his differentials.

So many words...

 

[Canadiens1958]

So many words...

Was anything expressed?

 

[bobholly39]

You guys are really annoying

Why dont you create a private forum with exclusivity and make lists amongst yourselves next time hidden away from public view?

I dont see anything wrong with non-participants giving input and opinions and asking questions. In fact - isnt that kind of the idea here?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Wingers may be compensated for defensively.Classic example is Lafleur being buffered by Lemaire and the Big 3.

Centers cannot be compensated for as easily. Both Gretzky and Lemieux bled GA. Gretzky more so than Lemieux,marginally despite having Kurri on his line. Without Kurri??????

Lemieux never played with a strong defensive forward.

Do you have the actual ESGA numbers for Lemieux and Gretzky? Gretzky's plus/minus numbers in the 1980s still exceeded Kurri's by a decent margin. Gretzky would have still been racking up pluses when being double-shifted with lesser wingers (Semenko, Lumley, Pouzar, others) for this to be the case. [unless Kurri got killed defensively when not playing with Gretzky, which defies common sense]. Lemieux has seasons/partial seasons right in his prime where he was practically a break-even player at ES in terms of +/-; Gretzky was consistently close to a goal-per-game better in his prime Edmonton years. While team/linemate disparity definitely accounts for a lot of that, I don't think it can account for all of it. I guess it depends how the LA years are factored into the overall equation. They certainly drag Gretzky's already poor defensive value down further...Lemieux has no "LA years", but of course he abruptly retired at age 31.

 

[Theokritos]

I myself have said "let's see your list" on more than one occasion, but I don't feel providing one should be a steadfast requirement for constructive criticism.

Indeed it isn't a requirement.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'd say Cyclone Taylor @ 7 is an even worse outlier, but on substance, I sortof agree.
(Yet, I'm defending C1958 here)

For the record, I'm not declaring Gretzky at 7 in the round two vote, or any other outliers "worse" than others. Some are more surprising than others, of course. Outlier opinions are what they are, and I actually think they're important and open up discussion.

 

[MXD]

You guys are really annoying

Why dont you create a private forum with exclusivity and make lists amongst yourselves next time hidden away from public view?

I dont see anything wrong with non-participants giving input and opinions and asking questions. In fact - isnt that kind of the idea here?

I gave my opinion on the relevance, the substance and the actual nature of The Eye criticism.
It's a message board. That's the point. Having not received satisfying (or, actually, honest) answers, I'll continue asking for his list.

I've always defended participants in these projects (Most of them, anyway) Vs. criticism from non-participants. I have no intention of doing things any differently, because this one can write 500+ words posts. I'll even defend guys like Dennis and Mike, with whom I don't agree that much with.

You may leave if you have an issue with that, or simply don't bother with what I have to say next time.

 

[MXD]

Was anything expressed?

Can't quite figure out. My guess is : not really.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Do you have the actual ESGA numbers for Lemieux and Gretzky? Gretzky's plus/minus numbers in the 1980s still exceeded Kurri's by a decent margin. Gretzky would have still been racking up pluses when being double-shifted with lesser wingers (Semenko, Lumley, Pouzar, others) for this to be the case. [unless Kurri got killed defensively when not playing with Gretzky, which defies common sense]. Lemieux has seasons/partial seasons right in his prime where he was practically a break-even player at ES in terms of +/-; Gretzky was consistently close to a goal-per-game better in his prime Edmonton years. While team/linemate disparity definitely accounts for a lot of that, I don't think it can account for all of it. I guess it depends how the LA years are factored into the overall equation. They certainly drag Gretzky's already poor defensive value down further...Lemieux has no "LA years", but of course he abruptly retired at age 31.

Starting point:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=evPoints,points

Possible to generate all comparables imaginable once you are familiar with the various functions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You guys are really annoying

Why dont you create a private forum with exclusivity and make lists amongst yourselves next time hidden away from public view?

I dont see anything wrong with non-participants giving input and opinions and asking questions. In fact - isnt that kind of the idea here?

As long as non-participants are willing to have similar questions put to them and willing to provide answers.

 

[kruezer]

You are delivering nobody an idea of anything by continuing down this road of intellectual dishonesty. You in fact had to reach out to Gretzky's post prime in 1992, after his back injury and while playing on a very mediocre team to illustrate your point.

Again, quoting myself in response to you:



From 1980 to 1988 Gretzky's +/- (if you like that stat) is as follows:

+41, +80, +61, +78, +100 (the highest by a forward in NHL history), +71, +61, +39 = +531

From 1988 to 1996 Lemieux's +/- is as follows:

+41, -18, +8, +27, +55, -2, +10, +27 = +148

If you want to look at goal differential, it's apparent who was the bigger drag defensively was over that time horizon. Before you chose the weaker team narrative, please consider many of these years include the period when the Penguins were a relative NHL powerhouse. Perhaps, most importantly, also consider the Los Angeles Kings were not a considerably formidable regular season team from 1991 onwards. I also realize there were many games missed by Lemieux during that time frame but I can think of no sufficient reason to believe his +/- differential would have been positively impacted by playing in additional games. If anything, the additional wear and tear may have negatively impacted his differentials.

I’m on the side of thinking Gretzky was an equal drag defensively to Lemieux. But to be clear playing less games can absolutely lower your +\- if a player is a consistent positive player throughout a season then playing more games gives them the opportunity to earn more pluses. If a player is a plus 40 in 60 games it’s possible there number goes down with more games played but it’s considerably more likely it increases.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Do you have the actual ESGA numbers for Lemieux and Gretzky?

They're close - I think Gretzky's ES GA per game is something like 4% higher than Lemieux's.

(EDIT - to be clear I wouldn't argue that's a victory for Lemieux. Gretzky played almost 500 games past the age of 31, while Lemieux played only 170. Gretzky played almost 400 games in the very high-scoring early eighties before Lemieux joined the NHL. I'm not saying that this is a victory for Gretzky either, there's a lot of context in both of these numbers, but at a first glance I'd say these numbers suggest they're both in the same ballpark in terms of goal prevention).