What are examples of historical revisionism that you hate the most?

[Bear of Bad News]

Not going anywhere with it. Just pointing out that we've had people here call multiple players by "nicknames".

Part of the game and part of the fun of being fan, I guess. Lockerroom talk with the boys are some of my most cherished memories in a variety of teams. It's not always malicious.

A distinction that's important to be made is whether the infractable offense would be "trolling" or "ethnic/gender slurs".

Probably not worth me derailing this thread additionally, so I won't, other than to add that the staff does our best to be fair and with that said, we are humans and aren't perfect.

 

[MS]

The current absolutely bizarre push in some quarters for Chris Osgood to go to the HHOF stands out. It's absolutely insane for a guy who topped out as a middling starter.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

The idea that Gretzky had marginal physical skills but his incredible hockey IQ allowed him to go down as the best ever. Watch the tapes - nobody elevates a slapper like the Great One and he possessed one of the best shots of all time, certainly in the wooden stick era. It's kind of a prerequisite to being the most accomplished goal scorer ever.

Even his skating is maligned - sure, he wasn't as fast as teammate Paul Coffey, but I don't know if anyone had better edges than Gretzky. You look at a player like Marner today who is lauded for his edge control and ability to make plays with his skates to open up teammates, and Gretz could do all that and more to an exponentially greater degree.

This leads to revisionist history where people act like he wouldn't be the best player in today's game. It's just silly, and you don't need to concatenate endless spreadsheets of era adjusted stats just to see that he's truly the best to ever lace them up

THIS and any notion that star player from the 80's would be a 3-4th liner in today's NHL....

 

[tarheelhockey]

This leads to revisionist history where people act like he wouldn't be the best player in today's game. It's just silly, and you don't need to concatenate endless spreadsheets of era adjusted stats just to see that he's truly the best to ever lace them up

Funny enough, the era adjusted stats just drive home the point that he was the greatest. Even once you tinker with everything to account for inflation, PPs, TOI, schedule length etc., he was still ahead of the pack by a ludicrous margin. Totally unique in the history of the game.

 

[tom_servo]

Mario only missed time due to cancer.

That was actually not very much missed time in the grand scheme of his career. His biggest issue in this respect is that his conditioning was terrible, never stretched, followed the 80s pro athlete diet of "I eat whatever I want" and in general he just struggled to make it through the grind of a long 80-game season.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1990/02/16/end-came-painfully-for-lemieux/07739093-879b-4d3e-8636-838b2b134911/

 

[Video Nasty]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1990/02/16/end-came-painfully-for-lemieux/07739093-879b-4d3e-8636-838b2b134911/

@WarriorofTime is correct in this. Even though we all love Lemieux, there is naturally a bit of myth building when it comes to him and acting like there was nothing he could have done to mitigate or outright prevent some of his issues.

There was a build up to this not mentioned in the article you posted. Read this as well:

Lack of conditioning​

“This back thing has been going on for two, three years and everybody has been aware of it. I think some people think this is just another one of his ordeals. That it was nothing serious. But there were times when his lower back really caused him pain and discomfort and he played with it. But a herniated disk is a different circumstance. He didn’t have that before.”

As any of the Whalers will tell you, McKenney is a most insistent man. Before he came from Pittsburgh with General Manager Ed Johnston, he used to be on Lemieux all the time to stretch the muscles in his trunk to prevent injury. Even McKenney could not keep Lemieux locked into his regimen, so one could imagine how it was after he left.

“Mario always had some back discomfort,” McKenney said. “The main gist of what we could gather from physician, trainer and conditioning coach discussing it was that he had a lack of flexibility in the lower back and hamstrings. Every time we took the approach of trying to lengthen that muscle and stretch it, we really got some decent results. He has shortening of those muscles and that’s what created that problem. It’s not genetic.

“The exercises they are doing now with the herniated disk are the same sort we were doing to prevent it initially. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s going to need an operation. What they’re doing now is trying to alleviate some of the bad pain he’s having and hope it will let him be involved in the playoffs. My personal opinion is that they’re prolonging the obvious: surgery.”

It doesn’t make things like his comeback or any of his play through his various issues less amazing, but it’s a fact that he didn’t take care of himself as well as he could have and relied on his pure talent alone far too often. This gets swept under the rug to enhance the legend.

 

[Peat]

This is actually a good one for the reasons you didn't intend, people refer to "territorial rights" which was really just like a 2 NHL Draft rule before getting quickly axed, and was a way to compensate for the real thing that was going on which was that back in the day, NHL teams sponsored Junior Hockey. The Sponsorship System - The Pre-Expansion NHL's Monopsony on Players

So there's often a misconceived back and forth that goes something like:

1) Montreal had access to all the best French Canadian players (true), they had territorial rights! (only true for 1968 and 1969 NHL Drafts)

2) That is so overstated, they didn't have access to them, the only decent player they got from territorial rights is Rejean Houle! (true)

Montreal did have access to the best french canadian players from Quebec, but that's because all minor and junior hockey was essentially part of a pyramid structure that flowed up to Montreal. From that same article.

Tangential but I wish NHL teams were more incentivized to get more directly involved with youth player development. I think it would help drive higher standards and increase the number of places producing players. I don't blame them for not getting that involved when everyone goes into the draft the same though.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

That the Oilers made the wrong pick with Yakupov at 1. 95% of media and message boards were split between him and Ryan Murray (who topped out as an injury prone #4-5 dman) with Galchenyuk as the hipster pick representing the other 5%.

Yiu can't make the wrong pick if there was no right pick to make.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

So, for me it’s probably that Crosby was somehow well above average or even good defensively in his early-mid 20s. Yes, now he’s somewhat capable of decent two-way performance (but not like the top 10 in the Selke voting), but it wasn’t true in his prime

No, this is gaslighting from McDavid supporters. Crosby was always regarded as good for his age defensively and having watched his whole career, I'd be more open to the argument that he has never been good defensively than that he's improved substantially in his own end since around 2009.

But you actually have a really good example: the revisionism is that young Crosby wasn't good defensively.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Grinding doesn’t equal good defense. In his early-mid 20s he didn’t really show strong defensive awareness and positioning while his backchecking efforts were suspect at times.

The bolded is correct. The rest of your post is describing a player that is not Sidney Crosby. Like alternate universe stuff.

 

[Rydgar]

That Todd Bertuzzi's play went downhill after the Moore incident. He was already slipping before that incident.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I'd be lying if I said I paid close attention to Crosby's defensive play when he was young (it's not exactly what he was known for), but he certainly didn't have a reputation for being a notable two-way player from, say, 2005-2010. He was an offensive dynamo, as were Ovechkin and Malkin. People did used to make the generic franchise C > more valuable than franchise W argument when comparing him to Ovechkin, but I don't really remember people saying he was actually a good two-way C at that time. He was certainly never considered to be in the class of guys like Datsyuk, Mike Richards, Kesler, Kopitar etc when it came to defensive play. He was probably better at actual defensive play than Ovechkin at the time (which isn't saying much), but Ovechkin was actually a very strong possession player (which people may have forgotten as he's significantly changed his game since he was young) and a physical force during his peak years, to the point that whatever advantage Crosby may have had defensively may have been negated when it comes to aspects of hockey outside of offense. If Crosby was so much better defensively in those years, why did he finish behind him in Hart voting in 2010 when they both had 109 points and Crosby had one more goal?

McDavid has been somewhat inconsistent defensively in his career (solid to good at times and a liability at other times). I remember in 2019 some were arguing Crosby had a better season based on better all-around play, but early in his career his defensive play wasn't close to as good as it was in 2019 (it probably hasn't been in any other season, either). I think some may have retroactively applied the narrative from that one season to both of their early careers as a whole even though both were basically just considered franchise scoring centres in their early days and neither was heralded as any sort of a two-way force (granted, Crosby was better at playing a grinding style, but that's different from defense).

Crosby's defensive peak (2019) was higher than those of players like Ovechkin, Jagr and McDavid, but I think it's erroneous to always assume that he has some sort of a meaningful defensive advantage (which seems to have become a popular trend) when comparing him to one of those players (it may or may not be the case depending on which years/career stages are being compared).

Wrong again. From after Crosby and Ovechkin's rookie seasons: ESPN

Defense
This may be the one area where there is a distinct difference between the two players in terms of their evolution. Ovechkin is a work in progress defensively.

"He doesn't have a bad defensive game. He finishes his checks. All the details of the game he applies himself in the right way," said Hartley, who predicts that Crosby will be "the best in the game."

"Defensively, he's one of the best guys in our own end," Therrien added. "He's the type of kid that he wants to be the best at everything, that's pretty simple. The way he's playing right now is just amazing."

I did a Google search trying to find articles about Crosby's defensive play early in his career.

Couldn't really find anything worthwhile, but this one piece of writing is pretty funny:

Sidney Crosby vs. Jonathan Toews: Which Player Is More Valuable To His Team?

Sidney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins and Jonathan Toews of the Chicago Blackhawks are two of the most dynamic young forwards in the NHL. At 23 and 22 years of age, respectively, they have each accomplished a lot in their careers...

bleacherreport.com

Must not have looked too hard! Easy to not find something you don't want to see

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Not that it's necessarily a trump card because it only matters if you actually understand what you're watching, but for standard internet argument disclaimer purposes I've seen almost every single Crosby game in his career. The last time I missed one was in April 2007.

Very young Crosby was obviously smart and hard working, but he wasn't very refined defensively. Someone said upthread that he lacked defensive awareness and was bad positionally...that's completely wrong. He's the smartest guy on the ice. He just wasn't very good at putting it to use defensively, he also wasn't really encouraged to (look at his coach, the guy doesn't even get stuff right while looking at replays). So, yeah, teenager Crosby wasn't doing much.

Michel Therien getting there changed things and the team learned how to play defense. In the regular season, he was just fine at it. He did what he had to do, but it's not like he deserved any Selke votes or anything categorically similar. But, in the playoffs - and this became the trend for his entire career - he played a hard 200 foot game. He's Selke level good in the playoffs over the course of his whole career. He's not Selke level good in the regular season.

I wrote this in 2018 in a thread about (apparently) Gretzky and Crosby's defensive ability.



Crosby is doing more work defensively than he did because someone has to on his line. Being paired with defense-less players of late like Guentzel, Sheary, etc. but he still shouldn't be getting Selke votes. Someone said something to the effect of "he wasn't as bad as people are making it out to be back in the day, and he's not as good as is being purported now" and yeah, that's about the size of it.

So, I guess over time it's like...
Young player that was generally in good spots but couldn't do much with it -> team played defense, he joined in -> the Dupuis takes on more F1 backcheck duties allowing him to "Gretzky" things up high time period -> good/very good defensive play because of playing with young, incomplete wingers

And then that's covered by legitimate Selke caliber defense for the majority of his playoff career.

Yep. He's sometimes inconsistent in the regular season as his focus will drop at times but he's never been a liability or floating in the NZ. But in the playoffs he's always been extremely good.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Tangential but I wish NHL teams were more incentivized to get more directly involved with youth player development. I think it would help drive higher standards and increase the number of places producing players. I don't blame them for not getting that involved when everyone goes into the draft the same though.

and drive down the cost of Youth Hockey

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Tell me where you're going with this.

"Cyndy" would be a violation for sure.

Well if a quick use of the HF search bar for "Cindy" is any indication, the NYR forum may be losing a number of participants.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, this is gaslighting from McDavid supporters. Crosby was always regarded as good for his age defensively...

Yeah that's history revision.

Crosby never had a defensive reputation at all until his offense fell off around 2015. Then magically the Canadian media started saying he was great defensively and contributing a lot defensively even though his penalty killing time started running down near zero and his offensive zone starts increased.

 

[Hasbro]

Mats Sundin being lionized as elite and generational.

When people make it sound like he was traded straight up for Wendell Clark.

 

[Sorry]

Yeah that's history revision.

Crosby never had a defensive reputation at all until his offense fell off around 2015. Then magically the Canadian media started saying he was great defensively and contributing a lot defensively even though his penalty killing time started running down near zero and his offensive zone starts increased.

He was 16th in the league in scoring last season. The fact that you consider that his "offense falling off" says a lot about the standard even his worse critics hold him to.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He was 16th in the league in scoring last season. The fact that you consider that his "offense falling off" says a lot about the standard even his worse critics hold him to.

Crosby used to be a contender for the Art Ross. After 2015 he wasn't. This isn't remotely controversial.

What's controversial is his supporters felt like they needed to compensate so they suddenly started saying he was great at defense despite there being no statistical evidence.

 

[Mike C]

When people make it sound like he was traded straight up for Wendell Clark.

Wendall Clark. EXCELLENT blast from the past. Broke in with back to back 200 penalty minute seasons his 1st two years. 1st overall in a year that the NYI took the immortal Brad Dalgarno at 6

What memories!

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

This is actually a good one for the reasons you didn't intend, people refer to "territorial rights" which was really just like a 2 NHL Draft rule before getting quickly axed, and was a way to compensate for the real thing that was going on which was that back in the day, NHL teams sponsored Junior Hockey. The Sponsorship System - The Pre-Expansion NHL's Monopsony on Players

So there's often a misconceived back and forth that goes something like:

1) Montreal had access to all the best French Canadian players (true), they had territorial rights! (only true for 1968 and 1969 NHL Drafts)

2) That is so overstated, they didn't have access to them, the only decent player they got from territorial rights is Rejean Houle! (true)

Montreal did have access to the best french canadian players from Quebec, but that's because all minor and junior hockey was essentially part of a pyramid structure that flowed up to Montreal. From that same article.

Not sure what you mean by "for the reasons you didn't intend". Pretty sure my intent was clear.

I posted a better article later in this thread though. You are correct but missing details. Territorial rights were never really territorial as NHL teams could sponsor junior teams anywhere. Montreal had junior teams in the states, and other NHL teams had teams in Quebec. Montreal did not get de facto access to everyone born in Quebec, but because they were the richest and most successful team at the time, they were able to sponsor the most teams and hoard the most players.

Pronovost for example was a Quebec guy during that era who was never property of the Habs and chose to sign with the Penguins. Ratelle is another backwoods Frenchman who didn't speak a word of English and signed with the Rangers youth system.

When the draft was instituted in 1961, the league gave Montreal a special clause where they could either choose 2 French Canadian players, or pick normally with the rest of the league. For the first 5 years they picked normally, the next year they picked 2 bums, and the next year they got Rejean Houle. After they got Houle the league decided they were done with the rule because Gilbert Perreault was due to be drafted in 1970 and they didn't want the Habs to get him.

So in their entire history there were only 2 years where they did not follow the same set of rules as every other team, and it only netted them 1 player. Who knows who they would've picked if they didn't invoke the rule

 

[Gordievsky]

That Bettman is somehow singularly responsible for the lockouts. The first collective actions by either side was a strike by the PA, which was prior to Bettman. It was a reason Bettman would get the job, but the PA was changing their leadership too. It was a war that was coming for a long time. Bettman didn't come in and say, you know, I'm not a hockey guy, so I'm just going to keep these guys from playing.

Or that he specifically doesn't care about Canadian teams, nevermind the Canadian Assistance Plan. Or that Vegas was given some special place in the NHL, when in 1967, after the league doubled in size with the stroke of a pen, the real hockey people in charge went on to guarantee a spot in the Final for one of the 6 terrible teams that would play during the 67-68 season. Or that the Bettman created Southeast division was an affront to the NHL's dignity, even though it would never sink to some of the lows that the fabled Norris division in the 80's would produce.

Underrated comment.

My Oilers would not be in Edmonton, Wpg and Ottawa probably wouldn't have teams and possibly Calgary too, if the owners had some puppet of their choosing in the Commissioner's chair instead of Bettman. I know he's not a popular guy and his TV presence is awful, but he has overall been excellent for the game and excellent for Canadian teams. Whatever reason Canadian teams can't win the Cup, he's not the problem.

 

[Gordievsky]

When people say that Montreal only won their cups because the had exclusive access to every French player in the league

Of course they didn't win their cups because of the French player advantage.

They won all their cups because there were only six *&#@! teams in the league!!

I'm kidding, I'm kidding. It's almost embarrassing that the other Original Six won so few during the 6-team era, Montreal dominated them.

We need somebody to run a spreadsheet that measures actual cups vs expected cups... i.e. for every year until 1967, your are expected to win 1/6 cup per year.

Then 1/12 cup per year in 1970... then higher and higher until 1/32 cup per year today.

I'm guessing Montreal is first, Edmonton second... maybe Pittsburgh third?

Presumably NYR or Blackhawks are dead last with a negative number?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Not sure what you mean by "for the reasons you didn't intend". Pretty sure my intent was clear.

I posted a better article later in this thread though. You are correct but missing details. Territorial rights were never really territorial as NHL teams could sponsor junior teams anywhere. Montreal had junior teams in the states, and other NHL teams had teams in Quebec. Montreal did not get de facto access to everyone born in Quebec, but because they were the richest and most successful team at the time, they were able to sponsor the most teams and hoard the most players.

Pronovost for example was a Quebec guy during that era who was never property of the Habs and chose to sign with the Penguins. Ratelle is another backwoods Frenchman who didn't speak a word of English and signed with the Rangers youth system.

When the draft was instituted in 1961, the league gave Montreal a special clause where they could either choose 2 French Canadian players, or pick normally with the rest of the league. For the first 5 years they picked normally, the next year they picked 2 bums, and the next year they got Rejean Houle. After they got Houle the league decided they were done with the rule because Gilbert Perreault was due to be drafted in 1970 and they didn't want the Habs to get him.

So in their entire history there were only 2 years where they did not follow the same set of rules as every other team, and it only netted them 1 player. Who knows who they would've picked if they didn't invoke the rule

You are correct and there were exceptions, of course, but it is a reality that the vast vast majority of NHL players coming out of Quebec played for Montreal during the sponsorship era. It was just how things functioned. The Maple Leafs got the Golden Horseshoe players and Detroit the Southwestern Ontario players, the Rangers, Bruins and Blackhawks were generally fighting for scraps with some exceptions. It's not about some rule-mandated advantage or not being subject to the same set of rules as everyone else, just a result of how things unfolded.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Presumably NYR or Blackhawks are dead last with a negative number?

Blackhawks have 6 since 1926, the Bruins have 6 have since 1924, the Rangers have 4 since 1924. For reasons I outlined above, those teams were fighting an uphill battle in the O6 era and sponsorship of junior hockey explains the heavy disparities in team success back then.

Montreal and Toronto were basically tied before expansion, with Montreal at 14 and Toronto at 13, with Montreal's first coming in 1916, before the NHL was formed with Montreal competing in the predecessor league, the NHA, and before the founding of the Maple Leafs (both in 1917). Montreal kept winning in the 1970s and then one more each in the 80s and 90s, and of course, Toronto is still waiting to win again.

Dead last though would of course be the teams with 0 Stanley Cups with Buffalo and Vancouver having been around the longest (with St. Louis being the last surviving "next 6" team to win one)