What does Draisaitl need to go down as the greatest ever number 2?

[Thenameless]

Draisaitl, Kucherov, Lafleur all born in 1950, who becomes the best player?

Draisaitl, Kucherov, Lafleur all born in 2000, who becomes the best player?

I'm pretty comfortable ending up with Lafleur in both cases if others want to draft the other two ahead of him.

 

[Mike C]

Be better than Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito, Mark Messier, Jaromir Jagr, Evgeni Malkin. High bar. All legends in their own right. But he certainly looks to be that level of guy for his generation.

Depending on who you think was #1, Let's put either Bossy or Trottier is this little chit chat

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Probably a cup preferably. I don't see him passing Messier or Malkin. I have him behind Sakic/Forsberg as well.

 

[wetcoast]

Draisaitl, Kucherov, Lafleur all born in 1950, who becomes the best player?

Draisaitl, Kucherov, Lafleur all born in 2000, who becomes the best player?

I'm pretty comfortable ending up with Lafleur in both cases if others want to draft the other two ahead of him.

I honestly never like these types of arguments are they are entirely speculative and often extremely leading from the get go.

Germany in the early 70s wasn't exactly a hotbed for hockey and a smaller guy like Kuch in Russia who knows.

Can we do the same thing with Guy Lafleur born in say 1993 and keep him as a smoker and he comes up in the Q league circa 2011-2013 was less of a elite hockey pipeline than in the early 70s?

I mean where is the utility in either scenario?

I don't see the value there, do you really think it's pertinent compared to what we actually do know about all 3 players and the eras they played in?

All 3 are in part the products of their environments as they developed, I just don't see the need in these types of questions but I dunno maybe I'm missing something here?

 

[Sentinel]

Might go down as "The Second Best Player to Never Win a Cup."

 

[daver]

When comparing Draisaitl, or Kucherov, or MacKinnon to Lafleur....the key question to ask is how many players in their primes right now are better than Lafleur was - better hockey players, not better resume.

When comparing across eras, that's what you need to do. There's a lot more talent in the NHL currently than there was in the '70s. Saying Lafleur is a bigger legend (in his time)is not really relevant.

That's why many of the Original Six guys get overrated, some of them vastly overrated; many people aren't able to identify the comparative levels of talent in different eras.

I honestly never like these types of arguments are they are entirely speculative and often extremely leading from the get go.

It's better than automatically dismissing players from previous generations.

Lafluer was five years away from going head to head with Wayne in the early '80s. Is there any reason to think he doesn't have the same level of relative domination he had in the late '70s?

You can do the same exercise with every "Best player in the league" from today back to M. Richard.

 

[wetcoast]

It's better than automatically dismissing players from previous generations.

No one is suggesting this and it's not a binary choice, either it's a productive metric or endeavor or it's not?

I don't see the utility in so many hypotheticals and would rather evaluate and compare and put into some kind of comparable context that is fair and reasonable than look at these "what if's" that are extremely subjective.

Lafluer was five years away from going head to head with Wayne in the early '80s. Is there any reason to think he doesn't have the same level of relative domination he had in the late '70s?

What are you asking here, do you think Lafleur would compete with Gretzky if you transplanted him onto the 79-80 Habs as a rookie?

The biggest problem is that many people will just automatically transfer 74-75-79-80 Lafleur and the entire "team effect" from that time period and plunk it into a new time frame without any context.

The most important one being the 79-80 Habs went on to be the 80-81 Habs in a different league dynamic than the 74-75 LaFleur would go onto the next season.

You can do the same exercise with every "Best player in the league" from today back to M. Richard.

Sure but most likely with the same issues, the process matters more than the hypotheticals.

Does Maurice Richard hold the same value if he enters the league today as a lot of his mythical status comes form the social and political dynamics around Quebec in the pre Quiet Revolution Quebec.

I dare say not, so where does that leave Richard in a modern context question?

 

[daver]

No one is suggesting this and it's not a binary choice, either it's a productive metric or endeavor or it's not?

I don't see the utility in so many hypotheticals and would rather evaluate and compare and put into some kind of comparable context that is fair and reasonable than look at these "what if's" that are extremely subjective.

I agree, hypotheticals are of little, if any, value. The other poster is implying that put Guy in the 2020s and he isn't as dominant. That's as hypothetical as you can get.

 

[daver]

What are you asking here, do you think Lafleur would compete with Gretzky if you transplanted him onto the 79-80 Habs as a rookie?

He would be competing against Wayne, and clearly being behind him but there is no reason that he isn't as much ahead of the pack as he was five years earlier, generally speaking.

He was as dominant, statistcally, as Jagr, Crosby and McDavid were, at least he is in their neighborhood than any other neighborhood.

 

[daver]

Does Maurice Richard hold the same value if he enters the league today as a lot of his mythical status comes form the social and political dynamics around Quebec in the pre Quiet Revolution Quebec.

I dare say not, so where does that leave Richard in a modern context question?

I was saying that there are no obvious examples of superstar level talents dropping off the radar because the league got "better" during their primes at any given time in the past 70 years.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I was saying that there are no obvious examples of superstar level talents dropping off the radar because the league got "better" during their primes at any given time in the past 70 years.

Superstar level talents don't do that. It's circular logic almost.

Star level production can drop off because of environmental changes. The reason why you evaluate the talent is so that you know it has staying power when things change.

 

[daver]

Superstar level talents don't do that. It's circular logic almost.

Star level production can drop off because of environmental changes. The reason why you evaluate the talent is so that you know it has staying power when things change.

My point was that people throw out theories that the league has gotten better therefore Player X would not be as good but there is no statistical smoking gun or anomaloies to back up their position.

Ovechkin, Crosby, Jagr, Mario, and Wayne all showed expected levels of offensive production as they aged through an era that saw more teams and lots more international players.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My point was that people throw out theories that the league has gotten better therefore Player X would not be as good but there is no statistical smoking gun or anomaloies to back up their position.

Ovechkin, Crosby, Jagr, Mario, and Wayne all showed expected levels of offensive production as they aged through an era that saw more teams and lots more international players.

Right. There isn't a smoking gun because stats are a shortcut of trying to tell us what happened on the ice. Nuance like that requires proper talent evaluation.

 

[daver]

Right. There isn't a smoking gun because stats are a shortcut of trying to tell us what happened on the ice. Nuance like that requires proper talent evaluation.

So who was better, in your opinion, Lafleur or Draisaitl based on talent evaluation?

 

[WarriorofTime]

I honestly never like these types of arguments are they are entirely speculative and often extremely leading from the get go.

Can take a step back here and then realize that the whole topic of ranking players that played 40-50 years apart is extremely speculative and all in good fun from the get go. No amount of stat-adjusting, trophy counting, film watching will ever satisfactorily answer a question that cannot actually be answered with any level of complete certainty (obviously to the point when we're already comparing established great players...)

 

[wetcoast]

Can take a step back here and then realize that the whole topic of ranking players that played 40-50 years apart is extremely speculative and all in good fun from the get go. No amount of stat-adjusting, trophy counting, film watching will ever satisfactorily answer a question that cannot actually be answered with any level of complete certainty (obviously to the point when we're already comparing established great players...)

That's fair but I'd rather do stuff that is more use full than less use full.

 

[MadLuke]

That's fair but I'd rather do stuff that is more use full than less use full.

what could ever be useful in any remote way on a hockeyhistory message board ?

This is a pure hobby without any relevant practical action, even if we were actual GM it would not be useful to wonder about Eddie Shore vs Doug Harvey.

It is similar to what would happen if Alexander vs Caesar vs 12th century Normand army clashed speculation on a military history message board, the purest waste of time just for fun.

 

[wetcoast]

what could ever be useful in any remote way on a hockeyhistory message board ?

This is a pure hobby without any relevant practical action, even if we were actual GM it would not be useful to wonder about Eddie Shore.

It is similar to what would happen if Alexander vs Caesar vs 12th century Normand army clashed speculation on a military history message board, the purest waste of time just for fun.

Sure that's fair but I still will stick to the point I have presented upthread and not put too much weight into hypotheticals.

When are we doing the next project BTW, I skipped the goalie project because ranking goalies just isn't something I'm comfortable with and didn't have the time to commit to that one at the time.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So who was better, in your opinion, Lafleur or Draisaitl based on talent evaluation?

I would want to sit and do that work with that focus before answering with confidence. But I don't want to brush off a direct question. My initial thought is that a) I think I've misunderstood the 70's to a degree that makes me wonder if I should talk about it again until I've done much more work.

b) Every time I watch a Lafleur game his stock doesn't improve for me. It went from "wow, look at him go" to "hmmm, I wonder if he's actually the best of that era", to "I wonder if he's really the best Canadien of this era" - the latter two are blasphemous, the last one might be grounds for expulsion haha

I'd like Draisaitl's career to breathe a little, but I'm not sure that the answer to this isn't Draisaitl. And I mean that relative to their own era too. For me, it's just the elite level of balanced attack that Drai offers. I know a lot of folks look at him as a goal scorer for McDavid and a one-timer merchant from low angles. But he's actually an elite playmaker first and foremost. He passed around players to make up for his somewhat sluggish skating stride coming up (which he has improved notably). With Lafleur, when you really hone in, the playmaking and passing actually breaks a bit more than I'd like for a "best of the era" caliber player.

Again, like I said, requires more focus on the task of Draisaitl vs Lafleur...but I'm not inclined to just give the default victory on this to Lafleur.

 

[jigglysquishy]

One item I've gleemed through all the newspapers and books. Lafleur was a bit....weak mentally. Like, he took on too much pressure. He beat himself up. He couldn't divorce his play as a legacy piece of Richard-Beliveau. He needed to be the guy. And he needed to be viewed as the best in the world. He struggled big time with Gretzky (and the Islanders) took his spotlight.

When things were going well, he swimmed in success. But when things weren't (either as a youngster or post-1980) he lacked the mental fortitude to push through.

The Habs, in that respect, were a bit of a challenge for him. He was asked to be an all-timer that delivered multiple Cups at 19 and he wasn't ready for that level of responsibility. And it weighed on him. He got in his own head repeatedly. He also let the excess of the 70s get to him and go from a quiet teetotaler to a heavy drinking/smoking womanizer.

He was basically destined to self-destruct. Especially in the 70s. Especially during the Parti Quebecois years and what he was asked to be culturally. And especially as a Quebecer on the Habs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lafleur was strong mentally but he had his personality which led to suboptimal lifestyle.

Strong mentally in the sense, that he scored massive goals under pressure, or would step up when opposite teams sent goons to intimidate him. He didn't collapse from that kind of heat but elevated his play.

I get what jiggly is saying though. I just wouldn't describe it as mental weakness. More like an incorrigible rebel and living in his own world. That's why people loved him but you can't have too many like that on a club.

Canadiens1958 remarked that Lafleur was an unpredictable threat offensively, which is what made him so dangerous including in the playoffs, as he couldn't be planned against. Fits with his personality too.

Early in his career, I read in a book that Lafleur had the blues, and he missed Quebec city. Then he woke up one summer with the desire to play hockey again and the rest is history.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Another thing about Lafleur is that he was an outlier natural athlete. In the same book I mentioned above, doctors who tested his recovery and heartrate had rarely seen such a slow heartrate and fast recovery. You can kind of see this in the way Lafleur talks or just his general vibe. Like he's living in slow motion.

The translated passage from French:

L’Ombre et Lumiere of Georges Herbert-Germain said:

September 11, Guy Lafleur went to get his medical exam. The doctors were surprised by his heart. They were absolutely flabbergasted. Guy Lafleur had an ideal heart for an athlete, a dream heart. At rest, his heartrate was less than 40 bpm. It was just like the famous heart of Eddie Merckx, belgian cyclist champion, which was the talk of the international sport medicine community. And Lafleur, just like Merckx, possessed an exceptional power of recovery, meaning that after a violent effort, his heartrate came back to normal very quickly. Lafleur had good muscles, he was flexible, surprisingly strong, and all his reflexes were quick and safe. We had rarely seen, at the Montreal Canadiens clinic, such a perfect hockey machine.

 

[MadLuke]

Another thing about Lafleur is that he was an outlier natural athlete.

People that shook his hands (long after his retirement) tend to say something like that, surprised by how big and strong they felt.

I would not diminish too quick how good the best natural talent player from Quebec for all the baby boom until 1960/ Bourque-was, it was a time when the sport was quite popular, infrastructure-accessibility for someone particularly good would have been quite high. Lack/transition of formal structure training versus the 06 institutions or what it will become later on can make look less good than their maximum potential.

 

[Staniowski]

I agree, hypotheticals are of little, if any, value. The other poster is implying that put Guy in the 2020s and he isn't as dominant. That's as hypothetical as you can get.

Lafleur certainly wouldn't be quite as big of a star in the '80s, '90s, or today. That's because the depth of talent increased considerably after Lafleur's prime in the 1970s.

There are some big differences in the top players, and in the depth of talent, through different eras. Also, big differences in style of play, quality of defensive hockey, etc., which affects the relative quality and adaptability of players.

Lafleur was very skilled, that doesn't change. But some things do change.

When comparing players from different eras, its always possible there are several - or many - from one era better than everybody, or almost everybody - from another era.

 

[Staniowski]

Re: Lafleur....

He just wasn't overly smart or adaptable. He played on instinct, which can be a good thing, but also limiting.

He was very important to the Habs, he could do things nobody else could do. But he was very well insulated on those teams. He sometimes shared the ice with 5 other Hall of Famers (i.e. everybody), and some great defensive players.

For me, he was rarely the Habs' best player, and not great on Team Canada. But, still, his skill was undeniable, and he was a beautiful player to watch.