Yeah, tell me about it...I'm a career Eastern time guy...and have made it a point to watch every minute of every Stanley Cup Playoff game for a majority of my adult life. So...there was some pretty tough days at work the next day. Not that I'm amazing sleep anyhow, but on longer nights I'd set an alarm and cat nap during the overtime intermissions hahaI think Central is probably best with the Playoff Schedule and the full back to back. Tonight the Rangers/Canes game is at 6 local time, and the Oilers/Canucks is at 9, of course those are not the actual start times which is a whole different thing and Oilers/Canucks will probably actually drop at like 9:20. It's still too late to stay up most of the time though, unless it's like a Game 7. For East Coast people though, it's like lol. They'd have to stay up until 1 am on a Thursday to finish that game which isn't practical. Maybe Mountain is better, you'll probably miss first period of the east coast game but I suppose that's more ideal than missing the end.
I don't want to use anything against you. I was just responding to the notion that I'm speaking about things without watching it. That's not me. I just want to have interesting, reasonable conversations haha@Michael Farkas @The Panther
I should clarify, and this may be my fault for being hyperbolic. My point wasn't to completely trash the early 80s, but to point out the mid/late 70s weren't weaker than the early 80s.
I would say the 70s were more unbalanced, obviously there were lots of terrible teams in both leagues and too many teams. However the quality of hockey between the top teams was superior to the early 80s, in my opinion.
Also to @Michael Farkas, the tidbit about my uncle is completely irrelevant. My agenda comes from growing up in Winnipeg and watching the Jets. I explained this to you already and not sure why you are trying to use it against me like a broken record. My uncle was a brief career minor leaguer, not good enough for the WHA even. I only brought it up because he had some interesting insight into the league and pro hockey in general.
And to your larger point...Neale might be right. I really think this the crux of a lot of things. Like, not the North Stars vs the Fighting Saints precisely...but the concept. The infinite-time version of me jumps on this right away, in fact. I find this to be extremely interesting and I think it has huge repercussions.And after looking at the rosters, maybe he's right? There were some pretty shaky depth defencemen on both 1991 teams. The Fighting Saints teams he coached in 73-74 and 74-75 had four solid defencemen with NHL experience. I haven't watched a single Fighting Saints game so I can't give an opinion, but Neale would certainly be qualified to say.
Pittsburgh - Paul Coffey (injured, PP only), Larry Murphy, Ulf Samuelsson, Gordie Roberts, Paul Stanton, Peter Taglianetti, Jim Paek
North Stars - Mark Tinordi, Shawn Chambers, Jim Johnson, Chris Dahlquist, Neil Wilkinson, Brian Glynn
Neale's Fighting Saints - Mike McMahon, John Arbour, Rick Smith, Terry Ball. All former NHLers. Plus bottom pairing D Dick Paradise and Ron Busniak who didn't really do anything outside the WHA.
I guess while we're in a weird thread...and I think I'm a big "quality of league".......guy...here.
How do folks keep getting away with full freight on the whole "pro teams" argument when talking about the WHA?
The top scorers in the WHA generally couldn't hack it in the NHL. The teams came over and finished generally last.
And I'm not saying the WHA didn't have any talent and everyone was bad. They flashed some cash and grabbed some guys...but how many legit NHL teams could you have formed out of that league?
Here's the roster to the 1977 WHA All-Star game: WHA Game Summary
Is that the two legit NHL teams that you could make? I don't know...it's a bigger ask than I have time for right now and too many people that claim full freight for WHA "pro teams x100!" argument have also admitted to not watching it...so we may not get an answer to this any time soon...but do we have to keep accepting that trope at face value these days?
I can’t remember ever thinking Lundqvist was a particularly impressive goaltender. Like he was ok, but always very overrated.
For the time and their style, the Rangers team defense was quite good. In 2011 and 2012, 4 of their 6 d-men got at least fringe Norris consideration if I recall...Girardi finished 5th or 6th one year in there...That said, their defense wasn't great. They had Staal and Girardi... meh.
Ken Baird | Alberta Oilers (WHA) | free agency |
Gary Jarrett | Cleveland Crusaders (WHA) | free agency |
Gary Kurt | New York Raiders (WHA) | free agency |
Gerry Pinder | Cleveland Crusaders (WHA) | free agency |
Bobby Sheehan | New York Raiders (WHA) | free agency |
Paul Shmyr | Cleveland Crusaders (WHA) | free agency |
Tom Webster | New England Whalers (WHA) | free agency |
This is a good point to consider. Especially if we're talking about "how many NHL caliber teams are we talking about?"WHA didn't hit the NHL proportionately either.
Hmmm... I think the offense of some of those Rangers teams circa 2015 is underrated. There weren't any big stars in their primes (except Nash if you want to count him), but they had great four line depth when they were going far in the playoffs and finishing high in the standings. They were a good transition team and could score off the rush.
Lundqvist was the biggest name and a lot of people give him most of the credit for the Rangers' success in the mid-2010s.
That said, their defense wasn't great. They had Staal and Girardi... meh.
Neale's Fighting Saints - Mike McMahon, John Arbour, Rick Smith, Terry Ball. All former NHLers. Plus bottom pairing D Dick Paradise and Ron Busniak who didn't really do anything outside the WHA.
I'm torn on this. What is described is basically the soccer development model. You'd probably get better players but a worse, much more imbalanced league.Here's my hot take. The sponsorship program was better for the sport as a whole. It died because of expansion but it would work wonders today.
Pro teams had a direct financial intetest in ensuring the health of junior teams. It focused on player development instead of stacking your team with 19 year plds to win. And created a community tie between pro team and junior city.
It would destroy drafting though. But would create better players across Canada.
The CHL is inherently a developmental league but its finances are run as a competitive league.
Top to bottom the NHL doesn't spend enough on minor hockey
I think this is antithetical to the very idea of the History of Hockey board (and I guess the discipline of Historical study in general). So once everyone who watched a particular player/era has died, we can't talk about them anymore?To take from this lead, an unpopular opinion I have is that without actually watching games, full games, of a player you can't legitimately be that confident discussing them. There is a sizable contingent that likes to look at award voting and top ten scoring finishes and leave it at that but a whole lot is missed. To an even greater degree, not living through a player's career can leave a hole in knowledge that I'm not sure can be bridged. I think this explains various things that looking at awards/scoring finishes causes people to miss.
I take it more, not without reading what people of the time that watched it are saying, it will biased (toward your favorite, toward spectacular over efficient, etc...) but will have value.we can't talk about them anymore?
It does go against the idea that some on this board have. You're still exaggerating quite a bit to suggest that I claimed anything like a person cannot discuss someone they weren't around to experience. Something gets lost when you didn't see a player however. Too often people are willing to dismiss contemporary opinion based on scoring finishes or something, even though the people of the time had access to the exact same scoring finishes and also had the chance to experience the player.I think this is antithetical to the very idea of the History of Hockey board (and I guess the discipline of Historical study in general). So once everyone who watched a particular player/era has died, we can't talk about them anymore?
You won't get any arguments from me that watching players is ideal, but that's just not an option once you go back a certain length of time. And the quality and availability of full length games get worse even earlier than that.
I think working with incomplete data- and recognizing that it is incomplete - is better than just throwing up our hands saying 'welp, that era doesn't exist anymore'.
Memories of players fade but the numbers stay the same. People who watched Orr and Gretzky often pick Orr as the better player; plenty pick Gretzky as well but it's pretty close. People who watched only Gretzky or neither player almost always go with Gretzky.
Yeah I think that Esposito is a textbook example of this but those threads have already taken place. For another unpopular opinion I think that Yzerman/Sakic should definitely rank above Esposito. Stay tuned to see if I get scoring finishes and award counts I've seen a hundred times to convince me otherwise.To a certain point, Morenz numbers specially in the playoff are not special, Shore legend will have no numbers to speak of it, while many people today have some, any modern stars > Gretzky, Howe despite the undeniable numbers. Richard has 0 Art Ross and arguably the third-biggest legend of the sport behind Howe-Gretzky.
Esposito numbers, for example, seem to have an * that could follow him forever and Forsberg will maybe always be more than his.
The contemporary opinion is still available and super super valuable.It does go against the idea that some on this board have. You're still exaggerating quite a bit to suggest that I claimed anything like a person cannot discuss someone they weren't around to experience. Something gets lost when you didn't see a player however. Too often people are willing to dismiss contemporary opinion based on scoring finishes or something, even though the people of the time had access to the exact same scoring finishes and also had the chance to experience the player.
Also, @blogofmike I see your post and want to give it the time it deserves. I'll come back to it.
I can’t remember ever thinking Lundqvist was a particularly impressive goaltender. Like he was ok, but always very overrated.
I'd be worried of living up to the expectations. I'm more of a Dick Nice Vacation but Nothing Spectacular.If that was my name, I'd definitely want to be called Richard...
I kind of go the other way - I think a lot of "eye test" stuff is hooey. We're obviously speaking about this a bit in the Lidros/St. Louis thread, but especially for these offensive players, they should be judged on their production instead of how good they looked doing it. Context is fine, but certain playstyles are more visually distinctive without resulting in better production and I think that's an error in how we watch rather than something that sets them apart.It does go against the idea that some on this board have. You're still exaggerating quite a bit to suggest that I claimed anything like a person cannot discuss someone they weren't around to experience. Something gets lost when you didn't see a player however. Too often people are willing to dismiss contemporary opinion based on scoring finishes or something, even though the people of the time had access to the exact same scoring finishes and also had the chance to experience the player.
Post season, Olympics and regular season...He doesn't have 1 peak season that jumps off the page, but can you name a goalie from his generation who was more consistently excellent?