Sidney Crosby Appreciation Thread

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Orr can.

Most likely, but when I watch old videos of Orr going coast-to-coast, everyone seemed slow, including him. The game is much faster now.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by RyZ

Anybody making a straight numbers comparison without taking difference in era into account is crazy.

Even Gretzky wouldnt get even close to 200 points in a year in todays NHL.

Sid would be maybe a little below Lemieux and Gretzky but above the Yzerman/Sakic crowd. He has the 4th best PPG ever and plays in the modern, far lower scoring era than the 3 guys in front of him (Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy).

If Sid played in the free wheeling 80's he would have put up rediculous numbers.

If Gretzky played in the 60's he would have put up even more ridiculous numbers. That is how evolution works.

It has been said several times in this thread. The If ______ played back then he would have dominated is not a reasonable argument. The ONLY way to compare players is to compare them to the generation of players they played with.

[Rerun]

I consider myself very fortunate to be able to watch a player of Sid's talent, play the game. I also love to watch Ovy play too.

I consider myself EXTREMELY fortunate to have been able to watch Gretzky, Lemiuex, and Orr play the game. They were a joy to watch even though I never cheered for any of their teams.

As for Gordie Howe, there was a time when I wondered when he would actually stop playing. I was again fortunate to be able to watch him play in the latter half of his career.

There have been other's who I also loved to watch play. Bobby Hull for one. I still remember that booming slap shot of his coming off the left wing. I was also fortunate enough to meet him a few times as a youngster (He grew up in the same area that I did and he used to spend his summers there and I was fortunate enough that my best friend's uncle managed Bobby's cattle farm).

There have been so many great players over the years... but none so great as WG.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

I totally believe it was easier to score goals back then, just simply because the games these days are defensive minded and the goaltenders have bigger pads.

Did you watch the dead puck era? Not to be snarky, just curious.

And if it was easier to score in 1996, why didn't a bunch of those players who would go on to lead the league in scoring after Lemeiux and Jagr left put up huge numbers either? When Selanne at 26 is putting up 100 points in 1995 and a 37 Selanne is putting up 95 points in 2007, can you really say it was much more difficult? Again, you can do this with a lot of the top players. There's not much evidence to suggest it was easier to score in 1996 compared to 2006. Goals per game were near identical.

[vilzeh]

I appreciate all the posts here, I've enjoyed the posts here, been a great read, even though we aren't on same page on everything, I appreciate the opinions.

[Tinordi]

If you're going to argue about how great Lemieux was based on the dead puck era you should at least have your facts straight.

The height of the dead puck era wasn't 1996 it basically started was between 1998 and 2003 declining every year from that period.

The 1995-96 goals per game was a high outlier at 3.14. Infact last year the goals per game was 2.74 which is right in the range of the dead puck era.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

[TurnedTheCorner]

When you consider the unsubstantiated rumor that Gretzky is, in fact, a golden retriever, this thread comes into much sharper focus.

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Did you watch the dead puck era? Not to be snarky, just curious.

And if it was easier to score in 1996, why didn't a bunch of those players who would go on to lead the league in scoring after Lemeiux and Jagr left put up huge numbers either? When Selanne at 26 is putting up 100 points in 1995 and a 37 Selanne is putting up 95 points in 2007, can you really say it was much more difficult? Again, you can do this with a lot of the top players. There's not much evidence to suggest it was easier to score in 1996 compared to 2006. Goals per game were near identical.

I did watch, but not like now. Then I was a kid who just watched a game here and there, about 10 years ago I started watching NHL more seriously and with a criticizing eye.

I can't answer that question, but as you mentioned Lemieux, he's my all time favorite player. Also, there's a huge difference with goals & points. Sure, you can get like 100 points if you play with good players, but you can't score 70+ goals anymore, also that's why no one will ever break the rookie goalscoring record of 76.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If you're going to argue about how great Lemieux was based on the dead puck era you should at least have your facts straight.

The height of the dead puck era wasn't 1996 it basically started was between 1998 and 2003 declining every year from that period.

Infact in 1995-96 goals per game was a high outlier in goals per game at 3.14. Infact last year the goals per game was 2.74 which is right in the range of the dead puck era.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

1996 was absolutely the dead puck era. It wasn't the middle of it but you're going to find far more people refer to the dead puck era starting in 1995 than 1998. And I've also used 1996 and 2006 as benchmarks. 1996, with Lemieux and Jagr, had 6.2 goals per game, 2006 has 6.1 goals per game, based on the last website I looked. Not exactly a crazy difference.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

1996 was absolutely the dead puck era. It wasn't the middle of it but you're going to find far more people refer to the dead puck era starting in 1995 than 1998. And I've also used 1996 and 2006 as benchmarks. 1996, with Lemieux and Jagr, had 6.2 goals per game, 2006 has 6.1 goals per game, based on the last website I looked. Not exactly a crazy difference.

Well that's not what the source I linked says.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Well that's not what the source I linked says.

Yours say 6.2 compared to 6.3...looks like a rounding problem wherever I last checked but doesn't change anything. 1996 was very comparable scoring to 2006. Not seeing the problem.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Is it? We're talking about 1996, that was less than 20 years ago.

.

As far as hockey is concerned, that is practically a generation. If you go back to Gretzky in his prime, that was a different era.

Many players from 1996 now have kids that are close to the same age they were at that point, and they are teaching those kids based on their experience. This happens every generation and it's why the benchmarks are constantly changing.

So yeah, I would count 1996 as a different era. It might not be like comparing the 1970s and the 1990s, but there is still a noticable change IMO.

[jhunt223]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I consider myself very fortunate to be able to watch a player of Sid's talent, play the game. I also love to watch Ovy play too.

I consider myself EXTREMELY fortunate to have been able to watch Gretzky, Lemiuex, and Orr play the game. They were a joy to watch even though I never cheered for any of their teams.

As for Gordie Howe, there was a time when I wondered when he would actually stop playing. I was again fortunate to be able to watch him play in the latter half of his career.

There have been other's who I also loved to watch play. Bobby Hull for one. I still remember that booming slap shot of his coming off the left wing. I was also fortunate enough to meet him a few times as a youngster (He grew up in the same area that I did and he used to spend his summers there and I was fortunate enough that my best friend's uncle managed Bobby's cattle farm).

There have been so many great players over the years... but none so great as WG.

Nah. Crosby is better.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Orr can.

Disagree. Orr changed how his position was played/viewed...Gretz changed everything.

[Huntingwhale]

Gretzky changed my life

[strombad]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Disagree. Orr changed how his position was played/viewed...Gretz changed everything.

Well then you're wrong.

Orr was arguably the best player to have ever played, a lot of people have no problem with that statement. Gretzky was around when the NHL was changing, in a decade where North America changed considerably. It's the era of marketing and merchandising, and Gretzky was around for it.

He meant a lot to the NHL, so did Orr, but Orr was the best player of all time.

Even Mario was near as proficient as Gretzky was offensively, so you can't just rest on his stats and say "oh best ever no doubt!". You can say he's better than Crosby, of course, but if you can't admit that Orr and Mario were right there with him, in a near interchangeable mix of 3, then you're being silly.

If there's one thing I have noticed lately, it's that guys come jerking their gerk about how young guys don't know, and they go and make equally naive statements.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by strombad

Well then you're wrong.

Orr was arguably the best player to have ever played, a lot of people have no problem with that statement. Gretzky was around when the NHL was changing, in a decade where North America changed considerably. It's the era of marketing and merchandising, and Gretzky was around for it.

He meant a lot to the NHL, so did Orr, but Orr was the best player of all time.

Even Mario was near as proficient as Gretzky was offensively, so you can't just rest on his stats and say "oh best ever no doubt!". You can say he's better than Crosby, of course, but if you can't admit that Orr and Mario were right there with him, in a near interchangeable mix of 3, then you're being silly.

If there's one thing I have noticed lately, it's that guys come jerking their gerk about how young guys don't know, and they go and make equally naive statements.

No you're wrong.

See how easy that is to do?

As for the third part...who said aything of the sort? Quit making crap up.

You can say Orr was the greatest of all time all you like, I guarentee i can find way more hockey people that would say Gretzky was.

And sure...Orr and Mario AND Howe are all in the mix for best ever, but there can only be one who tops it all and that belongs to 99.

My opinion only....along with millions of others of course.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by strombad

Well then you're wrong.

Orr was arguably the best player to have ever played, a lot of people have no problem with that statement. Gretzky was around when the NHL was changing, in a decade where North America changed considerably. It's the era of marketing and merchandising, and Gretzky was around for it.

He meant a lot to the NHL, so did Orr, but Orr was the best player of all time.

Even Mario was near as proficient as Gretzky was offensively, so you can't just rest on his stats and say "oh best ever no doubt!". You can say he's better than Crosby, of course, but if you can't admit that Orr and Mario were right there with him, in a near interchangeable mix of 3, then you're being silly.

If there's one thing I have noticed lately, it's that guys come jerking their gerk about how young guys don't know, and they go and make equally naive statements.

Strombad, you kind of remind me of that character Phillip Sanderson in "Trouble with the Curve" who figured he knew everything about every player because of what his computer told him.
Actually watching the player play wasn't necessary.




... and still curious... HOW OLD ARE YOU?



Are you ever going to answer my question.... or just continually evade and ignore it?

[Rerun]

The Gretzky Rule

Another rule that targeted a specific team, this time the Edmonton Oilers and Wayne Gretzky. From SI:

In the mid-'80s, the NHL stepped in and made it nearly impossible to see 3-on-3 situations by negating the additional loss of manpower when a second set of minor penalties is whistled.

Regarded as the "Edmonton Rule," the freewheeling Oiler teams of the 1980s used the tactic to great advantage. As soon as players went to the penalty box, the ensuing play invariably would involve an Oiler player jostling an opponent in hopes of goading him into a coincidental minor situation. The thought behind the theory was that with the Oilers' superior skating skill supplied by Paul Coffey, Wayne Gretzky, Jari Kurri, Mark Messier, Glen Anderson, et al, the more open space the better. They correctly calculated that extended stretches of 4-on-4 and 3-on-3 increased the likelihood of offensive annihilation.

So the NHL made a rule-change that made teams play 5-on-5 during offsetting/coincidental penalties -- known informally as "The Gretzky Rule." The rule was reversed in the early 1990s ... just in time for players like Mario and Jagr to exploit it.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/...urn=nhl,263622

[Hanna Sniper]

I never understood the clutching to a viewpoint that biased on you taking an athlete "Crosby" and thinking what he would be able to do in the "80's" as if he stepped out of a time machine.

A Crosby born in 1961 would not grow up to have the same advantages that the Crosby that was born in 1987 had.

You have to compare the athlete to his peers and not the athlete to another era's peers