Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... Hockey History
 PickUp Top 50 Since 1967 Comments Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2007 :  11:40:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Place your comments in this section...

I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan



Edited by - willus3 on 12/22/2007 16:57:18

leigh
Moderator



Canada
1601 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2007 :  13:12:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So do we have some criteria to follow or is this a free for all? ie: Points
Longevity, Team accomplishments, Personal accomplishments, etc.

The thing about this is that each player was great for their own reason right. For instance Gretzky was great for his points (among other things) Messier was well known for his leadership and longevity. Fedorov was great for his skating style and points...but not his leadership. See where I'm going?

I'm just ranting right now...looking for some feedback. This could be an interesting experiment, I am going to list out all the players I think could be on the list, in no particular order. Then, I'm going to list out ALL the qualities of a great player. Then I will rank each of those players from 1 - 120 for each of the criteria. Then the player with the lowest score wins (although I may place greater or lesser weights on certain criteria if I think it contributes more or less to a great player) (I chose 120 because I assume I will have about 120 potential candidates)

Arrrgh!!!! Ok this could take some time....maybe I'll wing it! LOL!!!!
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2007 :  14:27:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is totally up to you how you rate the players. Some may choose stats, others may choose a personal experience watching a player, etc.

If we get into a debate then it will end up who can convince who is the best, or the next best player.

The idea is that the committee members will rank the five players for the #1 spot. I will tabulate the votes, and then post the #1 player, then onto the next position...



I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan


Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2007 :  19:46:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The spreadsheet for the updated list doesn't work because of my work firewall (or so I'm told) and since I'm at work 24 hours a day right now is there anyway I could get someone to email me an updated spreadsheet every now and then?
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2007 :  20:52:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MSC

The spreadsheet for the updated list doesn't work because of my work firewall (or so I'm told) and since I'm at work 24 hours a day right now is there anyway I could get someone to email me an updated spreadsheet every now and then?



I have changed it to a web page...

I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan


Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2007 :  23:51:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I know, unfortunatly for some reason it's still a no go.
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 12/23/2007 :  06:10:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MSC

I know, unfortunatly for some reason it's still a no go.



Did you hit refresh, because it should work, it is just another web page...

I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan


Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  06:52:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was just reading the rules again. I think I misunderstood something. Pucknuts are you saying if they played in 67 or later that their entire career can then be considered even if it was mostly before 67? I was under the impression we were ranking them on the impact they had after 67. I just want to clear that up because my rankings could change significantly.
Also we are just ranking NHL players correct?


"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore

Edited by - willus3 on 12/27/2007 06:53:51
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  09:04:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willus3

I was just reading the rules again. I think I misunderstood something. Pucknuts are you saying if they played in 67 or later that their entire career can then be considered even if it was mostly before 67? I was under the impression we were ranking them on the impact they had after 67. I just want to clear that up because my rankings could change significantly.
Also we are just ranking NHL players correct?

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore



Yes, and Yes...

I thought it would be very hard to distinguish a players talent, contribution, etc, if we only looked at their time in the NHL after 1967.

ex Bobby Hull...

Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny



Edited by - PuckNuts on 12/27/2007 09:09:44
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8154 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  11:15:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I just wanted to comment that the top 5 were exactly what I expected them to be. I think what I call the Big 5 are everyone's top players. I think numbers 5 through 20 will be very interesting and may show the age of the voters.

20 through 50 are going to be very fun!

Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  16:22:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I had the same question as Willus had about considering pre-67 (and was hoping the answer would be NO frankly). To me, it is very hard to properly assess where Howe ranks and I am a relative oldtimer here. I think it will become even more difficult with a guy like Mikita and a few others.

I'm just going to throw this out there (no big deal if I am voted down), but perhaps we should reconsider the answer to that question (which, yes, may take Howe out of this all together).


Edited by - andyhack on 12/27/2007 16:23:48
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  17:07:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack

I had the same question as Willus had about considering pre-67 (and was hoping the answer would be NO frankly). To me, it is very hard to properly assess where Howe ranks and I am a relative oldtimer here. I think it will become even more difficult with a guy like Mikita and a few others.

I'm just going to throw this out there (no big deal if I am voted down), but perhaps we should reconsider the answer to that question (which, yes, may take Howe out of this all together).




I am in complete agreement with Andyhack. But whatever the majority would like I'm fine with.

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  18:50:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Pucknuts, I don't mean to be a pain in the ass about this but, technically, if you go by the way your rule is written, we have to also include Doug Harvey in this as he played in 1968-1969.

I suppose we could do it your way and just make a special exclusion for Harvey (I don't think there are too many other all-time greats that would fall in the category of only playing a year in the modern era).

In any case, I guess I didn't read the rules too closely when they were first posted. Sorry about that!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8154 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2007 :  06:47:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Anyone else thinking we are getting a little too technical about this?? How about if someone has a problem with a nomination based on the years the player was playing, we decide on it at that time??

Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2007 :  06:47:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
After a review of the original list that got this all started, you guys are right, we should only take into consideration the time from 1967 and on...

I will update the first post if everyone is in agreement...

Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny


Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8154 Posts

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  12:38:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just for everyone's info. Gordie Howe 67-80

Regular Season
Games - 788
Goals - 326
Assists - 531
Points - 857
PIM - 648
PPG - 1.09

Play-Offs
Games - 85
Goals - 31
Assists - 44
Points - 75
PIM - 119
PPG - 0.88

Those stats alone are comparable to guys like Bure and Lindros who I am sure will make the list.

Between 67 and 80 (I didn't count the one game with the Vipers in 97/98), his team made the playoffs 8 of the 11 seasons. He also won the Gary L. Davidson Trophy(Which was also known as the Gordie Howe Trophy) in 1974(MVP in the WHA). He played in the WHA All-Star Game twice. No Stanley Cups during that time, but his Houston Aero won the Avco Cup twice and were runner up once. Also, he played on a runner up team in New England in 78.

In this regard, you might want to consider him ahead of guys like Lindros based on team success?? Not sure, it's up to you.


I am not saying that he should be considered in the top 5 or whatever, but just wanted to give some info for some of the younger guys.


Oh ya, I think this is a really cool idea overall, but let's not change the rules through this. I don't really like the, "It's going to be Orr's anyway, let's stop the nominations now and vote." Let's use the process, because I think it will ensure in the end the most accurate list.


Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Go to Top of Page

leigh
Moderator



Canada
1601 Posts

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  16:25:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Whoops! I've been commenting in the wrong thread. This comment is copied from the other thread in response to Willus's comment
quote:
Originally posted by willus3

I don't see Howe ranking very high on this list. I think there was some confusion during the first nomination process and that's why he ended up on the list of nominees.


I would agree Willus. Howe probably wouldn't even rank in that case. Pucknuts, just playing devils advocate here, what if we were to consider the entire career but the individual must have played at least part of their NHL career in 1967 or later? For better or worse, that is the way I was looking at this anyway. Having said that, it's your call and I'll adapt if needed.
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  16:46:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

In this regard, you might want to consider him ahead of guys like Lindros based on team success?? Not sure, it's up to you.

I am not saying that he should be considered in the top 5 or whatever, but just wanted to give some info for some of the younger guys.

Oh ya, I think this is a really cool idea overall, but let's not change the rules through this. I don't really like the, "It's going to be Orr's anyway, let's stop the nominations now and vote." Let's use the process, because I think it will ensure in the end the most accurate list.




Beans - I assume the stats you mention include WHA. Pucknuts said earlier that we should only be considering time in the NHL.

I agree Howe's production after '67 (even if only looking at the NHL) is pretty impressive in it's own right. But he probably doesn't belong anywhere near the top based on those few seasons. Whether he belongs somewhere in the top 50 is an interesting question - all of this will be more fun once we get into the later rounds.

On that note, my proposal to close the nominations was just an attempt to speed things up a bit. I wasn't saying "Let's give it to Orr". I just thought that we may have a consensus that the three guys nominated at the time were sufficient.
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  16:54:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would have assumed that we were looking at the "Top 50 Since 1967" in the NHL...

I think Beans mentioned it earlier that we are making things way too complicated.

We need some sort of order, we have 11 members on the committee, we should be able to easily get 5 nominations, and 5 seconds out of 11 in a couple of days for each round.

Just because you nominated, or seconded a player does not mean you have to rank him #1...

Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny


http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm

Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 01/06/2008 :  06:25:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think maybe we need some sort of time limit, particularly for the fourth and fifth nominations. At some point, perhaps we should say three nominations are enough. For example, if within two days of the third nomination no other nominations are seconded then maybe we should begin the voting with only the three nominees.

We may also want to rethink limiting a person to only one nomination or seconding of a nomination. I propose we let a person have one of each (but, of course, the person can't second his own nomination).

Any thoughts?

Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  18:44:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack

I think maybe we need some sort of time limit, particularly for the fourth and fifth nominations. At some point, perhaps we should say three nominations are enough. For example, if within two days of the third nomination no other nominations are seconded then maybe we should begin the voting with only the three nominees.

We may also want to rethink limiting a person to only one nomination or seconding of a nomination. I propose we let a person have one of each (but, of course, the person can't second his own nomination).

Any thoughts?




Agreed with everything here. I think you have to let people have a nomination and seconding opportunity as it's likely that you won't have everyone agreeing on the first nominations and then they won't get seconded and we'll be stuck. No?


"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  19:14:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have no problem with voting on three...

If the members of the committee came here at least once per day this would move along quickly...



Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny


http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm

Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  19:19:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If irving does not reply by 11:00 am EST Jan 8th I will close the nominations, and we will vote on the three of Orr, Messier, and Lemieux...

Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny


http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm

Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  19:51:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Why would we only vote on those three when,

Orr
Lemieux
Francis
Messier
Bossy
Howe

have all received votes?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8154 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  19:54:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think because we are looking for a nomination and a second for each player getting voted on.

I believe that only Orr, Messier, and Lemiuex have received both.

The other have only been nominated.

Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  19:54:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This is a little late but just to reinforce why Bobby Orr should have been everyone's #1...

Here are some interesting stats. For those of you who need stats to understand.

Bruins goal scoring ratio. (Goals for divided by goals against.) It was always said that the Bruins scored twice as much with Orr on the ice. These numbers bare that out.
Orr
Year Ratio (On Ice) Ratio (Off Ice)
1970 1.92 0.73
1971 3.04 1.16
1972 2.52 1.00
1973 1.92 1.08
1974 1.99 1.13
1975 1.91 0.85

For a comparison here are Gretzky's best years.
Year Ratio (On Ice) Ratio (Off Ice)
1982 2.15 0.88
1983 1.76 1.04
1984 1.86 1.09
1985 1.96 0.89
1986 1.6 1.12
1987 1.89 0.88

The Bruins outscored the opposition 2.2 to 1 with Orr on the ice and 1 to 1 with him off the ice.
The Oilers outscored the opposition 1.87 to 1 with Gretzky on the ice and 1 to 1 with him off.
Hmmmmm.....

Now lets look at how good Orr was defensively. Cumulatively from 71-73 at even strength the Bruins were scored on twice as often when Orr was on the bench.

Even strength

Year Orr Rest Ratio
1970 59 77 1.31
1971 55 99 1.8
1972 54 99 1.83
1973 60 132 2.2
1974 83 90 1.08
1975 85 101 1.19
Total 396 598 1.51

His penalty killing stats are very impressive too especially when you consider that he quite often played through entire penalties.

Penalty killing

Year Orr Rest Ratio
1970 41 39 0.95
1971 30 23 0.77
1972 29 22 0.76
1973 30 13 0.43
1974 32 16 0.5
1975 44 15 0.34
Total 206 128 0.62

Stats provided by a great hockey guy and amazing stat guy HockeyOutsider.

In 69-70 when Orr shocked the hockey world and put up his 120 point season, he outscored the next highest scoring defenseman by %172. Carol Vadnais had 44 points.
He bettered the previous record for a defenseman - 64 points, which was the record he set the previous season, by 56 points. That 120 point mark was better than the best marks set by Pierre Pilote who had the highest scoring season for a d-man before Orr, by %104. Literally twice as good.

Gretzky didn't better the previous high water marks set by Esposito by that much. Not even close actually.
Esposito's highest point total and a record at that point until Gretzky was 152. Gretzky's highest was 215. He improved Esposito's mark by %71 and thats all he was trying to do was score points.
Orr was playing defense on par with the best defensive d-men in the league and at the same time doubling the offensive output of the next best d-man.
Or also won the scoring title TWICE! and was RUNNER-UP 3 TIMES and THIRD ONCE!!!

No one dominated the game like Bobby Orr and there has yet to be a better hockey player. The funny thing is these stats are just unreal and yet all you had to do was watch him play to understand that he was, and still remains, the best there has ever been.


"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore

Edited by - willus3 on 01/08/2008 11:03:06
Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  20:29:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As I understood a player didn't have to be seconded or thirdeded (oh my) in order to be included in the vote for that particular round. Just one vote is enough.
Go to Top of Page

I HATE CROSBY
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
538 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  20:50:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Patrick Roy holds the record for mosyt conne Smythes, need I say more

Sugar Ray over Hasek any day!
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  22:09:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MSC

As I understood a player didn't have to be seconded or thirdeded (oh my) in order to be included in the vote for that particular round. Just one vote is enough.



Please go back and read the first post...

This is a simple process if everyone would read the first post, and then come to the board at least once per day...we could have 50 done by the end of the season...



Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny


http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm

Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2008 :  09:15:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
MSC, I have to ask a question. Do you even know who Bobby Orr is? I'm hoping you've done some research on the players your voting on. You rankings suggest otherwise.

If the people on this panel aren't going to do the necessary research than this list is pointless.

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8154 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2008 :  10:09:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willus3

MSC, I have to ask a question. Do you even know who Bobby Orr is? I'm hoping you've done some research on the players your voting on. You rankings suggest otherwise.

If the people on this panel aren't going to do the necessary research than this list is pointless.

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore



Willus, with all due respect, MSC's opinion is what ever he wants it to be. Perhaps he did the research and feels that Lemieux and Messier are more appropriate for the #2 spot.

That's really his choice is it not??

Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2008 :  10:29:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Everyone is entitled to their opinion Beans. That said, do you know a single knowledgeable hockey person who would rank Messier ahead of Orr? I don't.
You want to talk about respect? I'm trying to be a part of a respectable and credible list here. Not some thrown together random POS.

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2008 :  15:04:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willus3

Everyone is entitled to their opinion Beans. That said, do you know a single knowledgeable hockey person who would rank Messier ahead of Orr? I don't.



Willus, I agree that research is important but, lets face it, part of this is going to be based on what each individual has actually seen in the time that he has been a fan of hockey. You might recall that I ranked Messier Number One when I first came to this site (took a lot of heat for that from the Gretzky guys as I'm sure you recall). With respect to Orr, my reasoning at the time was that, of the players I have REALLY seen, Messier was the best. It wasn't that I thought he was better than Orr, but I must admit that I felt hesitant about calling a player (Orr) who I only saw as a little kid (and was too young to really follow closely and appreciate his brilliance) the best I have ever seen.

I don't know if this reasoning applies to MSC, but if it does I would understand it to a certain extent. But, as we are making this list to cover the best players over the last 40 years, as opposed to just the best players we have seen in our heydays as hockey fans, your research point does indeed come into it. And your points about Orr in your earlier post are good ones. But I'm not your target audience, am I? Like Hillary, you are after the young voters! Probably not a comparison you ever imagined would be made

Edit - in any case, as we all could have guessed a couple of weeks ago, the top two ranked players on the list will be Wayne and Bobby.

Edited by - andyhack on 01/08/2008 15:09:57
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2008 :  15:27:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I fully expect everyone to do their research on this. I mean, why do it if it's not going to be credible?
Look at Leigh's first post in this thread. There's a guy who's going to put some time into this and that's the way it should be.
Yes I'm taking this seriously and that's because I think we have an opportunity to make an informed list with some knowledgeable people.

Andyhack, I can definitely think of worse people to be compared to. I wonder if she gets in the Oval Office if she'll have a fetish that comes to light a la Bill and his cigars?

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2414 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  06:29:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This is the whole idea of a panel. There will be differences of opinion...

Remember opinion is based on what you know, or what you perceive to know...

If only one person is right then why not just use their list, and be done with the whole thing.

The idea of having as many voters as possible is to weed out any anomalies, and so far it seems to be working...

Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny


http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm

Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  06:45:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well I didn't realize that I had to have my picks approved before posting them. Willus before I rank any more players I'll send them to you first to make sure they match your criteria. Maybe because of your man love of Orr you are the one who is jeopardizing the integrity of this list. Just to set the record straight I did think Orr was the number two guy, but after about 20 hours of drinking and arguing not to long ago my point of view was changed. Don't be scared of people with different opinions or thoughts or points of view. Just put your four wheel drive pick up truck in neutral, put your shot gun in it's rack, try not to be so narrow minded for a bit and realize that there is more then one way to look at things other then your way.
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  10:23:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MSC

Well I didn't realize that I had to have my picks approved before posting them. Willus before I rank any more players I'll send them to you first to make sure they match your criteria. Maybe because of your man love of Orr you are the one who is jeopardizing the integrity of this list. Just to set the record straight I did think Orr was the number two guy, but after about 20 hours of drinking and arguing not to long ago my point of view was changed. Don't be scared of people with different opinions or thoughts or points of view. Just put your four wheel drive pick up truck in neutral, put your shot gun in it's rack, try not to be so narrow minded for a bit and realize that there is more then one way to look at things other then your way.



I guess that drinking binge was between the first vote and this one.

First vote
1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Messier
5. Howe

Second vote
1. Lemieux
2. Messier
3. Orr

Look, I'm not saying people can't have their own opinions. When it gets past the top three there will be many differing opinions and much discussion. The top three however are agreed upon by 99% of people. Their ranking might be different but the same three are always there.
This thread was started to discuss/debate peoples choices. I disagree with yours and am pointing that out.
Every panel member should be able to back up why they think a player should be placed where they are.
Maybe you could explain why you feel Messier should be 3rd and Orr 4th. What is your reasoning and logic behind the choice?

Despite what you might think, I am one of the more opened minded people you will meet. I listen to all opinions. But if someone doesn't have a logical reason why I should feel differently about something then I won't. For example I have yet to hear anyone come up with an argument that says anyone was a better hockey player than Orr. So I'd love to hear your opinion on why Messier is better than Orr. Maybe you can change my mind. I mean there must have been some pretty compelling reasons that came up in your 20 hour drunk.

Also I hope the redneck reference made you feel good. It certainly made me laugh since I didn't grow up in Redneckland nor do I share most redneck views or attitudes. You did however get the part about me having a 4x4 truck correct. Try not to make things personal. Afterall, I didn't call you a Newfie did I?



"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8154 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  10:50:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Willus I think that in the time I have been on here there have been many compelling arguements at who the best hockey player is. Just because someone has not changed your mind does not mean that the opinions regarding players like Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux as the best ever are not valid. They are just not your opinion.

That being said, I hear what you are saying. I prefer to have someone back up their opinion with some kind of substance. However, in this case all we are doing is ranking 1 through what ever. The back up wasn't asked for nor is the back up something I think we should do when ranking.

To put this to bed, MCS, maybe you could lay out why you rank Lemiuex and Messier over Orr??

Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  11:04:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans, see Pucknuts second post in this thread regarding the debating...

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  20:17:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ahem....here we go....

The number one reason why I flip flopped Messier and Orr is simple, playoff success. I know I know, Messier had a great team behind him blah blah blah blah. Now here's what I didn't realize until just recently. In the 1970-71 season Bobby Orr's Bruins finished the regular season with the best record in the NHL. The scoring race looked a little somthing like this....

1. P Esposito - Bos - 152 Pts
2. B Orr - Bos - 139 Pts
3. J Bucyk - Bos - 116 Pts
4. K Hodge - Bos - 105 Pts

No this isn't the bruins scoring leaders this is for the NHL. The Bruins go on to have two more players in the Top 10 in the NHL scoring race. As far as I can tell Messier was never on a team with more then 3 players in the top 10 scorers, that's a far cry from 6. Boston had a huge regular season, but what did this all-star team do in the play offs? They lost, first round.

66-67 - missed playoffs
67-68 - eliminated first round
68-69 - eliminated second round
69-70 - Stanley Cup Champs
70-71 - eliminated first round
71-72 - Stanley Cup Champs
72-73 - eliminated first round
73-74 - eliminated finals
74-75 - eliminated first round

Orr had 3 more injury filled seasons I won't include. Orr was surronded by an All-Star team, yet there seems to be an awful lot of first round knock outs. Granted, hats off for those 2 cups. Now I'm not going to bore you with Messiers career playoff records but let's just say some stuff happens and he ends up with 6 Stanley Cups (2 of those he captained without Gretzky).

On top of that we also have the usual stuff that goes without saying. 2 Hart Trophies, 15 All-Star games and he is the second most prolific scorer in both regular season and the playoffs.

I really didn't think I'd have to defend this choice, it's not like I put Steve Larmer over Orr. At the end of the day Orr will receive more votes from the panel, just not from me. I'm sorry you took this as a personal attack on your hero, I really hope it hasn't kept you up at night tossing and turning over the inhumanities and injustices I have committed. If you want to put it into perspective just throw on the news. Canada just lost two more real heroes in the line of duty the other day. But really, sorry for upsetting you with a Messier over Orr nomination.

Edit - I also never called you a red neck or made this personal. I have no right to call anyone a red neck because not only is my neck red but my upper arms are alarmingly pale. If you took my comments as an implication of your red neckedness then that sounds like a personal problem to me.

Edited by - MSC on 01/09/2008 20:41:59
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  22:23:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MSC

Ahem....here we go....

The number one reason why I flip flopped Messier and Orr is simple, playoff success. I know I know, Messier had a great team behind him blah blah blah blah. Now here's what I didn't realize until just recently. In the 1970-71 season Bobby Orr's Bruins finished the regular season with the best record in the NHL. The scoring race looked a little somthing like this....

1. P Esposito - Bos - 152 Pts
2. B Orr - Bos - 139 Pts
3. J Bucyk - Bos - 116 Pts
4. K Hodge - Bos - 105 Pts

No this isn't the bruins scoring leaders this is for the NHL. The Bruins go on to have two more players in the Top 10 in the NHL scoring race. As far as I can tell Messier was never on a team with more then 3 players in the top 10 scorers, that's a far cry from 6. Boston had a huge regular season, but what did this all-star team do in the play offs? They lost, first round.

66-67 - missed playoffs
67-68 - eliminated first round
68-69 - eliminated second round
69-70 - Stanley Cup Champs
70-71 - eliminated first round -
71-72 - Stanley Cup Champs
72-73 - eliminated first round
73-74 - eliminated finals
74-75 - eliminated first round

Orr had 3 more injury filled seasons I won't include. Orr was surronded by an All-Star team, yet there seems to be an awful lot of first round knock outs. Granted, hats off for those 2 cups. Now I'm not going to bore you with Messiers career playoff records but let's just say some stuff happens and he ends up with 6 Stanley Cups (2 of those he captained without Gretzky).

On top of that we also have the usual stuff that goes without saying. 2 Hart Trophies, 15 All-Star games and he is the second most prolific scorer in both regular season and the playoffs.

I really didn't think I'd have to defend this choice, it's not like I put Steve Larmer over Orr. At the end of the day Orr will receive more votes from the panel, just not from me. I'm sorry you took this as a personal attack on your hero, I really hope it hasn't kept you up at night tossing and turning over the inhumanities and injustices I have committed. If you want to put it into perspective just throw on the news. Canada just lost two more real heroes in the line of duty the other day. But really, sorry for upsetting you with a Messier over Orr nomination.

Edit - I also never called you a red neck or made this personal. I have no right to call anyone a red neck because not only is my neck red but my upper arms are alarmingly pale. If you took my comments as an implication of your red neckedness then that sounds like a personal problem to me.


Three things.
1) I'm not going to waste my time responding to your Messier argument. It's too weak.
2) Bobby Orr is not my hero. You are. Especially after the perspective comment. Nice effort trying to belittle me there. Shame it didn't work as pretty much anyone could see that, that is what you were trying to do. This is a hockey forum by the way. It's where we talk about hockey. If you'd like to talk about politics we can do that on another forum. I'll school you there too. You don't have enough life experience to keep up kid.
3) The only part I took as a personal shot was the part about me being a redneck. Oh no wait, you said you weren't insinuating that. So what exactly did you mean by it then?

"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page