Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... Hockey History
 MOST Overrated Former Superstar 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 2

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  06:35:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Poll Question:
Who is the MOST overrated of the following former superstars of the game (listed in no particular order)?

Choices:

Ray Bourque
Mark Messier
Bobby Orr
Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux
Ken Dryden
Phil Esposito
Guy Lafleur
Paul Coffey
Patrick Roy
Other

(Anonymous Vote)

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  06:48:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All obviously GREAT players. But the question is a relative one. This means that your answer to it of course doesn't necessarily mean that you don't think the player was great - just that you think he might be rated too highly AS COMPARED to the way the other players are rated.

Of course, feel free to add to the list, but make sure the player is thought of as a superstar. In other words, I don't think a guy like Adam Oates, or a Daryl Sittler, would be eligible for this list. But a guy like Steve Yzerman might as he reached a certain superstar status that those guys probably didn't. I have tried to pick guys that fall in this type of category - guys who were absolute shoe-ins for the Hall of Fame.


Edited by - andyhack on 02/28/2009 06:52:00
Go to Top of Page

Guest4249
( )

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  12:54:10  Reply with Quote
I'm not sure who I choose, but I'll be right and you all will be wrong. Let's talk abut this for a few weeks.
Go to Top of Page

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  16:59:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Wow, that is certainty an interesting twist on the idea of overrated. If I read your question correctly, you are suggesting 'the worst of the best' sort of thing, as certainly none of these players could be considered overrated as stands.

Assuming that is the question, I'll throw the first one out there, it pains me greatly as an Oiler fan to do so, but, of the group suggested, I would probably have to say Coffey. Fantastic player, effortless skater, but he spent his career being compared statictically to Orr and he was no Orr, great as Coffey was.
I was tossed a bit though, with Dryden being a consideration for me out of the list. Only because he was able to step into arguably one of the best teams in history, get in, win cups, awards, etc., and then get out.
Would he have kept up his HOF pace had he played another 5-6 years? Probably, but because he didn't, he leaves room to be considered overrated in the aforemetioned list of greats.
Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  18:38:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My vote went to Ray Bourque. As succesful as he was he never took Boston to the Cup. He was a very good D man on a below average team for the most part. And that made him look better then he was.
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  19:06:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MSC

My vote went to Ray Bourque. As succesful as he was he never took Boston to the Cup. He was a very good D man on a below average team for the most part. And that made him look better then he was.


Uh-oh.
Andyhack is going to have fun with you on that one.
I completely disagree by the way but I'll let Andy get his teeth into it.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  19:10:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't think Andyhack was asking for the worst of the best either. If I'm not mistaken he is asking who you feel out of these superstars is generally overrated by most.



"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  19:13:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Voted Gretzky. Most have him at #1 all time because of stats. I have him as a solid #4 from using my eyes, not to read stats but to watch hockey games.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

hanley6
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
662 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  19:42:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
the award for the MOST OVERRATED former Superstars goes to #88 Eric Lindros
Go to Top of Page

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  20:44:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willus3

quote:
Originally posted by MSC

My vote went to Ray Bourque. As succesful as he was he never took Boston to the Cup. He was a very good D man on a below average team for the most part. And that made him look better then he was.


Uh-oh.
Andyhack is going to have fun with you on that one.
I completely disagree by the way but I'll let Andy get his teeth into it.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan



Probably no less than Beans will with you on yours...

Overrated because many consider you number 1, instead of perhaps 2, no less than 4(only to avoid that discussion here as there are threads devoted to it)? And I find it hard to imagine Gretzky as overrated by..most...certainly by a vocal minority, but by no way most.

My 'best of the worst' comment did not mean comparisons, it meant more along the lines of Andy's second post, players that were great, but who in our opinions, weren't maybe quite as deserving of their place in history by 'most'.

Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2009 :  07:54:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked

quote:
Originally posted by willus3

quote:
Originally posted by MSC

My vote went to Ray Bourque. As succesful as he was he never took Boston to the Cup. He was a very good D man on a below average team for the most part. And that made him look better then he was.


Uh-oh.
Andyhack is going to have fun with you on that one.
I completely disagree by the way but I'll let Andy get his teeth into it.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan



Probably no less than Beans will with you on yours...

Overrated because many consider you number 1, instead of perhaps 2, no less than 4(only to avoid that discussion here as there are threads devoted to it)? And I find it hard to imagine Gretzky as overrated by..most...certainly by a vocal minority, but by no way most.

My 'best of the worst' comment did not mean comparisons, it meant more along the lines of Andy's second post, players that were great, but who in our opinions, weren't maybe quite as deserving of their place in history by 'most'.




I say Gretzky is because by the average fan I think he is overrated. Most will just point to his stats and records and say that proves it. If you take a poll of those people, Gretzky invariably wins. But those fans who know a little more about hockey and bother to look deeper know there is more to hockey than that. If you poll those people the greatest player then becomes a dead heat between two players. So the average fan is overrating Gretzky. That would be a lot of fans wouldn't it.

My next choice would be Esposito. Then Coffey.


I guess I misunderstood what you were saying with your best of the worst comment.


"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan

Edited by - willus3 on 03/01/2009 07:56:30
Go to Top of Page

Guest4658
( )

Posted - 03/01/2009 :  13:44:45  Reply with Quote
I am SO sick of seeing his face everywhere...lays chips...him holding the cup and crying many times during his team mates ceremonies...ughh its annoying now.
Go to Top of Page

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2009 :  16:53:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4658

I am SO sick of seeing his face everywhere...lays chips...him holding the cup and crying many times during his team mates ceremonies...ughh its annoying now.



I'm assuming you are voting for Messier....either that or I'm friggin' Kreskin(nod to us older crowd), tell me i'm the latter, I could use the lotto win..

PS. I do have to agree with the overexposure., and him and Anderson tearfully gazing at each other was,,uncomfortable.....but he certainly isn't overrated regarding his game in any way...IMO.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2009 :  22:12:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beleive it or not, I have to kind of agree with Willus. I don't agree that Gretzky was over rated. But I do see the point in that the "average fan" and specifically a fan that did not see Gretzky play through his entire career will rate Gretzky very high (often #1) all time based purely on stats. The sick thing that I have repeated countless times on here is that the stats are a symptom of his amazing play. The numbers didn't make him great, his great play made the numbers.

Now, that being said, I would have to say that the guy on this list that I would put as the most "over rated" would be.........................

I don't really know. I am going to have to think about this for a bit.

Nice questions Andy. I would have to say this might be the most intriguing question ever posed on this site. Leave it to a half-crazy Boston fan who also likes Tennis to drop a bomb like this.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4578 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  04:32:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, right off the bat I have to say that there is no way possible way to overrate Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. To me, they were so great that no amount of accolades, no heaping of superlatives would be too much - they could each, for me, be listed as the best ever, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

However, I am going to venture into sacred territory here, and give you all my answer to the question: Gordie Howe.

That's right - Mr. Hockey himself. The reason being, as great as Howe was during his time, he doesn't come close to these other all-time greats when it comes to stats comparisons to the other players of his time. He was always one of the best in his first 15 years or so, if not the best player some of the time . . . but he didn't have that seperation between man and immortal that those top three guys I just mentioned had.

And yet, he is often mentioned as being one of the top 4 'interchangeables', and to me, that just doesn't sit right. Now, the problem with Howe is that I never saw him play, and I've only seen a few old black and white clips of his play . . . and frankly, it's hard to watch even those clips and say "what an amazing play" or "wow, what a move, what a pass" etc etc. Out of context from the era that he played in, and with the way the game's players have all improved physically and skill-wise, there isn't much to wow you.

So, in the absence of live play and observation, we have to look at his stats - a very good reflection of how great he was. And he just doesn't measure up to a "top 3 all-time" . . . for me, not even top 5.

Attack my use of statistics all you want - but Mr. Hockey is outclassed by the top three I mentioned in the beginning, and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  08:52:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Well, right off the bat I have to say that there is no way possible way to overrate Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. To me, they were so great that no amount of accolades, no heaping of superlatives would be too much - they could each, for me, be listed as the best ever, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

However, I am going to venture into sacred territory here, and give you all my answer to the question: Gordie Howe.

That's right - Mr. Hockey himself. The reason being, as great as Howe was during his time, he doesn't come close to these other all-time greats when it comes to stats comparisons to the other players of his time. He was always one of the best in his first 15 years or so, if not the best player some of the time . . . but he didn't have that seperation between man and immortal that those top three guys I just mentioned had.

And yet, he is often mentioned as being one of the top 4 'interchangeables', and to me, that just doesn't sit right. Now, the problem with Howe is that I never saw him play, and I've only seen a few old black and white clips of his play . . . and frankly, it's hard to watch even those clips and say "what an amazing play" or "wow, what a move, what a pass" etc etc. Out of context from the era that he played in, and with the way the game's players have all improved physically and skill-wise, there isn't much to wow you.

So, in the absence of live play and observation, we have to look at his stats - a very good reflection of how great he was. And he just doesn't measure up to a "top 3 all-time" . . . for me, not even top 5.

Attack my use of statistics all you want - but Mr. Hockey is outclassed by the top three I mentioned in the beginning, and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



Ohhhh, where to begin with this one...
I'll come back to this when I have time.



"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

Guest2918
( )

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  13:04:21  Reply with Quote
ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE THAT MR HOCKEY MIGHT BE THE MOST OVERATED PLAYER ON YOUR LIST, MY VOTE ACTUALLY GOES TO GRANT FUHR. GOOD PLAYOFF GOALIE DURING THE HAY DAYS OF THE OILERS, BUT HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR THE CALIBER OF A HASEK, ROY, BRODEUR OR LOUNGO. MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ONE PLAYER WHO HAS BEEN ELEVATED TO SUPERSTAR STATUS WHO DOESNT BELONG THERE.

THE REASON FOR THE DOWN ON MR HOCKEY IS ALTHOUGH HE HAS THE RECORD BOOK FOR 2ND PLACE IN LONG TERM RECORDS IT TOOK 4 DECADES OF HOCKEY TO GET THERE. I SEEN HIM PLAY IN HIS LATE CAREER AND IT WAS LIKE WATCHING ERIC LINDROS LACE UP FOR HIS FINAL YEAR. DID HE BELONG, I THINK NOT. HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD MOST OF THE RECORDS HE HAD, IF HE WOULD HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THE GAME AT AN PROPER AGE LIKE MESSIER OR GRETZKY DID. COULD YOU IMAGINE WATCHING GRETZKY, MESSIER PLAY NOW WITH THE SIZE AND THE SPEED OF THE PLAYERS NOW.
Go to Top of Page

Thrasher
Rookie



Canada
155 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  13:59:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:

That's right - Mr. Hockey himself. The reason being, as great as Howe was during his time, he doesn't come close to these other all-time greats when it comes to stats comparisons to the other players of his time. He was always one of the best in his first 15 years or so, if not the best player some of the time . . . but he didn't have that seperation between man and immortal that those top three guys I just mentioned had.


Actually Howe was top 5 in league scoring for 20 straight years, obviously a record that will never be broken. Howe is not nearly as overated as some others on this list. He played the game differently then Gretz, Mario, or Orr(haha). Alot of people compare how Iginla plays to how Howe (haha i cant stop) played. Iginla is not afraid to mix it up, play physical and can put the puck in the net, very consistent. And yes he played for too long, but i don't think he played only to break records. He played because he loved the game so much, he was ready to put his aged old butt out there with guys as old as his kids.

And to guest 2918, my english prof would rage if she saw that last post. Nothing you said really required to be capitalized. I have never heard Fuhr being compared to Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, or Luongo. Was he really considered a superstar? I have also never heard that. He was a good goalie on an amazing team, that focused on scoring goals rather than stopping them.

My vote would have to go to Kurri. Im not sure if you consider him a "superstar", but i think his numbers are bloated because of Gretz. I don't think he is truly as great as his statistics show. But maybe im way off and he deserves all the praise he gets.

Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  14:41:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
For the guys who feel Howe is overrated. This is a quote from a well respected poster on another forum. It was very well written so I thought I would quote it here.

He was top 5 in NHL scoring for 20 straight seasons. TWENTY SEASONS, in an era where a 20 year career was a rarity. Unlike Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr he was also ambidextrous. He used no curve and shot forehand both ways. How many players can say that? In his time he was larger and stronger than most or all of his peers and dominated physically. Even as an 18tr old rookie he created a buzz throughout the league when he stepped up to a Maurice Richard challenge and knocked him unconcious with one punch. If Eddie Shore was mean, Gordie Howe might have been meaner still. This is a guy who got a fighting major in the All-Star game in '48. He might be the most competative player ever. He changed his game over the years and took fewer penalties. He came back from a life-threatening injury when he fractured his skull trying to check Ted Kennedy in a playoff game. His stamina was widely accepted to be among the best and in an era where top players generally played 20-30 minutes a night, he would often play 45 or more. Even Wayne Gretzky never eclipsed Howe's career goals mark when you combine NHL and WHA. Howe scored an incredible 975 between the leagues to Gretzky's 931. He played the final 7 years of his career with severe arthritis in his wrist that led to his first retirement after the 1970-71 season. He scored at a PPG clip in the Summit Series in 1974-75.

* First or second team All-Star every season from 1949-1970 except for 1955, or 21 times in the NHL in 22 seasons
* Had his best statistical season at the age of 40 (44-59-103 +45)
* Top 5 in points in the NHL 20 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in goals in the NHL 13 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in assists in the NHL 17 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
* Top 5 in PIM in the NHL 1 time (1954)
* 6 Art Ross Trophies (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)
* 6 Hart Trophies (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963)
* Lester Patrick Trophy (1967)

Very impressive list for sure, but it's the level that he dominated those scoring races that sets him apart:

1950-51: 23.26% scoring margin (86 to 66) Age: 22
1951-52: 19.75% scoring margin (86 to 69) Age: 23
1952-53: 23.26% scoring margin (95 to 71) Age: 24
1953-54: 17.28% scoring margin (81 to 67) Age: 25
1956-57: 4.49% scoring margin (89 to 85) Age: 28
1962-63: 5.81% scoring margin (86 to 81) Age: 34

That wasn't against weak competition either. That was against players who are all-time greats. That's a level of dominance only Gretzky can rival, and that margin only gets larger if you compare it taking out his linemates.


"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

Guest0822
( )

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  17:49:25  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by willus3

His stamina was widely accepted to be among the best and in an era where top players generally played 20-30 minutes a night, he would often play 45 or more.

Wow. You'd think he'd be more productive playing all those minutes!

Just to rub it in some more, I say Orr. Some guy on this site keep harping like he's god or something. Bobby is perfect. Bobby is this. Bobby is that. Ya think he was freakin' Don Cherry or somethin'.

Though I must say, that mastercard commercial with all those scars on his knees was pretty cool.

All kidding aside though I say Dryden. A shooting tutor would be in the hall with those teams in front of him.
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2009 :  18:15:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0822

quote:
Originally posted by willus3

His stamina was widely accepted to be among the best and in an era where top players generally played 20-30 minutes a night, he would often play 45 or more.

Wow. You'd think he'd be more productive playing all those minutes!

Just to rub it in some more, I say Orr. Some guy on this site keep harping like he's god or something. Bobby is perfect. Bobby is this. Bobby is that. Ya think he was freakin' Don Cherry or somethin'.

Though I must say, that mastercard commercial with all those scars on his knees was pretty cool.

All kidding aside though I say Dryden. A shooting tutor would be in the hall with those teams in front of him.


Well done!


"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4578 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2009 :  06:40:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let's talk . . . level of domination, shall we, Willus? You say this is where Howe is set apart from his compatriots, and I agree that it is a much closer level by which to measure greatness - after all, it is nearly impossible to compare different eras. Howe's best scoring margin cited is about 23%, which Willus contends is a margin only Gretzky can rival. Hmm, let's see if Howe is even in the same class . . .

1980-81
Wayne Gretzky Edmonton . . . 164
Marcel Dionne Los Angeles . . . 135
Kent Nilsson Calgary . . . 131
21% scoring margin, 20 yrs old

1981-82
Wayne Gretzky Edmonton . . . 92g 120a 212 pts.
Mike Bossy New . . . 64g 83a 147 pts.
Peter Stastny Quebec . . . 46g 93a 139 pts.
44% scoring margin, 43.7% GOAL SCORING MARGIN, the highest ever I believe, age 21

1982-83
Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton . . . 196 pts
Peter Stastny Quebec . . . 124 pts
Denis Savard, Chicago . . . 121 pts
58% scoring margin, age 22 (age

1983-84
Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton 74 GP 87 G 118 A 205 PTS
Paul Coffey, Edmonton 80 40 86 126
Michel Goulet, Quebec 75 56 65 121
62.6% scoring margin, age 23

1984-85
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........208
2 Jari Kurri, Edmonton.............135
3 Dale Hawerchuk, Winnipeg.........130
54% scoring margin, age 24

1985-86
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........215
2 Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh........141
3 Paul Coffey, Edmonton............138
4 Jari Kurri, Edmonton.............131
52.4% scoring margin over arguably the second best forward ever, age 25

1986-87
Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton . . . 183
Jari Kurri Edmonton . . . 108
Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh . . . 107
Mark Messier Edmonton . . . 107
Gretzky beats a bunch of no-namers by a 69.4% scoring margin, age 26

1987-88
Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh . . . 168
Wayne Gretzky Edmonton . . . 149
Denis Savard Chicago . . . 131
Lemieux beats Gretzky by a 12.7% scoring margin, and everyone else by a 28.2% margin, age 22

1988-89
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh . . . 199
Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles . . . 168
Steve Yzerman, Detroit . . . 155
Lemieux, age 23, beats Gretzky by a 18.4% scoring margin, rest of the league by 28.3% margin

1989-90
Player Team GP G A Pts PIM
Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles 73gp . . . 142
Mark Messier, Edmonton 79gp . . . 129
Steve Yzerman, Detroit 79gp . . . 127
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh 59gp . . . 123
Going by points per game, Lemieux might have won the race that year, but Gretzky at age 29 wins with a 10% scoring margin

1990-91
Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles . . . 163
Brett Hull, St. Louis . . . 131
Adam Oates, St. Louis . . . 115
Gretzky, age 30 has a 24.4% scoring margin

1991-92
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh 64gp . . . 131
Kevin Stevens, Pittsburgh 80gp . . . 123
Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles 74gp . . . 121
Brett Hull, St. Louis 73gp . . . 109
Lemieux, age 26, has a 6.5% scoring margin - incredible, considering his 64 games played

1992-93
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh 60gp . . . 160
Pat LaFontaine, Buffalo 84gp . . . 148
Adam Oates, Boston 84gp . . . 142
Lemieux, age 27, has an unbelievable 8.1% scoring margin nearly a third less games

1993-94
Wayne Gretzky Los Angeles . . . 130
Sergei Fedorov Detroit . . . 120
Adam Oates Boston . . . 112
Gretzky at age 33 has an 8.3% scoring margin

1995-96
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh 70gp . . . 161
Jaromir Jagr, Pittsburgh 82gp . . . 149
Joe Sakic, Colorado 82gp . . . 120
Lemieux, age 30, has an 8% scoring margin over his HOF linemate; a 34% scoring margin over the rest of the league

I think we can see here that compared to the players in their time, Gretzky and Lemieux are in a totally different class than Howe ever was.

I rest my case, and stand by for rebuttal!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4578 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2009 :  08:18:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I lied, I'm not resting!
CONTINUED, to get a further glimpse at brilliance:

1996/97
Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh . . . 122
Teemu Selanne, Anaheim . . . 109
Paul Kariya, Anaheim . . . 99
John LeClair, Philadelphia . . . 97
Wayne Gretzky, NY Rangers . . . 97 (36 years old)
Mario, age 31, has a 10% scoring margin

1997/98
Jaromir Jagr, Pittsburgh . . . 102
Peter Forsberg, Colorado . . . 91
Pavel Bure, Vancouver . . . 90
Wayne Gretzky, NY Rangers . . . 90 (37 years old)

2002/03
Peter Forsberg Colorado 75gp . . . 106
Markus Naslund Vancouver 82gp . . . 104
Joe Thornton Boston 77gp . . . 101
Milan Hejduk Colorado 82gp . . . 98
Todd Bertuzzi Vancouver 82gp . . . 97
Pavol Demitra St. Louis 78gp . . . 93
Glen Murray Boston 82gp . . . 92
Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh 67gp . . . 91
After fighting Hodgkin's Disease and back problems, in only 67 games Mario, at age 37, makes the top ten in scoring and would have contended to win it with a full slate of games . . . incroyable!

So, the stats for scoring margins when leading the league for three of the supposedly best forwards of all time:

HOWE (statistics have been copied here from previous post)
1950-51: 23.26% (86 to 66) Age: 22
1951-52: 19.75% (86 to 69) Age: 23
1952-53: 23.26% (95 to 71) Age: 24
1953-54: 17.28% (81 to 67) Age: 25
1956-57: 4.49% (89 to 85) Age: 28
1962-63: 5.81% (86 to 81) Age: 34

LEMIEUX
1987-88: 12.7% / 28.2% (168 to Gretzky's 149, D.Savard's 131) age 22
1988-89: 18.4% / 28.3% (199 to Gretz's 168, Yzerman's 155) age 23
1991-92: 6.5% in 64(!) games (131 to 123) age 26
1992-93: 8.1 in 60(!) games (160 to 148) age 27
1995-96: 8% in 70 games (161 to 149) age 30

GRETZKY
1980-81: 21.4% (164 to 135) age 20
1981-82: 44.2% (212 to 147) age 21
1982-83: 58% (196 to 124) age 22
1983-84: 62.6% (205 to 126) age 23
1984-85: 54% (208 to 135) age 24
1985-86: 52.4% (215 to 141) age 25
1986-87: 69.4% (183 to 108) age 26
1989-90: 10% (142 to 129) age 29
1990-91: 24.4% (163 to 131) age 30
1993-94: 8.3% (130 to 120) age 33

Side by side, Lemieux and Howe are pretty even; but taking into account Lemieux's games played, he's a notch above Howe statistically, and Gretzky is, well - he's clearly the best ever, as you can see.

Howe is the Mike Gartner of the super-superstars . . . he's got longevity and consistency, and obviously brought other elements like toughness. A great, great player.

Not that close to Gretzky and Lemieux, however.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest5052
( )

Posted - 03/03/2009 :  11:46:54  Reply with Quote
Mark messier is the most overrated. Certainly a great player and superstar in his own right. But when people talk about him up there with Gretz or Mario, thats overrated. Look at his stats after he left the Rangers. They are not good (always under a point a game) and he didn't make the playoffs once. He was undoubtedly a good leader, but after the cup he accomplished little. Also it shoudl be remebered that Leetch won the conn smyth that year, and Ranford won it in 90 after Gretzky left the oilers.

Tough category, but thats my vote.

Don't get me started on Mike Gartner .... he excelled at mediocrity (well maybe a bit better than mediocre but he was never a great player)
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 03/06/2009 :  16:34:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Four comments for now:

1. Bourque - He is an interesting case - may be rated more highly now than he was when he was actually playing, especially the first half of his career. Letís not forget that quite arguably he had 2 or 3 Norris trophies stolen from him in the early/mid 80s. If that's the case, even if we believe he is a bit overrated, can we consider him the MOST overrated superstar? And I mean, it's not like anyone is saying he is greater than Orr. And even if people are wrong rating him No. 2 after Orr, is there such a wide gap between Potvin, Robinson, Lidstrom, Park or any of the other candidates and him for that No. 2 spot? I don't think so.

* also, until the mid-90s the teams he played on in Boston were pretty good teams, so I'm not sure MSC's argument about a guy shining on a so-so team works in this case

2. Dryden - whether he is overrated depends on what people conclude after reading his stats - if most people conclude something like, "Well, he has just got to be one of the top three goalies ever with stats like that" then yeah, I think he is a very strong candidate here or, at the very least for "The Superstar who we just have enough information on to really say where he ranks" award

3. Esposito - he gets my vote here. I remember when we did the top players since '67 list some people wanted him 3rd or 4th I think. To me, that is grossly overrated. Gretzky is arguably overrated too for the reason Willus mentioned, but the divide between where he should be thought of and where he is thought of seems less to me than for Espo, who in my opinion, as great as he was, probably should not be on a list of the top 15 players since 1967 (meaning people had him about 10 spots too high in my opinion).

4. Messier Ė him leading the poll here is very interesting because I donít know that many people (other than a crazy guy named Andyhack) who rate him really really highly. So Iím not sure just how overrated he can be). Anyway, my comment about Bourque applies to him too I think, in that there is a very good argument to make that up until the early 90s he was actually underrated, not overrated, certainly in the early to mid 80s I think that is the case. Even if I were to agree that he eventually became overrated, can we call a guy that 85% of the public or more don't really have a proper appreciation for just how significant a part of the Oiler Dynasty he was (especially in the '84 playoffs to get it all going), the MOST overrated superstar ever? Can we call a guy who very much helped two teams after his days with Wayne to the Cup, the MOST overrated superstar ever? I don't think so.


Edited by - andyhack on 03/06/2009 16:36:17
Go to Top of Page

Guest9278
( )

Posted - 03/08/2009 :  13:52:15  Reply with Quote
Messier play on the ice was maybe overrated but his leadership abilities made not only himself a great player but made all his teams alot better so therefore i do not think messier can be considered overrated. No one in the league had more leadership abilities and heart than messier. Everywhere he played he took the team on his shoulders....yes he played with good players but even those plyers knew messier was the teams leader all those yrs. Again, his lay on the ic maybe abit overrated but his overall play on and off the ice made him which i think in the category of the best in the history of the game
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2009 :  14:21:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think people's judgement of Messier is heavily skued towards his time in NYR and VAN which in an injustice to his abilities. Sure, he was still a strong player, but to think back to the 84 Edmonton team that won the Cup as well as the 90 Edmonton team that won the Cup, it would not be a far fetched arguement to say those teams would have lost if Messier was off the team. The other piece that people sometimes will argue is that he played with Gretzky which inflated his stats. However, one has to remember that Messier's time with Gretzky was very rare with the Oilers. Most of Messier's time was with Anderson while Gretzky played almost exclusively with Kurri. The odd PP here and there and maybe the last few minutes of a tight game, but it was not very often.

The thing with Messier that makes me rank him very high(top 5 all time) is that he was absolutely clutch through his entire career. He had an uncanny ability to find a way to win and often carried his entire team on his back and I don't think there was a guy in history that did what Messier did in the biggest moments time and again.

I would actually disagree with people who would say Messier if over rated. I would argue that is was one of the more under rated players of the Goats.


Edited by - Beans15 on 03/08/2009 14:25:07
Go to Top of Page

Old Dawg
Top Prospect



Canada
4 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2009 :  16:00:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
First of all, the person that said that Gordie Howe, Mr Hockey was over-rated does not have a clue what he is talking about. Gordie played at a time when only the best players in the game played in the NHL. There was only 6 teams in the league, not 30 like in the watered down league as today. There was another 12 teams in the minors, for a grand total of 18 professional teams. Unlike today when there about 100 or more professional teams.

Players like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, ....etc... would be lost in the minors if they could make it that far in pro hockey. They would of been very lucky to make it to the NHL. Most players playing today would have never made the minors let alone the NHL.

Messier bashers , Mark was a great leader and no one had more heart and tried as much as he did. He would do almost anything to win. Sure he didn't have the skill of a Gretzky or Lemieux, but he had as much determination to win. He didn't expect anyone to do anything he wouldn't do.

My opinon for the most over-rated superstar would have to be, number 29 on the Stanley Cup Champions of Montreal, and former President of the Maple Leafs. and current Member of Parliament of Canada, Mr. Ken Dryden. His stats were inflated by the great team that Montreal had in his time there. He was at best an average goaltender, he proved that when he played for Team Canada in the great 1972 Summit Series against the Russians. He looked like a Pee Wee goalie playing against a NHL team, just totally out-classed. Don Cherry's favorite goaltender, "The Swedish Sieve", Hardy Astrom, he could have been a superstar goaltender for Montreal at that time, but in reality Hardy just totally suck the big one, so did Dryden.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4578 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2009 :  05:42:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Old Dawg - I don't have a clue? Perhaps not . . . but your arguments are pretty weak, and certainly don't refute any point that I have made about Howe's inclusion in the top 1-4 GOAT players. Let's run through them, shall we?

Gordie played at a time when only the best players in the game played in the NHL.
Really now? And the best players in the game don't play today? lol
There was only 6 teams in the league, not 30 like in the watered down league as today. There was another 12 teams in the minors, for a grand total of 18 professional teams. Unlike today when there about 100 or more professional teams.
Well, we've all heard the "watered down league" argument . . . and, at first, it makes sense. Until you factor in little things like population growth, expansion of interest and participation, inclusion of europeans, and highly elevated physical regimens, training and fitness. Couple that with a much higher level of scouting, and you start to see that the "watered down" argument . . . doesn't hold much water.

1946, Howe's first year in the NHL:
US population: 141 mil. (now 305.9 mil.)
Canada population: 12.2 mil. (now 33.2 mil.)

Current Population of Russia, Sweden, Finland, Germany: 140.7, 9, 5.2, 82 million

Players like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, ....etc... would be lost in the minors if they could make it that far in pro hockey. They would of been very lucky to make it to the NHL. Most players playing today would have never made the minors let alone the NHL.

Obviously a ludicrous statement. In fact, I would argue that with the fitness, strength and size of the average player today, together with the much more intensive training, that today's players on the third line would be pushing 2nd liners out of jobs back in 1946. I can only imagine what strong, skilled players like you mentioned would be doing if transported back to those times . . . personally, I think they would make skilled players like Howe look slow and ordinary.

Watch a video of extended footage of Howe playing . . . observe the skating speed, the moves, etc - then watch some Ovechkin or Crosby, and try to tell me that Howe doesn't look like he's going at 2/3 speed.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

MSC
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
601 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2009 :  06:36:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I think people's judgement of Messier is heavily skued towards his time in NYR and VAN which in an injustice to his abilities. Sure, he was still a strong player, but to think back to the 84 Edmonton team that won the Cup as well as the 90 Edmonton team that won the Cup, it would not be a far fetched arguement to say those teams would have lost if Messier was off the team. The other piece that people sometimes will argue is that he played with Gretzky which inflated his stats. However, one has to remember that Messier's time with Gretzky was very rare with the Oilers. Most of Messier's time was with Anderson while Gretzky played almost exclusively with Kurri. The odd PP here and there and maybe the last few minutes of a tight game, but it was not very often.

The thing with Messier that makes me rank him very high(top 5 all time) is that he was absolutely clutch through his entire career. He had an uncanny ability to find a way to win and often carried his entire team on his back and I don't think there was a guy in history that did what Messier did in the biggest moments time and again.

I would actually disagree with people who would say Messier if over rated. I would argue that is was one of the more under rated players of the Goats.





I couldn't agree more. They really don't make players like him anymore.
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2009 :  19:34:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I lied, I'm not resting!
CONTINUED, to get a further glimpse at brilliance:...


...Howe is the Mike Gartner of the super-superstars . . . he's got longevity and consistency, and obviously brought other elements like toughness. A great, great player.

Not that close to Gretzky and Lemieux, however.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug


The point is(and the difference is) that Howe was dominating by huge margins while playing a superb two way game and being very physical and on top of that he was the toughest guy in the league. Howe isn't overrated at #2 let alone 4th.

By the way, Gretzky's goal scoring margin of 44% isn't the largest. Bobby Hull owns that. Followed very closely by his son Brett.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2009 :  19:49:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Old Dawg - I don't have a clue? Perhaps not . . . but your arguments are pretty weak, and certainly don't refute any point that I have made about Howe's inclusion in the top 1-4 GOAT players. Let's run through them, shall we?

Gordie played at a time when only the best players in the game played in the NHL.
Really now? And the best players in the game don't play today? lol
There was only 6 teams in the league, not 30 like in the watered down league as today. There was another 12 teams in the minors, for a grand total of 18 professional teams. Unlike today when there about 100 or more professional teams.
Well, we've all heard the "watered down league" argument . . . and, at first, it makes sense. Until you factor in little things like population growth, expansion of interest and participation, inclusion of europeans, and highly elevated physical regimens, training and fitness. Couple that with a much higher level of scouting, and you start to see that the "watered down" argument . . . doesn't hold much water.

1946, Howe's first year in the NHL:
US population: 141 mil. (now 305.9 mil.)
Canada population: 12.2 mil. (now 33.2 mil.)

Current Population of Russia, Sweden, Finland, Germany: 140.7, 9, 5.2, 82 million

Players like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, ....etc... would be lost in the minors if they could make it that far in pro hockey. They would of been very lucky to make it to the NHL. Most players playing today would have never made the minors let alone the NHL.

Obviously a ludicrous statement. In fact, I would argue that with the fitness, strength and size of the average player today, together with the much more intensive training, that today's players on the third line would be pushing 2nd liners out of jobs back in 1946. I can only imagine what strong, skilled players like you mentioned would be doing if transported back to those times . . . personally, I think they would make skilled players like Howe look slow and ordinary.

Watch a video of extended footage of Howe playing . . . observe the skating speed, the moves, etc - then watch some Ovechkin or Crosby, and try to tell me that Howe doesn't look like he's going at 2/3 speed.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug


Do me a favour.
You've worked out the population increase. Now work out the increase in the minor hockey enrollment and the number of jobs now available in the NHL. Work those into percentages. Then let's examine whether or not the talent pool has grown proportionately with the number of available roster positions.

Now to your point about Howe playing 2/3 speed. Take whichever player you like and drop him back into Howe's time. Now that player(let's choose a forward for this hypothetical) will be playing a minimum of 30 minutes a game up to even 45 minutes a game. How fast do you think the modern player will look? Is it possible he may slow up a bit and pick his spots as opposed to all out for a 45 second shift? You need to keep in mind in Howe's day they rolled 3 forward lines not 4. 2 pair of defencemen were rolled for most of the game as well.


As an aside(because so many now seem to think faster equals better) the game was slightly slower paced but it had much better flow and was far more entertaining.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4578 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2009 :  04:46:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Willus - I won't do you that favour. Or rather, I can't . . . as I actually have a job and need to work today, lol. But seriously though, if you have good statistical evidence against my points, go do the work yourself, by all means!

And that is a fair point about minutes per game . . . on the face of it. And you at least make the concession that in Howe's time, ALL the players are literally playing at 2/3 the speed of these days. But to say that speed is overrated? I would contend that half the time, the fast skilled players of today would be getting breakaways, skating around guys on the wing or just outracing you from the blue line. When you take into consideration the much better fitness of current times, I really don't think the longer shifts argument holds up . . . look at the playoffs, when today's big stars are playing 35-40 minutes with o/t. They are still 2/3 faster than Howe's time!

You almost insinuate that Howe could have skated faster if he only played shorter shifts and less minutes . . . which of course would have also inflated point totals - more time on the ice, that is. This would seem to diminish his accomplishments, actually.

Just because the game might seem more entertaining to you because the action is slower and skillset is lower, doesn't mean the players are as good! I love watching women's hockey when it's the US and Canada going at it . . . it's far more entertaining than a NJ Devils vs Minnesota Wild game.

And Willus! The point was that Howe wasn't dominating by huge margins for more than three years . . . I posted all the numbers, they ae there for you to look at . . . but you have gone back to the only Howe argument available: feel-good nostalgia about an icon of hockey.

Howe was an amazingly durable player, and one of the best of his day. He deserves a place of honour in the halls of hockey, as one of the first great ambassadors of the game and an impressive total of games and points.

I still maintain that he does not deserve to be in the top 4 GOAT.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2009 :  18:13:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Willus - I won't do you that favour. Or rather, I can't . . . as I actually have a job and need to work today, lol. But seriously though, if you have good statistical evidence against my points, go do the work yourself, by all means!

And that is a fair point about minutes per game . . . on the face of it. And you at least make the concession that in Howe's time, ALL the players are literally playing at 2/3 the speed of these days. But to say that speed is overrated? I would contend that half the time, the fast skilled players of today would be getting breakaways, skating around guys on the wing or just outracing you from the blue line. When you take into consideration the much better fitness of current times, I really don't think the longer shifts argument holds up . . . look at the playoffs, when today's big stars are playing 35-40 minutes with o/t. They are still 2/3 faster than Howe's time!

You almost insinuate that Howe could have skated faster if he only played shorter shifts and less minutes . . . which of course would have also inflated point totals - more time on the ice, that is. This would seem to diminish his accomplishments, actually.

Just because the game might seem more entertaining to you because the action is slower and skillset is lower, doesn't mean the players are as good! I love watching women's hockey when it's the US and Canada going at it . . . it's far more entertaining than a NJ Devils vs Minnesota Wild game.

And Willus! The point was that Howe wasn't dominating by huge margins for more than three years . . . I posted all the numbers, they ae there for you to look at . . . but you have gone back to the only Howe argument available: feel-good nostalgia about an icon of hockey.

Howe was an amazingly durable player, and one of the best of his day. He deserves a place of honour in the halls of hockey, as one of the first great ambassadors of the game and an impressive total of games and points.

I still maintain that he does not deserve to be in the top 4 GOAT.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug


I said you should do the work because I have seen the numbers before. I know what the answer is. But I'm not going to do that research for you. If you claim something you should have at least done the requisite research.

I know you didn't live through that era but have you ever actually seen an original six game? Not highlights. An entire game.

Also, when comparing talent across eras you cannot simply pit a modern player against an older player. Why would the modern player get the benefits of modern training, equipment and nutrition but the older player does not? I assure you, those things are the only differences between players now and then. You are born with talent or you aren't. That has not changed. So when comparing you can either imagine what either player would be like in the others time with the same training, equipment and nutrition or you can compare how they stacked up against their peers. The latter is the better route.

You are coming off sounding like a young disrespectful punk because you think you can ascertain Howe's greatness from his numbers without having seen him play and then you tell me my argument is just nostalgia. You have no idea how good Howe was because you haven't seen him play. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are players who dominate a scoreboard and there are players who dominate games. Howe was the latter. I'll try and give you a modern player who you have probably seen to help you understand. If you just looked at Forberg's numbers without having seen him play do you think you would understand how great he was? You wouldn't have a clue if you hadn't seen him play.

"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan

Edited by - willus3 on 03/10/2009 18:16:08
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2009 :  21:31:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My Nemesis Willus, Touchť on the Forsberg analogy. I could not agree more.

However, I have to say that I kinda agree with the aforementioned "punk" on something. Although I agree with you in the fact that you can not simply place a player today into the 60's and expect the same result. You have to consider the changes in things such as technology, training, and the lack of today's players having regular life jobs. However, if we are speaking hypothetically, one has to consider taking a player from the "original 6Ē era and putting them into the "modern era" at the same time to even attempt to make a reasonable comparison.

This being said, I take Howe (who I admit that I did not see much of) and place him into the 80's, 90's, or even today. Is he head and shoulders above the rest??? I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I'm just not sure.

As our old buddy Andyhack will often bring in Tennis as a comparison, let's bring in golf. Everyone today things that Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer that ever lived and that it's only a matter of time until he owns every record in the book. However, take a player like Jack Nicklaus. He was a God among men when he played. Now take a comparison of Jack in today's age, technology, training, and courses and compare that to Tiger in the 60's era of golf. I personally thing that Tiger doesn't hold a candle to Jack in the 60's and that a mid-20's Nicklaus today would step on any golfer that came across his path, including the great Eldrick Woods.

So I agree that you can not simple take a player from the 60's and drop him into the game today and have a similar comparison and vise versa. The point I am trying to make is that today's stars in the 60's or the 60's stars in today's NHL, I am just not sure that Howe would be as dominating today as he was in his day or that today's starts would have been closer to Howe than his peers were in his day.


It's not a completely invalid point.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4578 Posts

Posted - 03/11/2009 :  20:18:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Willus - don't keep calling me a punk, show me these numbers you say you have seen, please! I already have supported my argument with some stats, difficult as it is to compare across decades and decades . . . you are the one who has counte-rargued something with no proof, dude!

Yes, I have watched old games in full. Quite enjoyable stuff. I made it a point to re-watch some Howe, in fact, before I wrote my lengthy piece.

The Forsberg analogy is good; however, it doesn't convince me that Howe was any more dominating than he was . . . and I sound disrespectful?!? Did you read the last bit I wrote about Howe?!? Crap, man . . . I don't know if I could have written it with more respect! And thanks for calling this 35 turning 36 year old a "young punk" . . .

. . . but here, I must stop, if simply out of reverence for the legend that he was, as Howe's wife just passed away.

Tonight, I'll tip my glass of brandy his way.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest9188
( )

Posted - 03/11/2009 :  21:42:01  Reply with Quote
I put Messier because compared to the others on that list, he was the least skilled. He outworked everybody on the ice at all times, was a great leader, etc it's all been said before, but he was not actually a "superstar" in the sense that lemieux or coffey was. No dynamic skills, just good size and a refusal to accept losing as an option.
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 03/14/2009 :  16:33:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
True, Messier doesn't fit the "superDUPERstar" status of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. And he didn't have their talent. But should his relative lack of skill level be counted against him when considering the answer to this question? Are the other qualities he brought to the table not things we should "rate"?

Anyway, my guess is that 95% or more of people out there don't think Messier belongs in a discussion with names like the above, so he is NOT really "rated" up there anyway. He does seem to be rated near the top of the next group.

I mention this because the key to the word "overrated", obviously, is where is the person rated. With that in mind, that Messier is far and away leading this poll is a bit puzzling. To me it is an argument that probably has to be based on a "he was one lucky SOB" way of thinking. Lucky to have played with Wayne up until '88. And then lucky to have played with some other great Oilers in '90. And then lucky to have had some great teammates on the Rangers in '94.

But if that is the way of thinking, why do we view him as SO MUCH luckier than Dryden or Esposito? I mean, if we were asking this question as they were playing, we would say to Mark in 1990, Ken in 1979 and Phil in 1975, "okay let's see what you can do now?" (meaning Mark without Wayne, Ken without the Habs defense, and Phil without Orr).

The answers:

Ken retired after 1979, so we will never know

Phil played well for the Rangers, helped them to a final, but I think it is fair to say was far from a superstar

And Mark (the guy running away with this poll)? Well, he went on to win some Harts and lead two different teams to the Cup.

Was he simply a "lucky SOB" to have had some very good players on those post-Gretzky teams? Maybe. But, that HAS to be explanation for you guys I think. I'm actually really trying to help you. Because without that sort of angle in your argument, Mark Messier being the most overrated superstar ever simply doesn't compute.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit - I didn't mention Howe on the list because, frankly Slozo-san, you are the first person I have ever heard call Howe overrated. Interesting choice. I didn't see him in his prime so find it hard to comment, but 90 point seasons in the '50s for a guy playing "all-round hockey" is pretty impressive. And let's remember that generally speaking, in the general public's eye anyway, he is probably not "rated" in the top three. For Howe to be the MOST overrated then, I think you probably have to argue that guys like Bourque, Messier Lafleur... are clearly more entitled to their "ratings" than Howe is to his

Edited by - andyhack on 03/14/2009 17:52:46
Go to Top of Page

irvine
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1315 Posts

Posted - 03/14/2009 :  18:52:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have looked over the list here around 3-4 times. And I just can not decide. All great players during their prime and era, plus some.

Unfortunatly I just can not choose, but I would like to take this chance to say that Raymond Bourque is the greatest of all time! :P (personal opinion of course.)

In some instances, I believe Ray may be slightly under rated. You hear very little of him, in any topic. Especially when considering the greatest D-man of all time. I understand the love for Orr, but Bourque had a very solid, long career.

Irvine
Go to Top of Page

umteman
PickupHockey Pro



USA
426 Posts

Posted - 03/15/2009 :  11:21:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hanley6

the award for the MOST OVERRATED former Superstars goes to #88 Eric Lindros


Amen
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 03/15/2009 :  15:50:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Lindros probably should not be eligible for this discussion, as the idea was to talk about players who are shoe-ins for the HOF. Eric is not a shoe-in.

There is a thread somehwere debating whether Lindros should get in, which is really where the Hanley post belongs.

On another note, my take on Coffey is this - if we are we calling him "one of the greatest defencemen ever" he is far more overrated, than if we are calling him "one of the greatest players ever". What I mean is that it is fairly easy to argue that he should never have won a Best Defenceman Award, as he was not great defensively, but it is much harder to argue that he was not a spectacular force of nature on the ice in an offensive role.



Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 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