Your Wildly Outrageous (History of) Hockey Opinions...

[K Fleur]

I can’t remember ever thinking Lundqvist was a particularly impressive goaltender. Like he was ok, but always very overrated.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think Central is probably best with the Playoff Schedule and the full back to back. Tonight the Rangers/Canes game is at 6 local time, and the Oilers/Canucks is at 9, of course those are not the actual start times which is a whole different thing and Oilers/Canucks will probably actually drop at like 9:20. It's still too late to stay up most of the time though, unless it's like a Game 7. For East Coast people though, it's like lol. They'd have to stay up until 1 am on a Thursday to finish that game which isn't practical. Maybe Mountain is better, you'll probably miss first period of the east coast game but I suppose that's more ideal than missing the end.

Yeah, tell me about it...I'm a career Eastern time guy...and have made it a point to watch every minute of every Stanley Cup Playoff game for a majority of my adult life. So...there was some pretty tough days at work the next day. Not that I'm amazing sleep anyhow, but on longer nights I'd set an alarm and cat nap during the overtime intermissions haha

Witnessing history > six-ish weeks of sleep

@Michael Farkas @The Panther

I should clarify, and this may be my fault for being hyperbolic. My point wasn't to completely trash the early 80s, but to point out the mid/late 70s weren't weaker than the early 80s.

I would say the 70s were more unbalanced, obviously there were lots of terrible teams in both leagues and too many teams. However the quality of hockey between the top teams was superior to the early 80s, in my opinion.

Also to @Michael Farkas, the tidbit about my uncle is completely irrelevant. My agenda comes from growing up in Winnipeg and watching the Jets. I explained this to you already and not sure why you are trying to use it against me like a broken record. My uncle was a brief career minor leaguer, not good enough for the WHA even. I only brought it up because he had some interesting insight into the league and pro hockey in general.

I don't want to use anything against you. I was just responding to the notion that I'm speaking about things without watching it. That's not me. I just want to have interesting, reasonable conversations haha

 

[Michael Farkas]

And after looking at the rosters, maybe he's right? There were some pretty shaky depth defencemen on both 1991 teams. The Fighting Saints teams he coached in 73-74 and 74-75 had four solid defencemen with NHL experience. I haven't watched a single Fighting Saints game so I can't give an opinion, but Neale would certainly be qualified to say.

Pittsburgh - Paul Coffey (injured, PP only), Larry Murphy, Ulf Samuelsson, Gordie Roberts, Paul Stanton, Peter Taglianetti, Jim Paek

North Stars - Mark Tinordi, Shawn Chambers, Jim Johnson, Chris Dahlquist, Neil Wilkinson, Brian Glynn

Neale's Fighting Saints - Mike McMahon, John Arbour, Rick Smith, Terry Ball. All former NHLers. Plus bottom pairing D Dick Paradise and Ron Busniak who didn't really do anything outside the WHA.

And to your larger point...Neale might be right. I really think this the crux of a lot of things. Like, not the North Stars vs the Fighting Saints precisely...but the concept. The infinite-time version of me jumps on this right away, in fact. I find this to be extremely interesting and I think it has huge repercussions.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The watering down in the 70s was different from the 80s because of the way the expansion and entry of players came about. With the 70s, they just added a bunch of new, essentially Minor League, teams. Players that came through the O6 were still around and still remained on their teams. Players weren't really added via a Draft until Expansion, which replaced the direct sponsorship of Junior Hockey. It was a bit of a hybrid system at the end of O6 with players only being draft eligible if they weren't already affiliated, but meant as a phasing/transition.

It takes a while for the league to flip over to a point where the majority of players came in through the Draft which would spread the talent leaguewide. Add in the factor that in early draft days, you had expansion teams with terrible finances just hoping to survive, or just not understanding the value of draft picks (since it was still new), so a team like Montreal could exploit that and trade OK players for draft picks.

Looking through the 75-76 Canadiens:

Guy LaFleur - 1971 1st overall pick (traded from Golden Seals)
Steve Shutt - 1972 4th overall pick (traded from Kings)
Doug Risebrough - 1974 7th overall pick (traded from Blues)
Bob Gainey - 1973 8th overall pick (traded from Blues, although this was a trade purely of draft picks)
Mario Tremblay - 1974 12th overall pick (traded from Kings)

Larry Robinson was obviously the big steal with the 20th pick (2nd round) in 1971, which was itself a traded for pick from Los Angeles.

Montreal was really the first team to understand the value of the Draft and to take advantage of it to really built them a superteam at a time the League was pretty diluted and had a lot of bad teams, which gave way to their dominant dynasty in the late 70s. They adapted to the end of the sponsorship of Junior Hockey as well as one could expect.

 

[blogofmike]

I guess while we're in a weird thread...and I think I'm a big "quality of league".......guy...here.

How do folks keep getting away with full freight on the whole "pro teams" argument when talking about the WHA?

They get credit because they stole top players. They don't have to be great top to bottom to deny the NHL a significant number of good players.

Furthermore, the 21 team NHL was a thing for 12 years before further expansion. The 12 team NHL kept growing.

The top scorers in the WHA generally couldn't hack it in the NHL. The teams came over and finished generally last.

We're comparing the 68-79 expansion to the 79-80 expansion.

Top 20 Point Scorers from outside the NHL, 1968
20. Eddie Joyal, 57 Points

Top 20 Point scorers from WHA, 1980
1. Wayne Gretzky, 137
5. Mike Rogers, 105
8. Blaine Stoughton, 100
10. Blair MacDonald, 94
12. Kent Nilsson, 93
18. Real Cloutier, 89

And thanks to Mike Liut, a WHA player also led the NHL in wins.

And I'm not saying the WHA didn't have any talent and everyone was bad. They flashed some cash and grabbed some guys...but how many legit NHL teams could you have formed out of that league?

Here's the roster to the 1977 WHA All-Star game: WHA Game Summary

Is that the two legit NHL teams that you could make? I don't know...it's a bigger ask than I have time for right now and too many people that claim full freight for WHA "pro teams x100!" argument have also admitted to not watching it...so we may not get an answer to this any time soon...but do we have to keep accepting that trope at face value these days?

The NHL of the 1970s was of exceptionally poor quality.

It looks like exactly 4 WHA teams could enter the NHL and finish ahead of the Colorado Rockies (Jets only on a wins tiebreaker). And that's with the NHL claiming a fair amount of NHL talent, including good goaltenders who had solid careers like Pat Riggin, Richard Brodeur, and Mike Liut.

The 48 point '79 Blues might also have been worse than some WHA teams, if they continued with their club average .865 save percentage. However, the 1980 Blues were able to pick up Mike Liut from the WHA, who posted an .895, while 1979 holdover Ed Staniowski continued the tradition of awful 70s goaltending by posting an .861 for the same team. The 34-34-12 Blues went 32-23-9 with WHA goaltending, and 2-11-3 with 1970s NHL goaltending.

Also, the post 1967-68 expansion era saw the old stars dominate the NHL and post new records. In 1972, Bobby Clarke ties for 10th place in points. Clarke is the only player from a non-O6 team. Aside from Clarke, Bobby Orr is the only other player under 28.

By 1984, 10th-place Rick Middleton at age 30, is the only guy 28 years old or over. New blood is outcompeting the old guard, instead of the old guard coasting to success.

6 of the Top 7 scorers are new because they're 23 or under or they're Peter Stastny.

14 of the top 18 scorers weren't NHLers in 1978-79.

8 of the top 13 scorers are on WHA teams.

 

[DitchMarner]

I can’t remember ever thinking Lundqvist was a particularly impressive goaltender. Like he was ok, but always very overrated.

Hmmm... I think the offense of some of those Rangers teams circa 2015 is underrated. There weren't any big stars in their primes (except Nash if you want to count him), but they had great four line depth when they were going far in the playoffs and finishing high in the standings. They were a good transition team and could score off the rush.

Lundqvist was the biggest name and a lot of people give him most of the credit for the Rangers' success in the mid-2010s.

That said, their defense wasn't great. They had Staal and Girardi... meh.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Here's my hot take. The sponsorship program was better for the sport as a whole. It died because of expansion but it would work wonders today.

Pro teams had a direct financial intetest in ensuring the health of junior teams. It focused on player development instead of stacking your team with 19 year plds to win. And created a community tie between pro team and junior city.

It would destroy drafting though. But would create better players across Canada.

The CHL is inherently a developmental league but its finances are run as a competitive league.

Top to bottom the NHL doesn't spend enough on minor hockey

 

[Michael Farkas]

That said, their defense wasn't great. They had Staal and Girardi... meh.

For the time and their style, the Rangers team defense was quite good. In 2011 and 2012, 4 of their 6 d-men got at least fringe Norris consideration if I recall...Girardi finished 5th or 6th one year in there...

 

[WarriorofTime]

WHA didn't hit the NHL proportionately either.

Look at the Golden Seals:

Ken Baird	Alberta Oilers (WHA)	free agency
Gary Jarrett	Cleveland Crusaders (WHA)	free agency
Gary Kurt	New York Raiders (WHA)	free agency
Gerry Pinder	Cleveland Crusaders (WHA)	free agency
Bobby Sheehan	New York Raiders (WHA)	free agency
Paul Shmyr	Cleveland Crusaders (WHA)	free agency
Tom Webster	New England Whalers (WHA)	free agency

Pinder and Sheehan were the top two scorers. Ferguson was top six and claimed in Expansion Draft. Hicke was the guy they traded the LaFleur pick for, and he got claimed in Expansion Draft.

It was a rough go, lol

 

[Michael Farkas]

WHA didn't hit the NHL proportionately either.

This is a good point to consider. Especially if we're talking about "how many NHL caliber teams are we talking about?"

Also, @blogofmike I see your post and want to give it the time it deserves. I'll come back to it.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Hmmm... I think the offense of some of those Rangers teams circa 2015 is underrated. There weren't any big stars in their primes (except Nash if you want to count him), but they had great four line depth when they were going far in the playoffs and finishing high in the standings. They were a good transition team and could score off the rush.

Lundqvist was the biggest name and a lot of people give him most of the credit for the Rangers' success in the mid-2010s.

That said, their defense wasn't great. They had Staal and Girardi... meh.

It wasn't great but it was one of the better groups in the league back then. McDonagh, Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, Stralman is pretty damn good

 

[DitchMarner]

Neale's Fighting Saints - Mike McMahon, John Arbour, Rick Smith, Terry Ball. All former NHLers. Plus bottom pairing D Dick Paradise and Ron Busniak who didn't really do anything outside the WHA.

If that was my name, I'd definitely want to be called Richard...

 

[JackSlater]

Here's my hot take. The sponsorship program was better for the sport as a whole. It died because of expansion but it would work wonders today.

Pro teams had a direct financial intetest in ensuring the health of junior teams. It focused on player development instead of stacking your team with 19 year plds to win. And created a community tie between pro team and junior city.

It would destroy drafting though. But would create better players across Canada.

The CHL is inherently a developmental league but its finances are run as a competitive league.

Top to bottom the NHL doesn't spend enough on minor hockey

I'm torn on this. What is described is basically the soccer development model. You'd probably get better players but a worse, much more imbalanced league.

 

[rmartin65]

To take from this lead, an unpopular opinion I have is that without actually watching games, full games, of a player you can't legitimately be that confident discussing them. There is a sizable contingent that likes to look at award voting and top ten scoring finishes and leave it at that but a whole lot is missed. To an even greater degree, not living through a player's career can leave a hole in knowledge that I'm not sure can be bridged. I think this explains various things that looking at awards/scoring finishes causes people to miss.

I think this is antithetical to the very idea of the History of Hockey board (and I guess the discipline of Historical study in general). So once everyone who watched a particular player/era has died, we can't talk about them anymore?

You won't get any arguments from me that watching players is ideal, but that's just not an option once you go back a certain length of time. And the quality and availability of full length games get worse even earlier than that.

I think working with incomplete data- and recognizing that it is incomplete - is better than just throwing up our hands saying 'welp, that era doesn't exist anymore'.

 

[MadLuke]

we can't talk about them anymore?

I take it more, not without reading what people of the time that watched it are saying, it will biased (toward your favorite, toward spectacular over efficient, etc...) but will have value.

 

[JackSlater]

I think this is antithetical to the very idea of the History of Hockey board (and I guess the discipline of Historical study in general). So once everyone who watched a particular player/era has died, we can't talk about them anymore?

You won't get any arguments from me that watching players is ideal, but that's just not an option once you go back a certain length of time. And the quality and availability of full length games get worse even earlier than that.

I think working with incomplete data- and recognizing that it is incomplete - is better than just throwing up our hands saying 'welp, that era doesn't exist anymore'.

It does go against the idea that some on this board have. You're still exaggerating quite a bit to suggest that I claimed anything like a person cannot discuss someone they weren't around to experience. Something gets lost when you didn't see a player however. Too often people are willing to dismiss contemporary opinion based on scoring finishes or something, even though the people of the time had access to the exact same scoring finishes and also had the chance to experience the player.

 

[MadLuke]

Memories of players fade but the numbers stay the same. People who watched Orr and Gretzky often pick Orr as the better player; plenty pick Gretzky as well but it's pretty close. People who watched only Gretzky or neither player almost always go with Gretzky.

To a certain point, Morenz numbers specially in the playoff are not special, Shore legend will have no numbers to speak for it, while many people today have any modern stars > Gretzky, Howe despite their undeniable numbers. Richard has 0 Art Ross and arguably the third-biggest legend of the sport behind Howe-Gretzky.

Esposito numbers, for example, seem to have an * that could follow him forever and Forsberg will maybe always be more than his.

 

[JackSlater]

To a certain point, Morenz numbers specially in the playoff are not special, Shore legend will have no numbers to speak of it, while many people today have some, any modern stars > Gretzky, Howe despite the undeniable numbers. Richard has 0 Art Ross and arguably the third-biggest legend of the sport behind Howe-Gretzky.

Esposito numbers, for example, seem to have an * that could follow him forever and Forsberg will maybe always be more than his.

Yeah I think that Esposito is a textbook example of this but those threads have already taken place. For another unpopular opinion I think that Yzerman/Sakic should definitely rank above Esposito. Stay tuned to see if I get scoring finishes and award counts I've seen a hundred times to convince me otherwise.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It does go against the idea that some on this board have. You're still exaggerating quite a bit to suggest that I claimed anything like a person cannot discuss someone they weren't around to experience. Something gets lost when you didn't see a player however. Too often people are willing to dismiss contemporary opinion based on scoring finishes or something, even though the people of the time had access to the exact same scoring finishes and also had the chance to experience the player.

The contemporary opinion is still available and super super valuable.

I can go and read about the defensive prowess of George Hay in 1922 in a 500 word description and play-by-play of the game. I know the condition of the ice, who backchecked, good saves, good passes, who did what, what the crowd cheered for, who screwed up. Better yet, if you get two reporters' description of a game you can compare and contrast.

To me, that is worth tons. It's the best we have. And it is so much more than just scoring finishes.

For guys 1955 onwards, we have enough tape. I can see Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr fly over dozens of games.

But for Russell Bowie and Eddie Shore, the newspaper is all we have.

 

[blogofmike]

Also, @blogofmike I see your post and want to give it the time it deserves. I'll come back to it.

Well that sounds ominous...

 

[Midnight Judges]

I can’t remember ever thinking Lundqvist was a particularly impressive goaltender. Like he was ok, but always very overrated.

He doesn't have 1 peak season that jumps off the page, but can you name a goalie from his generation who was more consistently excellent?

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think there's a solid in between when it comes to assessing a player live, or via archived footage and just looking at scoring finishes and the like. There's a bulk of information out there if you are disciplined and committed to studying. Books, documentaries, news reports and the like. It's really no different than any history. You don't need to have been a contemporary of Alexander the Great to have opinions of his military tactics.

 

[The Macho King]

If that was my name, I'd definitely want to be called Richard...

I'd be worried of living up to the expectations. I'm more of a Dick Nice Vacation but Nothing Spectacular.

 

[The Macho King]

It does go against the idea that some on this board have. You're still exaggerating quite a bit to suggest that I claimed anything like a person cannot discuss someone they weren't around to experience. Something gets lost when you didn't see a player however. Too often people are willing to dismiss contemporary opinion based on scoring finishes or something, even though the people of the time had access to the exact same scoring finishes and also had the chance to experience the player.

I kind of go the other way - I think a lot of "eye test" stuff is hooey. We're obviously speaking about this a bit in the Lidros/St. Louis thread, but especially for these offensive players, they should be judged on their production instead of how good they looked doing it. Context is fine, but certain playstyles are more visually distinctive without resulting in better production and I think that's an error in how we watch rather than something that sets them apart.

 

[MadLuke]

He doesn't have 1 peak season that jumps off the page, but can you name a goalie from his generation who was more consistently excellent?

Post season, Olympics and regular season...

2007-2017 windows, he has
Most playoff games, 4ht best save percentage (best among the 60 or more playoffs games)
Most regular season games, 4th best save percentage (among 200 games, no one significantly better)

In a world of musical chair for the Top 3 best goaltenders in the league, it could feel by moments he was the only one in the conversation every single season.

The Rangers were fourth in playoff wins , 6th in regular season wins with the best defense in the league during that stretch, Lunqvist being a big part of that success, the only constant (with Girardi) seem fair enough.