NHL

[Fionavar]

As with board software, in all things balance:

• 1
  
• 2
  
• 3
  

[alanschu]

Fair enough with my QMJHL numbers being incorrect. It's hard to ignore the 133 goal season he had, in addition to the insane improvements he had each season in the QMJHL.

 

Compared to his first season, Crosby's progression was not nearly as good as Lemieux's (doubled his rookie performance in his second year, and tripled it in his third year).

 

 

The thing I never liked about many media "experts" is how they would jump on the gun with players like Daigle and Crosby, indicating that they scored more points than Lemieux did in his rookie season, when looking at the stats it's clear Lemieux was just starting to tap his potential when he entered the league.

 

You may not have been saying Sid will or will not be better than Mario, but you should not be surprised to have people challenging the comparison as soon as you point out their respective rookie years.

 

I'm curious how well Sid is going to do, now that both Mario and Palffy are out of the picture.

[GhostofAnakin]

I don't know the exact break down of Mario's second season, but I can tell you from keeping a close watch on it that Sidney's second year numbers, while decent compared to his first, are misleading.

 

He actually got off to a "slow" start by his standards. He had something like 74 points in 38 games. He then went to the World Juniors. When he returned in January, the Oceanic went on a 29 game unbeaten streak (yes, you read that correct) in the regular season and Crosby got something like 90 points in 26 games he played in when he returned.

 

But that's besides the point. As I said the only reason I brought it up was as a guideline to see what other "superstar" players got in their rookie season. I could have just as easily said Eric Lindros got 75 points in his rookie year instead, or someone who I think Crosby's game will be more similar to, Steve Yzerman had 87 points in his rookie year.

[alanschu]

Given the retarded amount of exposure he seems to get from the media, if he has a Steve Yzerman career, he will not have lived up to the hype.

 

People weren't calling him "The Next One" for no reason.

[GhostofAnakin]

They called Lindros "The Next One" when he was coming up, too.

 

I think people lose sight of the fact "The Next One" means the next NHL superstar, not exactly the next Gretzky.

 

Considering the point totals Yzerman put up over his career, if Crosby comes close to matching or surpassing that, I don't see how you can say he didn't live up to the hype.

 

Does the kid literally have to duplicate Gretzky's astronomical numbers to "live up to the hype"? If so, then I think you misunderstood why they called him "The Next One".

 

edit: for example, LeBron James is supposed to be the next Michael Jordan. Does that mean he's a bust if he doesn't average over 30 points a game each season and lead his team to 6 NBA championships? No. As long as he's the most dominant player in the CURRENT NBA, then he's live up to the hype. Same with Crosby. At the end of his career if he was considered the most dominant player during his era, then he lived up to the hype.

Edited January 24, 2006 by GhostofAnakin

[alanschu]

Considering the point totals Yzerman put up over his career, if Crosby comes close to matching or surpassing that, I don't see how you can say he didn't live up to the hype.

 

Yzerman has had an excellent career, and has been my favourite player in the NHL since I started watching it again in 2000. But you're fooling yourself if people aren't expecting Gretzky/Lemieux greatness out of him.

 

 

For LeBron to be the next Michael Jordan, he does have to be dominating. In every aspect of the game, with an insane intensity and an ability to come through in the clutch.

 

 

Does the kid literally have to duplicate Gretzky's astronomical numbers to "live up to the hype"? If so, then I think you misunderstood why they called him "The Next One".

 

Yes he does. Not absolute numbers, but relative numbers. He can't just be "a little" better than the Kovalchuks and the Ovechkins.

 

edit: for example, LeBron James is supposed to be the next Michael Jordan. Does that mean he's a bust if he doesn't average over 30 points a game each season and lead his team to 6 NBA championships? No. As long as he's the most dominant player in the CURRENT NBA, then he's live up to the hype. Same with Crosby. At the end of his career if he was considered the most dominant player during his era, then he lived up to the hype.

 

Again, it's all relative. If he's the "most dominating" player in the NBA, but not in the way that Jordan was, then he doesn't live up to the hype. He'll need to be dominating offensively, defensively, and especially in the clutch.

 

As an aside, while I don't watch much basketball, LeBron doesn't seem to be that similar of a player to Jordan anyways.

Edited January 24, 2006 by alanschu

[GhostofAnakin]

I think you read way more in to the hype than was supposed to be there, then.

 

My expectations and what I read into the hype about him being "The Next One" was plain and simply that he'd be the next dominant player of his era, with the possibility of coming close to breaking some of Gretzky's records. Not that he was expected to do that, or be a bust.

[alanschu]

Even the fact that you acknowledge that he has the "possibility" of breaking his records implies much more than just being the next dominant player of his era.

 

I'm not saying that he is expected to break it. But he must be able to put up totals that can make you think it's a "possibility" that he could break a record...in your own words.

 

 

If I read "way more" in to the hype, then so did everyone else. How many people point out the lacrosse goal and stuff like that. The kid has been receiving HUGE praise for a long time already, and is even known to non-hockey fans.

[GhostofAnakin]

So if the kid consistently puts up 130 to 160 points per season, you'd still say he didn't live up to the hype?

 

Maybe it's just me, but assuming he does something like that, I can't see how that still means he didn't live up to the hype all because he didn't get 200 points or 90 goals.

 

If he ends his career with 3 or 4 scoring titles and 3 or 4 Hart trophies, would that be enough for you? Or does he have to win 10 scoring titles, score 200 points atleast once, and 9 Harts before he lives up to the hype?

 

My point is you seem to expect him to BE Gretzky before he lives up to the hype. He can't just be a superstar and dominate his current generation. He's got to BE Gretzky. And I think that's ridiculous.

[snowcat]

Kariya scored in the first minute of OT as the Preds beat Detriot for the 2nd night in a row 2-1. (w00t)

 

Can you believe it? The Nashville Predators are tied for first place in the Western Conference in the 2nd half of the season.

 

It may not last long, but the fans here in Nashville will be celebrate while we can.

Edited January 25, 2006 by snowcat

[GhostofAnakin]

How loyal are Nashville fans towards a hockey team, though?

 

Reason I ask is because it's easy to cheer for a winner, but if they start to suck are we going to see arenas with less than 6000 fans each game?

[Hurlshort]

I don't think Nashville fans are that picky. You see older hockey markets take an attendance drop when the team is bad, but young markets tend to stay strong...if the community backs the idea of a pro sports team. Carolina has always had trouble filling the seats because it's not a great place to have a team. It's NASCAR country.

[mkreku]

It's sad when you're actually glad your team didn't play tonite.. go.. Leafs.. yeah..

[alanschu]

So if the kid consistently puts up 130 to 160 points per season, you'd still say he didn't live up to the hype?

 

Depends on what other people are doing. If 10 other players are putting up similar numbers, then no.

 

 

My point is you seem to expect him to BE Gretzky before he lives up to the hype.  He can't just be a superstar and dominate his current generation.  He's got to BE Gretzky.  And I think that's ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Relative to the rest of the league, yes. He has to be such a dominating player, that when compared to his peers, there's virtually no equal. Maybe a handful of others, but not just in the elite class.

 

You mentioned Yzerman, and if Crosby has a Yzerman career, then that means that he puts up impressive point totals, but all in all gets unrecognized because there are two much more impressive offensive players dominating the game in such a way that no one even really seems to realize you are putting up 140 point seasons.

[snowcat]

How loyal are Nashville fans towards a hockey team, though?

 

Reason I ask is because it's easy to cheer for a winner, but if they start to suck are we going to see arenas with less than 6000 fans each game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Predators didn't make the playoffs in their first five years of their existence, but crowds were never too bad. Back then. weekday crowds would be in the 7,000-8,000 range, but weekends were still around 10,000-11,000 with the occasional sellout.

 

The playoff season of 2003-2004 really starting getting a new group of fans (like me), and this season the Predators are getting equal(or better) time with other sports on talk sports radio for the first time ever.

 

With the demise of the Titans this season, the Predators are the hot team right now. I really have no idea what will happen in future seasons.

[mkreku]

Swedish newspapers are reporting today that the captain is trying to leave the sinking ship. I'm talking about Sundin and the Leafs. According to Aftonbladet, Sundin is almost halfway out the door and on the way to either Calgary or Vancouver, because he's sick and tired of having to play with players like Nik Antropov and Alexei Ponikarovsky on his wings. I wish Ferguson/Quinn could get him some good wingers..

 

Not that it would matter much, Sundin doesn't seem to be a perfect fit for the new NHL. He's not dominating games anymore. Still, it isn't good for any team to lose their captain in the middle of the season.

 

Edit: Phew!

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...BNStory/Sports/

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1138143048506

 

Swedish newspapers suck.

Edited January 25, 2006 by mkreku

[GhostofAnakin]

You mentioned Yzerman, and if Crosby has a Yzerman career, then that means that he puts up impressive point totals, but all in all gets unrecognized because there are two much more impressive offensive players dominating the game in such a way that no one even really seems to realize you are putting up 140 point seasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I said Yzerman-like numbers.

 

I wasn't likening him to Yzerman compared to Lemieux and Gretzky. I was saying if he put up numbers like Yzerman did.

 

You can't argue that Yzerman, when all is said and done, won't go down in NHL history as one of the best players ever. He certainly ranks in the Top 50 of all time, which, by my estimation, any player that matches that can't be considered not living up to any hype.

 

Why is everything a comparison to Gretzky or Lemieux's numbers to you? Gordie Howe didn't come close to those two. Messier didn't either (per season. Over the course of their careers they had good point totals). Yet both of those guys could arguably compete with Lemieux and Gretzky for "greatest player ever".

 

Which goes back to what I've repeated a bunch of times now. If Crosby DOMINATES his era, but does it by scoring "only" 130 to 150 points, instead of coming close to 200 points, then he lived up to the hype.

 

You've contradicted yourself a couple of times by first saying that he has to atleast challenge Gretzky's records (something Messier, Howe, Richard, etc. best point or goal totals never did, btw) to live up to the hype. Then you say in your last response that he has to dominate his era, which is basically what I proposed all along which you disagreed with because of your insistence he had to do the above.

 

So which is it? Does he have to come close to breaking Gretzky's records for him to live up to your notion of his hype? Or does he just have to dominate his era? They're not necessarily one and the same.

Edited January 25, 2006 by GhostofAnakin

[Hurlshort]

It sounds like you are saying that scoring points is not really the only way to measure greatness. I agree. Jagre has a ton of points, but he's probably only in the top 100 in terms of greatness. If he suddenly comes alive in the playoffs and takes his team to consecutive Stanley Cups, then he will be great.

 

It's too early to tell what any of these rookies will do. But they are extremely talented and will be fun to watch for many years. They need to win some titles and overcome some horrible odds to reach that level of greatness. The talent is there to do that though.

[Chupacabra]

*sigh* Well, Lemieux retired, this time for good. So long, Mario.

[alanschu]

Why is everything a comparison to Gretzky or Lemieux's numbers to you?  Gordie Howe didn't come close to those two.  Messier didn't either (per season.  Over the course of their careers they had good point totals).  Yet both of those guys could arguably compete with Lemieux and Gretzky for "greatest player ever".

 

It's not. You're the one that keeps trying to bring that back. If Yzerman numbers have him dominating his era (which if you were actually reading my posts, you'd see I have been saying that as well) in such a way that he's in a level beyond elite.

 

You've contradicted yourself a couple of times by first saying that he has to atleast challenge Gretzky's records (something Messier, Howe, Richard, etc. best point or goal totals never did, btw) to live up to the hype.  Then you say in your last response that he has to dominate his era, which is basically what I proposed all along which you disagreed with because of your insistence he had to do the above.

 

Actually, where did I actually state Gretzky-like numbers? You're the one fixated on Gretzky's numbers. Here's all of my posts on the issue:

 

 

I think I'm just happy that other rookies than Crosby are playing great. I was getting tired of hearing about "The Next One."

 

No Gretzky numbers

 

I'm not saying overrated.

 

Even then, people had him declared as the second coming. I'm happy that he's not running away with it, otherwise the preseason hoopla would have carried on.

 

No Gretzky Numbers

 

The 80s were insanely higher in scoring.

 

Though Lemieux didn't have players like Palffy playing on his wing.

 

Or a Lemieux.

 

No Gretzky Numbers

 

I know.

 

But I see Ovechkin's performance being similar to Mario's, rather than Sid's. Even if Crosby has similar point totals.

 

And even if Lemieux isn't playing on the same line, he's still going to require defensive focus (well, until people realize he's sucking...but even then he'll always get respect).

 

Crosby and Lemieux have shared icetime though, as they've assisted on each other's goals. It's probably not very common (mostly PP IIRC).

 

Though I wouldn't expect otherwise, as Lemieux's QMJHL stats still blew Crosby's out of the water.

 

 

I just brought it up because I don't think it's that good of a comparison.

 

No Gretzky numbers, and I already conceded my jumping to conclusions when looking at Mario's QMJHL points.

 

Alexander Daigle scored more goals his rookie season in the QMJHL than Mario did (and total points).

 

If anything, I'd say Mario's rookie season in the QMJHL is the anamoly. It's quite clear he was just starting to tap what was his game, as indicated in his next two seasons.

 

 

I don't know enough about minor hockey, but the people I know that do "claim" to know about the CHL feel that the QMJHL isn't as strong of a league as it once was.

 

No Gretzky numbers

 

Fair enough with my QMJHL numbers being incorrect. It's hard to ignore the 133 goal season he had, in addition to the insane improvements he had each season in the QMJHL.

 

Compared to his first season, Crosby's progression was not nearly as good as Lemieux's (doubled his rookie performance in his second year, and tripled it in his third year).

 

 

The thing I never liked about many media "experts" is how they would jump on the gun with players like Daigle and Crosby, indicating that they scored more points than Lemieux did in his rookie season, when looking at the stats it's clear Lemieux was just starting to tap his potential when he entered the league.

 

You may not have been saying Sid will or will not be better than Mario, but you should not be surprised to have people challenging the comparison as soon as you point out their respective rookie years.

 

I'm curious how well Sid is going to do, now that both Mario and Palffy are out of the picture.

 

No Gretzky Numbers

 

Given the retarded amount of exposure he seems to get from the media, if he has a Steve Yzerman career, he will not have lived up to the hype.

 

People weren't calling him "The Next One" for no reason.

 

No Gretzky Numbers. (And even here I mentioned Yzerman career)

 

Yzerman has had an excellent career, and has been my favourite player in the NHL since I started watching it again in 2000. But you're fooling yourself if people aren't expecting Gretzky/Lemieux greatness out of him.

 

 

For LeBron to be the next Michael Jordan, he does have to be dominating. In every aspect of the game, with an insane intensity and an ability to come through in the clutch.

 

Yes he does. Not absolute numbers, but relative numbers. He can't just be "a little" better than the Kovalchuks and the Ovechkins.

 

Again, it's all relative. If he's the "most dominating" player in the NBA, but not in the way that Jordan was, then he doesn't live up to the hype. He'll need to be dominating offensively, defensively, and especially in the clutch.

 

As an aside, while I don't watch much basketball, LeBron doesn't seem to be that similar of a player to Jordan anyways.

 

Hmmm, my first reference to the numbers not having to be absolute, yet relative. Though you did continue to harp on that I was somehow saying he needs to have Gretzky numbers.

 

 

EDIT: QUOTE TAGS NOT WORKING ANYMORE

 

QUOTE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even the fact that you acknowledge that he has the "possibility" of breaking his records implies much more than just being the next dominant player of his era.

 

I'm not saying that he is expected to break it. But he must be able to put up totals that can make you think it's a "possibility" that he could break a record...in your own words.

 

 

If I read "way more" in to the hype, then so did everyone else. How many people point out the lacrosse goal and stuff like that. The kid has been receiving HUGE praise for a long time already, and is even known to non-hockey fans.

 

ENDQUOTE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is my first real reference to Gretzky numbers....which was a response to something that YOU brought up. I wasn't the one that brought up that he has the "possibility" of breaking records. It was you! And it was already after I had mentioned that I recognized it had to be relative.

 

I'd keep quoting, but it's recent enough you can just scroll up the damn page.

 

 

You were the one that brought up breaking Gretzky's records. Even you stated that the hype means a possibility of breaking Gretzky's records.

Edited January 26, 2006 by alanschu

[GhostofAnakin]

The fact is, that at one point, whether it was a response to me or not, you DID say he has to put up numbers atleast close to Gretzky's numbers otherwise he doesn't live up to the hype. That's why I said you contradicted yourself, because you changed stance. Obviously you didn't repeat yourself otherwise there'd be no contradiction, correct?

 

I couldn't be bothered to go through everything again and see what I said and what you said, so I'll ask you point blank right now:

 

What does Crosby have to do, in your opinion, in order to "live up to the hype"?

[alanschu]

Play at a level that goes beyond mere "elite" status. It doesn't necessarily mean alone. For instance (since we like to bring them up), Mario and Wayne were both pretty dominating players, and while Wayne did have a lot more points, Mario was right up there with him.

 

If it's say Crosby and a few others, that are all clearly at a different plateau of ability, I'd say yes. If it is Crosby, with Kovalchuk, Nash, Ovechkin, Heatley, Staal, Spezza, and Thornton, then I'd say no.

 

And this isn't to say that it'd be a poor career. It's more a testament to how silly hyped up he was. Which all stemmed from the fact that I was happy he isn't running away with the Calder, because all of that preseason hype would still be going on. Not that it's gone. There are people (many of them Pittsburgh fans, not surprisingly) that go absolutely ape**** if you mention Ovechkin and Crosby in any sort of comparison.

[GhostofAnakin]

So then, using your definition, he is in fact living up to the hype since, comparable to his peers (ie. rookies), him and Ovechkin are clearly a level above everyone else (Lundqvist is hard to judge since it's a different position).

 

Based on that, that's why I don't understand why you (or it might have been Volourn) said he hasn't lived up to the hype. By your definition he has, since he's already head and shoulders above any other rookie aside from Ovechkin.

[alanschu]

Nope. I'm talking the entire league. He hasn't played long enough to live up to the hype.

 

EDIT: Don't forget about players like Staal either. Or Spezza, or anyone else for that matter.

 

 

Besides, I'm not even sure how you interpreted that as my definition. I said be alone, at a level beyond elite status. Considering he's not even in the top 10 in scoring, he's clearly not there yet.

Edited January 26, 2006 by alanschu

[GhostofAnakin]

Nope.  I'm talking the entire league.  He hasn't played long enough to live up to the hype.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By that definition, then nobody in the history of the NHL lived up to their hype since I can't recall a single rookie who dominated the league head and shoulders above all the veterans who were there for 5, 10, 15 years.