kipwinger

He is better. Because there's more to hockey than scoring. As I've said many times, Rossi scores as much as Lafreniere (minus his very first year on NA ice), he is a much better defender (every single person says so!), plays a harder position with more responsibility, takes (and wins) faceoffs, and is on the PK. Lafreniere scores. That's about it. I think Rossi will probably be like a Claude Girioux and Lafreniere will be like a Tarasenko. And I'd ALWAYS take Giroux over Tarasenko.

Exactly. How often does "every single person" in hockey have to be wrong about prospects before we can all agree that it's worthwhile to question their evaluations?

I do too, on a long enough developmental curve. Centers just impact the game in so many more ways than wingers do. And even within those groups, some guys just have a greater impact based on how they play the game. Remember when we all patted ourselves on the back because someone somewhere said "Datsyuk is better than Crosby" back in 2008? Why do you think that was said? Datsyuk never scored more. But he did every single other thing at a higher level. And yet ever single person here bases their opinions on prospects, to some extent, on the rankings of guys like Pronman or Button or McKenzie or whomever. Nobody here has probably watched more than a game or two of any of the top guys, let alone all of them. We only think Byfield > Perfetti because guys like Pronman say so.

Yep. Still the best. If scoring flashy goals meant anything, Andreas Athanasiou would be an all-star. You can literally find the exact same types of tweets a year ago about how "cheat code" Jack Hughes was too. Not working out so great for him now though.

You mean this guy? Yeah, he's totally lame, and definitely doesn't bang way hotter chicks than you. Nice try, simp.

Ummm...I think you're forgetting someone? You can't spell Czadina without a "C".

yeah but how many times has be won the Masterson trophy?

Guarantee you weigh about the same, beta boy.

It's true. The further back you go the littler everyone gets. Lot of people don't know this, but the Revolutionary War was fought by literal munchkins. George Washington, for instance, was only about a foot and a half tall. But considering everyone else averaged about 11 inches in height you can see why he always looks so big in those paintings.

I mean, yeah, sure. But make Ovi slower, and weaker, and stupider, and give him a stick he's never used before, and the original prototype ice skates, and play according to a totally different set of rules, and then tell me how good he is!

Haven't seen this level of petty egoism since...Mike Babcock? It's only been a few months? Damn, hockey's no better than basketball after all.

You probably don't believe in a lot of things that are true. Or vice versa. Your belief system doesn't really matter all that much though. You've said it yourself, coaches ruin players all the time by not playing them high enough in the lineup. AA is no different. Just like Smith and Jurco before him.

This is a pretty funny discussion. I recall one of the participants here CONSTANTLY b*tching about how Mike Babcock ruined Brendan Smith because Babs wouldn't play Smith with Kronwall. Seems like the shoe is on the other foot now.

Are they the same people who discount statistical differences, adjusted scoring rates, and obvious systematic differences like butterfly-style goaltending? Because I think you're just talking about yourself at this point.

Who are these people? We've been talking about this for pages and the only person mentioning trophies is you.

So youre saying AA single handedly won games for the Wings down the stretch? Sounds likee a stud to me.

GMR has an answer for that. Basically, if Hull played today he'd be 6'3, 225lbs, and lightening fast. Conversely, Ovechkin wouldn't even be in the league in 1972 because international hockey was just a bunch of vanilla midgets and commies.

Well, it's closer. Which is a point you keep ignoring. You seem to not care about context when it suits you, and not care about numbers when it suits you too. I'm not sure on what basis you're making your picks other than Richard trophies apparently... Also, who gives a s*** about Richard trophies? If Ovechkin score 50 four more times he sets the record. Who gives a damn if Matthews scores 51 in each of those same seasons?

610 is a long way from 894. It wasn't hyperbole.

Ok cool, I'll play your game. Take all context out of it and just compare scoring vs. peers? Easy. Ovechkin scored 703 in 1148 games. Hull scored 610 in 1063. Ovechkin is a better scorer. Also, regardless of era, peers, equipment, etc. only one of those two guys is going to have the all time record. The other isn't even close. What else do you need?

Your "devil's advocate" Schick is getting old. I've seen you rail against "big goalies with big pads" for years.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess Bobby Hull never had to shoot on a goalie over 6'1. Let alone do it most nights. And I know for a fact he never shot on a butterfly goalie. Scoring a bunch of goals on short, stand up, goalies just isn't as hard. It's science.

Ovi, and it's not even really close. He's going to break the record in a lower scoring era, against bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic defensemen and goalies, and more sophisticated defensive systems.

Yup. But fewer goals, fewer points, and not a Selke caliber defender. Case closed.

Draisaitl > McDavid