"OVIE" or "DATS":Best overall player...you pick

[egroen 384]

Okay, I'm not certain which argument you want to make.

Is it your oppinion that Dats could play Iginla's minutes without additional fatigue causing him to play at a lower level, or are you of the oppinion that Dats could be playing more than he is, pruducing more, without risking much of anything?

I had thought the sarcasm dripping off that post would be obvious.

Datsyuk is often complimented by his teamates and coaches for being one of the hardest workers on and off the ice and for being in phenomenal shape. I am pretty sure he could handle the extra minutes. Babcock has the luxury of a stacked team, and can evenly distribute the ice time of his forwards, also ensuring they will have plenty in the tank for the playoffs. Not a single forward on this team gets over 20 minutes a game.

[Guest micah]

I had thought the sarcasm dripping off that post would be obvious.

Datsyuk is often complimented by his teamates and coaches for being one of the hardest workers on and off the ice and for being in phenomenal shape. I am pretty sure he could handle the extra minutes. Babcock has the luxury of a stacked team, and can evenly distribute the ice time of his forwards, also ensuring they will have plenty in the tank for the playoffs. Not a single forward on this team gets over 20 minutes a game.

Oh, I picked up sarcasm, but no real argument or point. Iginla plays more time than Dats does durring th eregular season, AND performes better in the playoffs .94 points per playoff game vs .66 for Dats. Seems to me that Iggy plays more in the Reg season AND plays better in the playoffs. The extra time hasn't seemed to hurt him in the playoffs any, I wonder why Babs seems to think that he has to take it comparatively easy on Dats durring the reg season to keep him performing at a lower level in the postseason. Dats was scoring pretty well in the postseason for the last two years, at .97 points per game, but still under Iginla who averaged 1 point per game. What an amazing superstar Iginla is, playing all that extra time durring the regular season, AND out-producing the Wings' best forward in the post season, eh? Ovechkin, at 1.29 points per postseason game, is an even better producer. Datsyuk has never had a postseason as good as that (though Iginla did, last year).

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Oh, I picked up sarcasm, but no real argument or point. Iginla plays more time than Dats does durring th eregular season, AND performes better in the playoffs .94 points per playoff game vs .66 for Dats. Seems to me that Iggy plays more in the Reg season AND plays better in the playoffs. The extra time hasn't seemed to hurt him in the playoffs any, I wonder why Babs seems to think that he has to take it comparatively easy on Dats durring the reg season to keep him performing at a lower level in the postseason. Dats was scoring pretty well in the postseason for the last two years, at .97 points per game, but still under Iginla who averaged 1 point per game. What an amazing superstar Iginla is, playing all that extra time durring the regular season, AND out-producing the Wings' best forward in the post season, eh? Ovechkin, at 1.29 points per postseason game, is an even better producer. Datsyuk has never had a postseason as good as that (though Iginla did, last year).

Who cares? Dats is going to hoist the cup this year, not Iginla. Stats don't matter, imho, the cup does.

[servo 15]

Love the sarcasm boys!

Bottom line

Dats vs AO

Defence >>>>>

Offense <

Physical game draw

Price

Best overall player goes to Datsyuk

I would love to see AO in the winged wheel, but alas.........

[egroen 384]

Oh, I picked up sarcasm, but no real argument or point. Iginla plays more time than Dats does durring th eregular season, AND performes better in the playoffs .94 points per playoff game vs .66 for Dats. Seems to me that Iggy plays more in the Reg season AND plays better in the playoffs. The extra time hasn't seemed to hurt him in the playoffs any, I wonder why Babs seems to think that he has to take it comparatively easy on Dats durring the reg season to keep him performing at a lower level in the postseason. Dats was scoring pretty well in the postseason for the last two years, at .97 points per game, but still under Iginla who averaged 1 point per game.

Hossa was playing about 3 minutes a game more with Atlanta than he is now in Detroit.

Why do you suppose that is?

Is it because Hossa all of a sudden became fat and out of shape?

Does Babcock feel Hossa can't handle it and he needs to take it easy on him, like you assume he does with Datsyuk?

Is Babcock just an idiot?

Or is there perhaps another reason for it?

You tell me.

In the past two years, Datsyuk has scored at almost the exact same clip as Iginla, while also serving as a checking forward against other teams' top scoring lines. Iginla is out there for offense only. Now I know you really hate the Red Wings and feel the defense-first and 4-line system Bowman first implemented when he came to Detroit, and has been at the heart of the team ever since, has been a spectacular failure (only 4 Cups!!??), but I tend to value an elite scoring forward who can simultaneously shut down opposing top players more so than a similar scoring forward who will get into an occassional fight. I know, crazy. I actually like the way hockey is played in this town over the past 15 years and think it could have some success if we just give it a little more time.

What an amazing superstar Iginla is, playing all that extra time durring the regular season, AND out-producing the Wings' best forward in the post season, eh? Ovechkin, at 1.29 points per postseason game, is an even better producer. Datsyuk has never had a postseason as good as that (though Iginla did, last year).

If only the Wings had the amazing Iginla or Ovechkin, maybe they could have gotten past the first round the past two years and actually made it to the conference finals or even won a Cup.

Edited February 27, 2009 by egroen

[Guest micah]

Hossa was playing about 3 minutes a game more with Atlanta than he is now in Detroit.

Why do you suppose that is?

Is it because Hossa all of a sudden became fat and out of shape?

Does Babcock feel Hossa can't handle it and he needs to take it easy on him, like you assume he does with Datsyuk?

Is Babcock just an idiot?

Or is there perhaps another reason for it?

You tell me.

You silly thing, is was you who first claimed that keeping Datsyuk's reg season playing time down was because if we didn't, he might not be playoff ready, not me.

In the past two years, Datsyuk has scored at almost the exact same clip as Iginla, while also serving as a checking forward against other teams' top scoring lines. Iginla is out there for offense only. Now I know you really hate the Red Wings and feel the defense-first and 4-line system Bowman first implemented when he came to Detroit, and has been at the heart of the team ever since, has been a spectacular failure (only 4 Cups!!??), but I tend to value an elite scoring forward who can simultaneously shut down opposing top players more so than a similar scoring forward who will get into an occassional fight. I know, crazy. I actually like the way hockey is played in this town over the past 15 years and think it could have some success if we just give it a little more time.

Your strawmen and your sarcasm are so cute:) I'm sorry that you consistently choos eto resort to logical falacies. You have my pity, but not my concession. Enjoy that.

[egroen 384]

You silly thing, is was you who first claimed that keeping Datsyuk's reg season playing time down was because if we didn't, he might not be playoff ready, not me.

Strawman what?

Your strawmen and your sarcasm are so cute:) I'm sorry that you consistently choos eto resort to logical falacies. You have my pity, but not my concession. Enjoy that.

Yeah, I'd say you really nailed your points home here. Well played.

You may have won this battle, but by golly, I'll win the war!!!

[C-TownWing 0]

Oh, I picked up sarcasm, but no real argument or point. Iginla plays more time than Dats does durring th eregular season, AND performes better in the playoffs .94 points per playoff game vs .66 for Dats. Seems to me that Iggy plays more in the Reg season AND plays better in the playoffs. The extra time hasn't seemed to hurt him in the playoffs any, I wonder why Babs seems to think that he has to take it comparatively easy on Dats durring the reg season to keep him performing at a lower level in the postseason. Dats was scoring pretty well in the postseason for the last two years, at .97 points per game, but still under Iginla who averaged 1 point per game. What an amazing superstar Iginla is, playing all that extra time durring the regular season, AND out-producing the Wings' best forward in the post season, eh? Ovechkin, at 1.29 points per postseason game, is an even better producer. Datsyuk has never had a postseason as good as that (though Iginla did, last year).

Duly noted, Ovechkin played well in his one career playoff series.

It's intellectually dishonest to include 2001-02 in Dats' playoff statistics--he was a rookie on a stacked team playing 4th line minutes. Take that out, and it jumps to 0.78 points per game for his career. Iginla doesn't have that issue, the Flames were buried in sucktitude until 2003-04, by which time he was well established as their marquee player.

Over the last two years, it's 0.98 (hey, you rounded up for Iginla's career number) for Datsyuk. Or, spelled out, 39 points in 40 games (one Cup, one conference finals loss). Iginla's raw numbers in that time are 13 points in 13 games (two first-round exits). Sustaining a point-per-game pace over two long playoff runs impresses me more than a ridiculously marginal difference in the ratios.

As far as Datsyuk vs. Zetterberg, I go with Datsyuk, barely. It's a nice problem to have though--I love that we win a best-on-best match with anyone else's forwards, because of the defense.

[Guest micah]

Strawman what?

"I am pretty sure he could handle the extra minutes. Babcock has the luxury of a stacked team, and can evenly distribute the ice time of his forwards, also ensuring they will have plenty in the tank for the playoffs."

Okay, you have to explain this further, as apparently I'm misunderstanding you. In these two sentences, it seems you're saying that Dats could likely handle more minutes, but that he isn't being given those minutes, because if he were, we couldn't ensure that he would have "plenty in the tank for the playoffs". Explain, if you would.

[egroen 384]

"I am pretty sure he could handle the extra minutes. Babcock has the luxury of a stacked team, and can evenly distribute the ice time of his forwards, also ensuring they will have plenty in the tank for the playoffs."

Okay, you have to explain this further, as apparently I'm misunderstanding you. In these two sentences, it seems you're saying that Dats could likely handle more minutes, but that he isn't being given those minutes, because if he were, we couldn't ensure that he would have "plenty in the tank for the playoffs". Explain, if you would.

And you tell me if that quote is the same as: "You silly thing, is was you who first claimed that keeping Datsyuk's reg season playing time down was because if we didn't, he might not be playoff ready, not me."

Babcock has the luxury that he does not have to play his star players monster minutes in order to simply make the playoffs, and it should also ensure they have plenty to give once the playoffs start. Having that luxury is not the same as Babcock fretting away in fear our forwards will turn into the SCFs version of Malkin if he doesn't conserve them. Can you grasp the difference?

[Coolio Mendez 7]

Do you really believe that? Because I find it to be the type of asinine statement that ignorant fans from other teams make all the time.

Datsyuk produces no matter whom he is playing with - and that has often included Holmstrom, Cleary, Franzen, Devereaux, even Kopecky -- guys that are not exactly playmakers. Iginla is not playing on a team devoid of talent either -- he has Phaneuf, Cammalleri, Langkow -- not exactly third line scrubs.

Put Iginla on the Red Wings and he is playing less than 20 minutes a night, his PP time is more evenly distributed and he is required to backcheck more and play more on the PK (he currently is averaging a whole 12 seconds a night). Looking at Hossa this year, I think it is safe to say Iginla is not going to be winning any Art Ross trophies on the Red Wings.

Now if I put Datsyuk with Calgary, he gets almost 2 1/2 minutes more a game, which is really 10 extra games in playing time. He also will see as much as an extra 1 1/2 minutes of power play time per game --> That's around 30 extra games worth of power play time.

Now do you really think Datsyuk's production would "decrease" on another team?

Is Brind'Amour a better "all-around forward" than Ovechkin? It's certainly arguable, isn't it?

But I wouldn't say he is a "better" forward than Ovechkin.

But what were we talking about again?

You seem to be picking and choosing your arguments......you reply to the fact that Iginla gets more ice time than Datsyuk yet neglect to comment on the example (BrindAmour) I provided.

Datsyuk has become a very good player (bit of a late blossomer) but he is no Iginla.....the biggest proof is in just watching the game......throw all the numbers/what teams they play for and whatnot out the window...what you are left with is that Iginla is better........as is Lecavalier....as is Crosby.....as is Ovechkin.

Datsyuk is very good both offensively and defensively.......if you want to know what kind of player he is comparably speaking......he is somewhere between a Sergei Fedorov (whom he he is not quite as good as...talking in his prime).

Actually..........Fedorov is another prime example........as I said he I think he was better than Datsyuk.

Let's say Peter Forsberg was the best player of the 90's (as central scouting probably had him there more than anyone else....guessing)......OK Although it may have been Jagr!

Fedorov was faster, better defensively, better on the PK, better on face-offs yada yada yada.........

BUT.........who was the better player in the 90's? Fedorov or Forsberg?

Perhaps I should not use this example because you probably think Fedorov was (when in fact.......he was not top 5 IMO).......another perfect example!

Datsyuk isn't the games best all around player.

[Guest micah]

Duly noted, Ovechkin played well in his one career playoff series.

Why are you rolling your eyes at that? It's the only playoff expirience the guy hs, should it be thrown out because he's young and played mostly on a moderately crappy team? You're wanting to excuse Dats' awful stats in 01-02, because he was unfortunate enough to be playing behind others (who his coaches apparently thought were better than he was at the time - I gotta trust them on that), but it seems that you look down on Ovy because of his teammates.

Over the last two years, it's 0.98 (hey, you rounded up for Iginla's career number) for Datsyuk. Or, spelled out, 39 points in 40 games (one Cup, one conference finals loss). Iginla's raw numbers in that time are 13 points in 13 games (two first-round exits). Sustaining a point-per-game pace over two long playoff runs impresses me more than a ridiculously marginal difference in the ratios.

Do you think that a point-per-game pace is easier to maintain over 13 games than 40 games? If so, why? Serious question. I've had a few heavy statistics classes and all sorts of Six Sigma BS, but I've never heard anyone state that blanks per blank are easier to maintain over a short time than a long one - in fact, when talking about rates, we use blanks per blank specifically to take duration out of the discussion, we want to . If you have a car that over the course of 100000 miles gets 20 mpg, and you're going to drive it another 10 random miles, and you had to predict whether your car would get above or below 20mpg over that 10 miles, you would have to flip a coin. It is not easier to maintain a given pace over a short period of time than a long one. Clearly, most projections cannot be carried out forever - cars get old and fall apart, hockey players do too - but both of the guys we're talking about are at the peak of their game.

[egroen 384]

You seem to be picking and choosing your arguments......you reply to the fact that Iginla gets more ice time than Datsyuk yet neglect to comment on the example (BrindAmour) I provided.

And you were throwing random thoughts out - though you made an excellent point that Brind'Amour could be considered a better "all-around" forward than Ovechkin. I simply stated I did not think he was a "better" forward.

But that is completey different than Iginla and Datsyuk - as Datsyuk puts up just as many points, in much less minutes AND plays Selke-level defense on top of it. But you are going sit here and tell me Iginla's 3 fights this year is the icing on the cake?

Datsyuk has become a very good player (bit of a late blossomer) but he is no Iginla.....the biggest proof is in just watching the game......throw all the numbers/what teams they play for and whatnot out the window...what you are left with is that Iginla is better........as is Lecavalier....as is Crosby.....as is Ovechkin.

I'd say he is better than Iginla, much better than Lecavalier and currently on a level with Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin. In my opinion, a two-way forward is more valuable than an extra ten points or so (and easily more valuable than a couple fights in a year), especially on this Red Wings team, so I think Datsyuk is the more valuable forward - especialy at their given price tags.

Datsyuk is very good both offensively and defensively.......if you want to know what kind of player he is comparably speaking......he is somewhere between a Sergei Fedorov (whom he he is not quite as good as...talking in his prime).

Fedorov for a couple years was considered the best player in the world. Datsyuk is between Fedorov and.... ? I agree, for what it is worth, Datsuk has not had a better season than Fedorov's 1993 season - not even close. But Forsberg never had a season as good as Fedorov's best, either.

Actually..........Fedorov is another prime example........as I said he I think he was better than Datsyuk.

Let's say Peter Forsberg was the best player of the 90's (as central scouting probably had him there more than anyone else....guessing)......OK Although it may have been Jagr!

How about Mario Lemiuex, Hasek, Gretzky, Lindros and Bourque? The top player of the 90s is not exactly clear-cut.

Fedorov was faster, better defensively, better on the PK, better on face-offs yada yada yada.........

BUT.........who was the better player in the 90's? Fedorov or Forsberg?

Early 90s - Fedorov. Later part of the decade was Forsberg. Forsberg was a good two-way player as well.

Perhaps I should not use this example because you probably think Fedorov was (when in fact.......he was not top 5 IMO).......another perfect example!

Datsyuk isn't the games best all around player.

Because you think fighting is more important than actually playing defense, right?

Edited February 27, 2009 by egroen

[Guest micah]

And you tell me if that quote is the same as: "You silly thing, is was you who first claimed that keeping Datsyuk's reg season playing time down was because if we didn't, he might not be playoff ready, not me."

Babcock has the luxury that he does not have to play his star players monster minutes in order to simply make the playoffs, and it should also ensure they have plenty to give once the playoffs start. Having that luxury is not the same as Babcock fretting away in fear our forwards will turn into the SCFs version of Malkin if he doesn't conserve them. Can you grasp the difference?

You're asking questions without answering them. I don't understand why. I'm a better person than you, so I'll do my best to answer you;)

I didn't intentionally misuse your satement, if anything, I misinterpereted it.

You oughta be more charitable.

You clarified:

"Babcock has the luxury that he does not have to play his star players monster minutes in order to simply make the playoffs, and it should also ensure they have plenty to give once the playoffs start. Having that luxury is not the same as Babcock fretting away in fear our forwards will turn into the SCFs version of Malkin if he doesn't conserve them. Can you grasp the difference?"

...and again, I have to say "no, I cannot grasp the difference". You are making the statement that Mike Babcock suspects that if he gives his top guys more ice time, they might not produce as well in the playoffs, right?

If coach thinks Pavel wopuld be just as good in the playoffs with more icetime every night, he would give it to him, wouldn't he? I mean, 1st place isn't that far away, and if Pavel can keep producing at the rate he has been withought getting worn out for the playoffs, it would make sense to have him do so, wouldn't it?

Edited February 27, 2009 by micah

[Guest micah]

Also, FWIW, I think that this Wings team would be far better off if Pavel had 3 less points and 3 more fights. 3 points is just 3 points, 3 fights is enough in a season to send your teammates an important message - that you are there for them, that you aren't scared, and that you are willing to sacrifice anything, even your face and public humiliation, for the good of the team and your teammates. I think that's worth more than 3 points over the course of the season.

there of course a law of diminishing returnes here - certainly I would not want PD having 20 fights this year - I expect him (and every other player with any size of muscle at all) to fight only when the situation warrants. Certainly Pavel has had a few off nights this season, and some of those nights found the Wings trailing their opponents. Perhaps that would be a nice time to say to your teammates "look guys, I haven't been doing my job tonight, since I haven't been able to beat the goalie, I'm gonna beat the guy who elbowed Filpula earlier.." That's worth way more than a goal or assist, IMO.

Yet another strawman is found here "Because you think fighting is more important than actually playing defense, right?" - nobody said that or even implied it. Defence is important. Scoring is important. Leadershihp is important - fighting at the right time is part of leadership. All the great leaders in NHL history knew this. Iginla knows this.

Edited February 27, 2009 by micah

[egroen 384]

Micah,

If you think the president's trophy is worth playing our top forwards a ton of minutes for, fine... I bet we could probably get it.

I'd argue that teams like Pittsburgh, Washington and Calgary do not have quite the offensive depth the Wings have, and compounded with the fact they need to ensure they even make the playoffs - it is worth it to them to play their top forwards more minutes.

Joe Thornton plays less than 20 minutes a game for San Jose this regular season.

Marc Savard plays less than 20 minutes a game for Boston this regular season.

Pavel Datsyuk plays less than 20 minutes a game for Detroit this regular season.

What do these three teams have in common?

That does not mean their coaches are deathly afraid they can't handle the minutes -- I think it is closer to the truth that their coaches feel confident in their playoff berths & offensive depth and want to give their top forwards every advantage they can for when the playoff come around. They have that luxury... not fear.

Is that good coaching? Or is it a sign those players can't handle it? Again, you tell me.

Edited February 27, 2009 by egroen

[egroen 384]

Also, FWIW, I think that this Wings team would be far better off if Pavel had 3 less points and 3 more fights. 3 points is just 3 points, 3 fights is enough in a season to send your teammates an important message - that you are there for them, that you aren't scared, and that you are willing to sacrifice anything, even your face and public humiliation, for the good of the team and your teammates. I think that's worth more than 3 points over the course of the season.

there of course a law of diminishing returnes here - certainly I would not want PD having 20 fights this year - I expect him (and every other player with any size of muscle at all) to fight only when the situation warrants. Certainly Pavel has had a few off nights this season, and some of those nights found the Wings trailing their opponents. Perhaps that would be a nice time to say to your teammates "look guys, I haven't been doing my job tonight, since I haven't been able to beat the goalie, I'm gonna beat the guy who elbowed Filpula earlier.." That's worth way more than a goal or assist, IMO.

Yet another strawman is found here "Because you think fighting is more important than actually playing defense, right?" - nobody said that or even implied it. Defence is important. Scoring is important. Leadershihp is important - fighting at the right time is part of leadership. All the great leaders in NHL history knew this. Iginla knows this.

Would you give up Datsyuk's Selke votes for 3 fights (implication - give up his two-way game)? Because that is what you have with Iginla and Lecavalier -- go ahead and count up their Selke votes. Those guys do not play defense like Datsyuk. When Datsyuk is having an off night in the scoring department - he is still out there in a checking role and killing penalties -- on a much more consistent basis than Iginla is out there fighting.

[Guest micah]

Micah,

If you think the president's trophy is worth playing our top forwards a ton of minutes for, fine... I bet we could probably get it.

I'd argue that teams like Pittsburgh, Washington and Calgary do not have quite the offensive depth the Wings have, and compounded with the fact they need to ensure they even make the playoffs - it is worth it to them to play their top forwards more minutes.

Joe Thornton plays less than 20 minutes a game for San Jose this regular season.

Marc Savard plays less than 20 minutes a game for Boston this regular season.

Pavel Datsyuk plays less than 20 minutes a game for Detroit this regular season.

What do these three teams have in common?

That does not mean their coaches are deathly afraid they can't handle the minutes -- I think it is closer to the truth that their coaches feel confident in their playoff berths & offensive depth and want to give their top forwards every advantage they can for when the playoff come around. They have that luxury... not fear.

Is that good coaching? Or is it a sign those players can't handle it? Again, you tell me.

I don't know the answer. I do know that there are atheletes, Nolan Ryan, Walter Payton, Gordie Howe come to mind, who simply demmabnd to play. every minute they possibly can, every snap, every inning. These guys all probably had coaches and Doctors saying "hey, why not take a breather, the game's in hand" or "sit this one out, we've already clinched homefield advantage". These are the guys who should be called great - they produce, they play for love of the game, they're durable, and they are remembered as among the best there's ever been at what they did. I can see Ovechkin or Iginla having a name that's mentioned with theirs someday. I don't think Datsyuk will. My oppinion only, and I'm certainly not a fortune teller.

FWIw, I don't think that the above guys were victims of poor coaching - I think that they were fortunate to be blessed with passion fo rtheir games, passion that was contagious, passion that made them fearless, passion that made them tough, passion that made them not only play with pain - but seek pain. That's toughness, and you can't be great without toughness. The best you can do is be very good....unless you're Gretzky, but he was a special case - for some reason that I can't quite articulate. Ovy and Iginla have stats that can be compared to Pavel's, but they also have the intangiables that make them better than just their numbers say they are.

It'll be interesting to see if SI or THN publish another player poll anytime soon, I'm curious who the players would vote on as the best forward in the league. You think Datsyuk would win it? Why or why not?

[Guest micah]

Would you give up Datsyuk's Selke votes for 3 fights (implication - give up his two-way game)? Because that is what you have with Iginla and Lecavalier -- go ahead and count up their Selke votes. Those guys do not play defense like Datsyuk. When Datsyuk is having an off night in the scoring department - he is still out there in a checking role and killing penalties -- on a much more consistent basis than Iginla is out there fighting.

Great question. It depends, like all things fight related, on the circumstances at the momment of the fight(s). Is it the scrap that pulls the team together, the fight that makes the squad rally 'round eachother, realise that they are a family, and that they are the best and the baddest, and that they will flat out win at all costs every game from here on out? Sure, I would.....if that meant that Dats "omly" played D as well as Ovy or Iginla. Neither of them exactly suck at D, they just aren't as good at it as he is. Are the fights some stupid scrap out of frustration after he just took a highstck to the chin and we're about to go on the PP? Then no, of course not.

[egroen 384]

I don't know the answer. I do know that there are atheletes, Nolan Ryan, Walter Payton, Gordie Howe come to mind, who simply demmabnd to play. every minute they possibly can, every snap, every inning. These guys all probably had coaches and Doctors saying "hey, why not take a breather, the game's in hand" or "sit this one out, we've already clinched homefield advantage". These are the guys who should be called great - they produce, they play for love of the game, they're durable, and they are remembered as among the best there's ever been at what they did. I can see Ovechkin or Iginla having a name that's mentioned with theirs someday. I don't think Datsyuk will. My oppinion only, and I'm certainly not a fortune teller.

FWIw, I don't think that the above guys were victims of poor coaching - I think that they were fortunate to be blessed with passion fo rtheir games, passion that was contagious, passion that made them fearless, passion that made them tough, passion that made them not only play with pain - but seek pain. That's toughness, and you can't be great without toughness. The best you can do is be very good....unless you're Gretzky, but he was a special case - for some reason that I can't quite articulate. Ovy and Iginla have stats that can be compared to Pavel's, but they also have the intangiables that make them better than just their numbers say they are.

It'll be interesting to see if SI or THN publish another player poll anytime soon, I'm curious who the players would vote on as the best forward in the league. You think Datsyuk would win it? Why or why not?

Gordie Howe played in an era when the top forwards played over 25 minutes a game. Shifts were upwards of 2 minutes at a time -- that is how the game was played back then. Obviously it is different today. I can assure you Gordie Howe was not forcing Jack Adams into giving him more minutes. Adams would have shipped Howe out of there faster than hell if Howe started dictating his playing time.

Fedorov demanded to be played more in Detroit and Bowman didn't allow it. Bowman used to also force Lidstrom to sit a game or two at the end of the regular season.

Who was right?

Chelios ******* every moment he can about getting more minutes and PP time - what sort of a coach just hands that over? I am sure just about every player in the league wishes he had more playing time -- it's a coach's job to regulate that and do what is best for the team.

In the past year I have seen Datsyuk absolutely level Ryan Malone, Zdeno Chara and Doug Murray -- Is that not "tough"? I have not seen him chased out of any scrums at all, in fact I see him involved in them - so I am not sure why you are maligning Datsyuk as some sort of pansy. I love that we are seeing a lot more physical play from him, but I would give it up in an instant if it sacrificed his defensive play.

Gretzky had the highest on-ice IQ I have ever seen. Larionov had that and Datsyuk has it today. That intelligence is worth giving up a few fights for.

I think Datsyuk would get more recognition today from the players in the league than he has in the past, but I doubt he would win it. The fact is, close to 80% of the league is North American, and they are going to vote on a style akin to an Iginla or Ovechkin before they would vote on a style like Datsyuk's.

Edited February 27, 2009 by egroen

[egroen 384]

Great question. It depends, like all things fight related, on the circumstances at the momment of the fight(s). Is it the scrap that pulls the team together, the fight that makes the squad rally 'round eachother, realise that they are a family, and that they are the best and the baddest, and that they will flat out win at all costs every game from here on out? Sure, I would.....if that meant that Dats "omly" played D as well as Ovy or Iginla. Neither of them exactly suck at D, they just aren't as good at it as he is. Are the fights some stupid scrap out of frustration after he just took a highstck to the chin and we're about to go on the PP? Then no, of course not.

It's actually a ridiculous question.

Only a moron would give up Selke winning defensive play for a couple of fights.

Edited February 27, 2009 by egroen

[Dabura 12,207]

Let me get this straight....

Datsyuk lacks "toughness" and certain "intangibles"...and will therefore probably not be remembered as "one of the greats"?

[Carman 387]

Ok, enough about Dats and Ovie, can we get back to being in awe about Sidney Crosby's greatness?

[Guest micah]

Gretzky had the highest on-ice IQ I have ever seen. Larionov had that and Datsyuk has it today. That intelligence is worth giving up a few fights for.

But you ought not have to. Dats probably could hold his own in a scrap against a asimilar player - he just has choosen to never risk it. Gretzky thought differently, and actually lbs and dropped them on a few occasions. Larionov was 130lbs and 63 years old, he had real reason not to fight, he would have been crushed like a grape.

It's not like Datsyuk has to choose between playing sound D or fighting once in a while. It isn't an either/or.

I think Datsyuk would get more recognition today from the players in the league than he has in the past, but I doubt he would win it. The fact is, close to 80% of the league is North American, and they are going to vote on a style akin to an Iginla or Ovechkin before they would vote on a style like Datsyuk's.

So you conceed that you "doubt" NHL players would vote Dats the best forward in the league. Do you think that your vantage point is somehow better than theirs? Do you have high-def or something?