Red Wings will Officially Retire Red Kelly's #4

[krsmith17 7,191]

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Why all the sudden?

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

About damn time.  One of the best players in NHL history, and his resume as a Red Wing is spectacular.  

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Why all the sudden?

I'm not sure if it's been just you saying this, or multiple people, but I've seen this phrase posted several times over the past few weeks... Before that, I've never seen it written or said that way... Who the f*** says "all the sudden"? What does this even mean? It's "all OF A sudden"...

Just had to get that off my chest...

But yeah, why all of a sudden? Who knows... He was way before my time (and I'm sure most (all?) here), but well deserved. Great career. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

46 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm not sure if it's been just you saying this, or multiple people, but I've seen this phrase posted several times over the past few weeks... Before that, I've never seen it written or said that way... Who the f*** says "all the sudden"? What does this even mean? It's "all OF A sudden"...

Just had to get that off my chest...

But yeah, why all of a sudden? Who knows... He was way before my time (and I'm sure most (all?) here), but well deserved. Great career. 

No, why all the sudden?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

So they can have a fancy pregame ceremony and fill all those red or black empty seats.

 

McIlrath wears 44 now?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

8 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Do all 5 at one time.  4, 13, 30, 40, 91

Gotta spread them out. Sell more tickets.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

About damn time.  One of the best players in NHL history, and his resume as a Red Wing is spectacular.  

#3 for Marcel Pronovost. 15 years with the Wings, 8 Stanley Cups (5 as a player, 3 as a scout), HHOF. Over 65 years employed in professional hockey .What more do you need on your resume? Should have done it before he died in 2015.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

21 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

#3 for Marcel Pronovost. 15 years with the Wings, 8 Stanley Cups (5 as a player, 3 as a scout), HHOF. Over 65 years employed in professional hockey .What more do you need on your resume? Should have done it before he died in 2015.

I would think Norm Ullman would be the next choice from that older Wings days.  You know, I've never thought about Pronovost's number being retired.  Interesting question.  

[kliq 3,755]

Is Kelly in the HOF?

3 minutes ago, kliq said:

Is Kelly in the HOF?

Nevermind, I found a list. He is.

https://www.hhof.com/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsPlayersByTeam.jsp?team=Detroit+Red+Wings

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

6 hours ago, kliq said:

Is Kelly in the HOF?

Nevermind, I found a list. He is.

https://www.hhof.com/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsPlayersByTeam.jsp?team=Detroit+Red+Wings

He's one of the 10 best defensemen ever.  

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

He's one of the 10 best defensemen ever.  

Subjective, I find it very hard to compare players of that era to players of today's era, especially considering in was just North Americans back then.

Glad he's getting his due though.

Edited October 14, 2018 by kliq

[chaps80 1,591]

Random, but deserved. 

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

13 hours ago, kliq said:

Subjective, I find it very hard to compare players of that era to players of today's era, especially considering in was just North Americans back then.

Glad he's getting his due though.

Well, you have to compare players relative to their era.  It is difficult, but that's the way it should be done.  Otherwise, you could say that Jensen or Hronek would dominate the 1950's, if transported there via time machine, because of the evolution of the game.  

[kliq 3,755]

8 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Well, you have to compare players relative to their era.  It is difficult, but that's the way it should be done.  Otherwise, you could say that Jensen or Hronek would dominate the 1950's, if transported there via time machine, because of the evolution of the game.  

Agreed, that is why you shouldn't say someone from that era is "top 10 all time" because there is no way to accurately compare them. Most historians have two lists, "original 6 era" and "modern era" as comparing the actual skill of the players is of course silly, athletes today are just stronger, faster etc.

I've said this before, and I eluded to this is my previous post, my biggest knock on that era is lack of competition. Imagine how good players like Doughty, Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Weber etc. would be if you removed every European player from the league and replaced them with AHL players. That's what guys like Lindsay, Howe, Kelly etc. essentially played with. Not their faults, but if we are going to give them credit for domination, its only fair we explain why. More the reason to have two lists as its too easy to be bias towards original six era players.

Edited October 14, 2018 by kliq

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

1 hour ago, kliq said:

Agreed, that is why you shouldn't say someone from that era is "top 10 all time" because there is no way to accurately compare them. Most historians have two lists, "original 6 era" and "modern era" as comparing the actual skill of the players is of course silly, athletes today are just stronger, faster etc.

I've said this before, and I eluded to this is my previous post, my biggest knock on that era is lack of competition. Imagine how good players like Doughty, Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Weber etc. would be if you removed every European player from the league and replaced them with AHL players. That's what guys like Lindsay, Howe, Kelly etc. essentially played with. Not their faults, but if we are going to give them credit for domination, its only fair we explain why. More the reason to have two lists as its too easy to be bias towards original six era players.

Well, back then all the best players were spread out over only six teams.  Now you have them spread out over more teams.  You don't see teams anymore with 5 or 6 Hall of Famers on one roster.  I don't think that era was lacking talent at all.  There were fewer teams on which the latent was spread over.  The Wings alone had Howe, Lindsay, Sawchuk, Abel, Delvecchio, Kelly, and Pronovost.  Now those players would likely play on six separate teams.  

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Well, back then all the best players were spread out over only six teams.  Now you have them spread out over more teams.  You don't see teams anymore with 5 or 6 Hall of Famers on one roster.  I don't think that era was lacking talent at all.  There were fewer teams on which the latent was spread over.  The Wings alone had Howe, Lindsay, Sawchuk, Abel, Delvecchio, Kelly, and Pronovost.  Now those players would likely play on six separate teams.  

Even more the reason why players are going to have inflated stats. Imagine the type of numbers Crosby would put up if he had say Kane and Ovie playing on the Wing. It just wasn't balanced back then, put all the good players on one team and of course its going to look that way.

Not sure I agree with the 5 or 6 HOFers thing either, just look at the 2002 Wings with Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Hasek, Hull, Robitaille, Shanahan, Chelios,and Larionov, that's 9 right there. Hard to say if any teams in 2018 will have that many, have to wait 10-20 years to see. Though if you look at the Pens from just a few years ago, I would guess Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, and Letang all make it, 4 is not that far off from 5-6.

Either way, we can keep going back and forth but I think we can both agree that you just can't compare era's.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

1 hour ago, kliq said:

Even more the reason why players are going to have inflated stats. Imagine the type of numbers Crosby would put up if he had say Kane and Ovie playing on the Wing. It just wasn't balanced back then, put all the good players on one team and of course its going to look that way.

Not sure I agree with the 5 or 6 HOFers thing either, just look at the 2002 Wings with Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Hasek, Hull, Robitaille, Shanahan, Chelios,and Larionov, that's 9 right there. Hard to say if any teams in 2018 will have that many, have to wait 10-20 years to see. Though if you look at the Pens from just a few years ago, I would guess Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, and Letang all make it, 4 is not that far off from 5-6.

Either way, we can keep going back and forth but I think we can both agree that you just can't compare era's.

Kelly didn't have inflated stats.  Defensemen weren't putting up monster numbers in those days.  That came later with Bobby Orr, and then by the 1980's, every good defenseman seemed to score a lot.  

[kliq 3,755]

11 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Kelly didn't have inflated stats.  Defensemen weren't putting up monster numbers in those days.  That came later with Bobby Orr, and then by the 1980's, every good defenseman seemed to score a lot.  

With all due respect, that's not helping your argument. With those players playing with him, he should have if he was top 10 all time.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

So with the retirement of #4, if the Wings did decide to retire Pronovost's #3 and Datsyuk's #13, then only #'s 2, 8, and 11 would be available until #14..

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

1 hour ago, kliq said:

With all due respect, that's not helping your argument. With those players playing with him, he should have if he was top 10 all time.

Well, if you understood that nobody was putting up monster stats back then, especially on the blue line, you wouldn't be saying that.  Look at Doug Harvey's numbers and keep in mind, he played with about twice as many HHOF players than Kelly did on those Red Wings teams.  

The game was played at a slower pace in those days.  Guys played much longer shifts, sometimes over 5 minutes long.  The idea of short shifts and conserving energy was foreign to the game.  Kelly's stats were impressive relative to that era.

He's regarded by most hockey historians as a top 10 all time defenseman.  They know about his stats as compared to say Paul Coffey's stats.  Why do you think most rate him ahead of Coffey?  

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

I heard these guys were pretty good too.

Aziz Aboud of the Cairo Camels and Hasani Shaloub of the Alexandria Asps were both considered the 2 best players ever to play in the Ancient Eqyptian Hockey League

William T. Cook (pictured lower right hand corner) was considered the best player in the storied history of the British Colonial Hockey League.  After his professional retirement, he brought the sport of hockey to many foreign lands while traveling with his brother, Captain James Cook.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[kliq 3,755]

On 10/14/2018 at 9:22 PM, GMRwings1983 said:

Well, if you understood that nobody was putting up monster stats back then, especially on the blue line, you wouldn't be saying that.  Look at Doug Harvey's numbers and keep in mind, he played with about twice as many HHOF players than Kelly did on those Red Wings teams.  

The game was played at a slower pace in those days.  Guys played much longer shifts, sometimes over 5 minutes long.  The idea of short shifts and conserving energy was foreign to the game.  Kelly's stats were impressive relative to that era.

He's regarded by most hockey historians as a top 10 all time defenseman.  They know about his stats as compared to say Paul Coffey's stats.  Why do you think most rate him ahead of Coffey?  

I wasn't going to get into stats, but if you are going to excuse me of not understanding something, I will do a deep dive to show you that is not true. Lets use your Coffey/Kelly example:

In 1961, Kelly's best offensive year where he got 70 points, the average goals scored per game was 3.

In 1986, Coffey's best offensive year where he got 138 points, the average goals scored per game was 3.97.

Now lets compare years. 1986 showed an increase in goals over 1961 by about 32%. So even if we add 32% to Kelly's best offensive season, that puts him at 92 points. So even using inflation and (*edit* playing center in 1961) Coffey still out produced Kelly by 46 points. 

Maybe you will counter that I am using a season late in Kelly's career. Well if you take the best season in the first half of his career, here is what the stats show:

in 1951, Kelly's best offensive year in the first half of his career he got 54 points, the average goals scored per game was 2.71.

If we compare this to Coffey's best year, 1986 showed an increase in goals by about 47%. So even if we add 47% to Kelly's 54 point season, that puts him at 79 points. So again, even using inflation, Coffey still out produced Kelly, but this time by 61 points. 

I don't think most hockey historians put Kelly above Paul Coffey, most historians rank him in respect to his era, because there is no way to compare a player who played that long ago to the players of the modern era. To give you an exact example, if you have ever read "Best of the Best, Ranking the greatest players of all time" by Scott Morrison, Kelly is ranked #3 in the original era, while Coffey is ranked #6 in the modern era. Point being, they are not ranked together.

You talk about how D-men were not as offensive back then, which given that he scored 71 points seems a bit hard to believe. But even excepting that logic, if you are saying it was an entirely different game, how can you say that he is better then then top guys of the modern era? What is your criteria outside of nostalgia and bias? I highly doubt you watched Kelly play. (my apologies if I'm wrong) 

This is why I disagree with you saying he is "top 10 all time" because if you use stats (even with inflation) he doesn't hold up. I admit that is not fair, my point being its better to compare players in respect to their era's. Now if you want to talk about point production in comparison to other players in their era, I guess we can do that, but I dont think Kelly will end up top 10 from what I have seen, and that's not even factoring in the fact that he was not playing against the best of the best.

I will say this, Kelly was a top 5 D-man of the original 6 era.

*EDITED* Accidentally used stats from 1971, meant to use 1961. Now accurate.

Edited October 16, 2018 by kliq

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

I don't know much about Kelly's game, but calling Paul Coffey a defenseman is a bit of a misnomer. He was basically a top 6 F playing D. So comparing any true defenseman to Coffey is a moot point IMO.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

12 hours ago, kliq said:

I wasn't going to get into stats, but if you are going to excuse me of not understanding something, I will do a deep dive to show you that is not true. Lets use your Coffey/Kelly example:

In 1971, Kelly's best offensive year where he got 70 points, the average goals scored per game was 3.12.

In 1986, Coffey's best offensive year where he got 138 points, the average goals scored per game was 3.97.

Now lets compare years. 1986 showed an increase in goals over 1971 by about 27%. So even if we add 27% to Kelly's best offensive season, that puts him at 89 points. So even using inflation, Coffey still out produced Kelly by 51 points. 

Maybe you will counter that I am using a season late in Kelly's career. Well if you take the best season in the first half of his career, here is what the stats show:

in 1951, Kelly's best offensive year in the first half of his career he got 54 points, the average goals scored per game was 2.71.

If we compare this to Coffey's best year, 1986 showed an increase in goals by about 47%. So even if we add 47% to Kelly's 54 point season, that puts him at 79 points. So again, even using inflation, Coffey still out produced Kelly, but this time by 61 points. 

I don't think most hockey historians put Kelly above Paul Coffey, most historians rank him in respect to his era, because there is no way to compare a player who played that long ago to the players of the modern era. To give you an exact example, if you have ever read "Best of the Best, Ranking the greatest players of all time" by Scott Morrison, Kelly is ranked #3 in the original era, while Coffey is ranked #6 in the modern era. Point being, they are not ranked together.

You talk about how D-men were not as offensive back then, which given that he scored 71 points seems a bit hard to believe. But even excepting that logic, if you are saying it was an entirely different game, how can you say that he is better then then top guys of the modern era? What is your criteria outside of nostalgia and bias? I highly doubt you watched Kelly play. (my apologies if I'm wrong) 

This is why I disagree with you saying he is "top 10 all time" because if you use stats (even with inflation) he doesn't hold up. I admit that is not fair, my point being its better to compare players in respect to their era's. Now if you want to talk about point production in comparison to other players in their era, I guess we can do that, but I dont think Kelly will end up top 10 from what I have seen, and that's not even factoring in the fact that he was not playing against the best of the best.

I will say this, Kelly was a top 5 D-man of the original 6 era.

I'm guessing you don't know this, but Red Kelly played center when he went to Toronto.  He switched positions.  That's why his offensive numbers increased.  I'm also assuming you meant 1961 and not 1971.  Kelly was retired by 1971.  

And if you thought he was a defenseman who scored 70 points in 1961, then you should be anointing him the best defenseman ever, as that would be way above the norm for that era in defensemen.  Nobody at that position could sniff those kind of numbers in 1961.  Not sure how all your adjusted stats didn't catch that anomaly.   

Edited October 15, 2018 by GMRwings1983