NHL 2022-2023: FA July 13th - LET IT BEGIN

[Stadler]

I'm gonna go all Tim here... what the fuck is a corsi or a fenwick?  Sounds like Hobbit clans.

Digging deep to find the stats that back up your position.  Last time I checked, wins come from the team that scores more goals than they allow.  I Connor participated in 150+ goals.  Seems like a pretty good and direct indicator of an individual players contribution to team success.

Look, I've been accommodating.  I've conceded that you all might be right, but I'm owning my position.  I - unlike you all - recognize there are merits to both sides and that there are more than one way to win a championship.   But don't insult our intelligence by trying to justify it by nonsense.   If you win 1-0 or you win 7-5, that's simply one win.  If Connor gets 8 bazillion goals and gets 40 wins, and someone like Bergeron gets 20 and gets 60 wins, those 7 and a half bazillion goals are USELESS. MEANINGLESS.  That's my point.  I don't want to build around a generational player and have what happened to Edmonton (after Gretzky), the Patriots (after Brady), the Yankees (after Jeter). Because for every one of those guys, there are 10 or 20 who have no or one championship and they weren't able to replicate it, either because the star was a prima donna (Hi Aaron!) or they took too much cap space, whatever.    I want a team like the Islanders that won four in a row and who was their generational player?   Sure they had Bossy but he wasn't at the level of the all time greats.  Theirs was a TEAM.  Trottier and Potvin and Smith were as important in their own way as Bossy was. 

[Stadler]

The question was "who would you start your team with".  I'm starting a team to WIN HOCKEY GAMES

Again.....if that is the case then there is no earthly scenario where you don't pick McDavid first. At all. You win games by scoring more goals than the other team. You can 'teach' defense.....you can 'teach' team strategy.....you can get by and succeed and win cups with above average goalies.....what you can't do is teach or coach the hockey IQ and pure hockey sense and skill that McDavid has. No trackable stat or any of this other BS can capture it.

I wasn't or didn't 'dog' Bergeron either or crap in his Cheerios. I'm only stating the obvious that there's no world where when all things being equal and you were dead serious about building a team that he is chosen before McDavid. Even if it were his 'prime' years.....it's McDavid every time. He's a generational talent.....there are a dozen 'Bergeron's' in the league at any given time.

It's just silly to try and even debate this. You can suggest it's an opinion and I guess that's fine but the hypothetical question that was posed.....there's only one answer to it.

Well, first, there AREN'T a dozen Bergeron's, that's the point.  He's a generational player in his own way; some consider him the greatest DEFENSIVE forward EVER.   So let's not diss Bergie to make the point. 

You guys keep saying this about goals, but you're being too narrow. First, it's sort of counter intuitive, I know, but just "scoring goals" doesn't mean wins.  As I noted before a 1-0 win and a 9-2 win count the same.  I know it's counter intuitive, but there's research out there that says that the NHL - like most team sports - is like 75% random in terms of outcomes.  So you are looking for the edge on about 25% of the games.  Whether McDavid score "one more" than the next guy, or Bergeron "prevents one less" than the next guy, net-net we're at the same point.   Qualitatively, there is NO DIFFERENCE. 

I get it. McDavid is a god. You guys pick him, and I'll enjoy watching him play just like everyone else.  I'm not arguing this to be contrarian, I'm not arguing this to be silly, I just have a different point of view.    There's 32 teams in the NHL; 31 of them do NOT have Connor McDavid.  The data set of teams that have won the Stanley Cup in the last eight years is comprised SOLELY OF TEAMS that do not have Connor McDavid. He's not a lock, he's not a guarantee. 

[KevShmev]

Woah, woah, I have to push back on that about Mike Bossy.  He absolutely was one of the all-time greats.  He was overshadowed a bit by Gretzky, who came into the league and was pretty much the best player instantly, but everyone was overshadowed by 99. Bossy was arguably the 2nd best player in the league during that entire Islanders dynasty run of 4 championships.

In any discussion of the best goal scorers in the history of the NHL, Mike Bossy is in that conversation (unless one wants to restrict it to just Gretzky, or maybe just Gretzky and Ovechkin).

[Stadler]

Woah, woah, I have to push back on that about Mike Bossy.  He absolutely was one of the all-time greats.  He was overshadowed a bit by Gretzky, who came into the league and was pretty much the best player instantly, but everyone was overshadowed by 99. Bossy was arguably the 2nd best player in the league during that entire Islanders dynasty run of 4 championships.

In any discussion of the best goal scorers in the history of the NHL, Mike Bossy is in that conversation (unless one wants to restrict it to just Gretzky, or maybe just Gretzky and Ovechkin).

Well, maybe it's because he didn't have the longevity (put Howe in there, too).  He's not in the top 20 all time, with something like 575 goals, and if I remember Trottier had 525 or something. Then again, Messier has almost 700 himself (as Gretz' partner for so many years).

[TAC]

Bossy, Bergeron, Corsi…. Dammit I need a laptop.

[KevShmev]

Woah, woah, I have to push back on that about Mike Bossy.  He absolutely was one of the all-time greats.  He was overshadowed a bit by Gretzky, who came into the league and was pretty much the best player instantly, but everyone was overshadowed by 99. Bossy was arguably the 2nd best player in the league during that entire Islanders dynasty run of 4 championships.

In any discussion of the best goal scorers in the history of the NHL, Mike Bossy is in that conversation (unless one wants to restrict it to just Gretzky, or maybe just Gretzky and Ovechkin).

Well, maybe it's because he didn't have the longevity (put Howe in there, too).  He's not in the top 20 all time, with something like 575 goals, and if I remember Trottier had 525 or something. Then again, Messier has almost 700 himself (as Gretz' partner for so many years).

I think Bossy is still 1st in league history in goals per game, but longevity was not his friend. And goals per game can be a bit hairy as well, as you could argue that he is 1st because of his lack of longevity (he didn't have a bunch of seasons later in his career to drag his overall average down).  Regardless, his prime, which was pretty much his entire NHL career before the last season that was ruined due to the back injury that forced his retirement, was something else.

It is interesting to note that since Gretzky won the Hart Trophy 9 times (cue Edward Rooney), only three players since have won it three times (none more than that): Mario Lemieux, Alexander Ovechkin and Connor McDavid.

[Stadler]

Woah, woah, I have to push back on that about Mike Bossy.  He absolutely was one of the all-time greats.  He was overshadowed a bit by Gretzky, who came into the league and was pretty much the best player instantly, but everyone was overshadowed by 99. Bossy was arguably the 2nd best player in the league during that entire Islanders dynasty run of 4 championships.

In any discussion of the best goal scorers in the history of the NHL, Mike Bossy is in that conversation (unless one wants to restrict it to just Gretzky, or maybe just Gretzky and Ovechkin).

Well, maybe it's because he didn't have the longevity (put Howe in there, too).  He's not in the top 20 all time, with something like 575 goals, and if I remember Trottier had 525 or something. Then again, Messier has almost 700 himself (as Gretz' partner for so many years).

I think Bossy is still 1st in league history in goals per game, but longevity was not his friend. And goals per game can be a bit hairy as well, as you could argue that he is 1st because of his lack of longevity (he didn't have a bunch of seasons later in his career to drag his overall average down).  Regardless, his prime, which was pretty much his entire NHL career before the last season that was ruined due to the back injury that forced his retirement, was something else.

It is interesting to note that since Gretzky won the Hart Trophy 9 times (cue Edward Rooney), only three players since have won it three times (none more than that): Mario Lemieux, Alexander Ovechkin and Connor McDavid.

A combined 43 years of experience (17+18+8) and three Stanley Cups (2+1+0).  The Great One has four by himself in 19 years.  (And while I don't want to imply that Gretzky isn't the greatest player to ever play the game - he is - to my argument on "defense" being as valuable as "offense", it should be noted that Messier has SIX, including two without Gretzky.)
2+1+

[gmillerdrake]

A combined 43 years of experience (17+18+8) and three Stanley Cups (2+1+0).  The Great One has four by himself in 19 years.  (And while I don't want to imply that Gretzky isn't the greatest player to ever play the game - he is - to my argument on "defense" being as valuable as "offense", it should be noted that Messier has SIX, including two without Gretzky.)
2+1+

You can....because he isn't. That's Mario Lemieux. Better at every facet of the game than #99. Only thing he didn't do that #99 did was start his career when goalies couldn't save shots that never came off the ice.

If there was a 'hypothetical' take any player from their prime to build a team around, Lemieux is the first draft pic.

[Anguyen92]

Free Agency day today.  Should we do a new thread?

[SchecterShredder]

Free Agency day today.  Should we do a new thread?

Yes. God yes. May this Bergeron vs. McDavid  topic die here

[Anguyen92]

Sweet, I'm creating it now.

[Stadler]

A combined 43 years of experience (17+18+8) and three Stanley Cups (2+1+0).  The Great One has four by himself in 19 years.  (And while I don't want to imply that Gretzky isn't the greatest player to ever play the game - he is - to my argument on "defense" being as valuable as "offense", it should be noted that Messier has SIX, including two without Gretzky.)
2+1+

You can....because he isn't. That's Mario Lemieux. Better at every facet of the game than #99. Only thing he didn't do that #99 did was start his career when goalies couldn't save shots that never came off the ice.

If there was a 'hypothetical' take any player from their prime to build a team around, Lemieux is the first draft pic.

I saw both, and Gretzky was... different.   He was playing a different game; there's no Lemieux without Gretzky.  I still think Gretzky is the greatest; though, counterintuitively, I do agree with you that Lemieux would be my "hypothetical" first draft pick.  He's everything I like about players in hockey.  Good skills, tough as nails, knew how to win and made everyone around him better.  He went up about forty notches for his performance in... was it '92 when he beat cancer and the same day as his last treatment he was back in the lineup and scored two goals?   Dammit. 

[SchecterShredder]

I'd throw Messier into the lot with Lemieux as potential 1st overall All-time. Absolute monster of a player and leader.

Jason Strudwick, a co-host on a TSN1260 (RIP) radio show,  and former teammate of the Moose, often told stories about him on the bench and in the locker room. He said when Messier spoke, you'd be willing to storm the gates of hell if he asked you to. He inspired that level of confidence from his presence.

[KevShmev]

A combined 43 years of experience (17+18+8) and three Stanley Cups (2+1+0).  The Great One has four by himself in 19 years.  (And while I don't want to imply that Gretzky isn't the greatest player to ever play the game - he is - to my argument on "defense" being as valuable as "offense", it should be noted that Messier has SIX, including two without Gretzky.)
2+1+

You can....because he isn't. That's Mario Lemieux. Better at every facet of the game than #99. Only thing he didn't do that #99 did was start his career when goalies couldn't save shots that never came off the ice.

If there was a 'hypothetical' take any player from their prime to build a team around, Lemieux is the first draft pic.

I saw both, and Gretzky was... different.   He was playing a different game; there's no Lemieux without Gretzky.  I still think Gretzky is the greatest; though, counterintuitively, I do agree with you that Lemieux would be my "hypothetical" first draft pick.  He's everything I like about players in hockey.  Good skills, tough as nails, knew how to win and made everyone around him better.  He went up about forty notches for his performance in... was it '92 when he beat cancer and the same day as his last treatment he was back in the lineup and scored two goals?   Dammit.

Mario was awesome, but I think just about everyone besides Pittsburgh homers and my fellow friendly St Louisan knows that Gretzky is the hockey GOAT.  It's really not close. 

[jingle.boy]

Lemieux could've been the GOAT, but health issues prevented it.  GOAT also includes longevity, and in my mind, Orr/Bossy/Lemieux lose a bit of points from shortened careers.

[KevShmev]

Make not mistake about it, Mario was awesome.  Easily the 2nd best player I have seen since I started hockey in the early 80s. 

But there is only Great One.

[jingle.boy]

I will say this, I think Mario’s 92/93 season was the greatest by any player ever.

[gmillerdrake]

I ‘get’ why Gretzky is the great one…..I do. But if I had my choice of ‘prime’ Gretzky or ‘prime’ Lemieux…….I’d take Lemieux all day long every time. More physical, better shot…..better two way player…..were he not to have gotten cancer his numbers would have been higher.

You get into the era thing with these two. While 99 wasn’t all that much older than 66……99 benefited from some utterly atrocious attempts at goaltending. Go to YouTube and watch his early years……he could shoot from the blue line and the puck wouldn’t leave the ice and it’d go in.

[jingle.boy]

taking it to the new NHL thread before Nick locks this one.