I’m not trying to argue with you here, I’m just sincerely curious as to what your reason/s are if you don’t mind saying.
I've written about this before; that's how I knew it was an unpopular argument. Part of it is the same point I make all the time about team sports; Michael Jordan did now win any NBA titles, the Bulls did. But mostly it's because it was laugh out loud funny - and why I gave up on the NBA (and also pro wrestling) - watching Jordan pick up his dribble, run two steps to his right to bump into an unsuspecting defender, draw a foul, turn back to his left for two more steps towards the basket and finish his layup, then take his free throw. Take away Jordan's exemptions from traveling, palming, etc. and you have a very good player, to be sure, but one no better than several others before and during his career (I have no knowledge of anything that has happened in the NBA (or pro wrestling) since then).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I’m not trying to argue with you here, I’m just sincerely curious as to what your reason/s are if you don’t mind saying.
I've written about this before; that's how I knew it was an unpopular argument. Part of it is the same point I make all the time about team sports; Michael Jordan did now win any NBA titles, the Bulls did. But mostly it's because it was laugh out loud funny - and why I gave up on the NBA (and also pro wrestling) - watching Jordan pick up his dribble, run two steps to his right to bump into an unsuspecting defender, draw a foul, turn back to his left for two more steps towards the basket and finish his layup, then take his free throw. Take away Jordan's exemptions from traveling, palming, etc. and you have a very good player, to be sure, but one no better than several others before and during his career (I have no knowledge of anything that has happened in the NBA (or pro wrestling) since then).
I never got into the NBA aside from a little in the 80’s with the Celtics but I definitely remember seeing Jordan highlights on ESPN back in the day. I haven’t watched enough basketball to make any logical opinion either way but surely never heard anyone say this.
I like when a player admires their home run or flips the bat. No different than when a pitchers is yelling and pumped when the get a strikeout to end an inning and scoring chance.
just thought of an opinion housed in my cranium that's bound to be unpopular. i possess no sympathy for teams that are being pounded into submission. none. whenever i hear, "so classless to keep the starters in," or "i can't believe they are still throwing the ball up 30," it grates on my nerves. blowouts are a microcosm of today's society. in too many instances, when someone is down in life they have a tendency to immediately seek help, as opposed to making things happen themselves. there is far, far greater satisfaction out of persevering.
so when i see a team getting thrashed, i view it as a teachable moment. here's a novel idea: instead of expecting the opposing team to save you from yourself, how's about getting pissed off, fighting like a rabid dog and putting an end to the beatdown you're absorbing? the other team is getting paid handsomely to go full bore; why are you asking them to throttle down? it's weak, it's lame, and it's detrimental in the long run.
@Tabe said:
Do you think there's any possible chance Orr would lead the league in scoring now? Have a +100 now? Of course not.
Orr was a tremendous player - I just don't think he's in the conversation for greatest ever, thus overrated.
We are having the having the same conversation that I had several years ago with skinpinch about Babe Ruth. The argument that he made, and that you are now repeating with regard to Orr, is that because the quality of competition was lower in one era than in another era, it is not possible for the GOAT to come from the lower-quality era. That argument fails completely as a matter of logic. Of course it's possible for the GOAT to have played at any time for any team. Identifying that the quality of competition was lower is one - just one of many - fact to consider when constructing the context in which you are evaluating that player. But that's where your argument both begins and ends, and that's why it fails.
Assume that the GOAT did play in the 60's/70's. What would his stats look like? If the GOAT happened to be a defenseman, wouldn't his stats look pretty much like Orr's? If not, what would they look like? And why do you think that? The answers to these questions are yours to provide, but it is the answers to these questions that will add up to a valid argument.
Of course it's possible the GOAT came from that era. I am not making that argument and to say otherwise is false.
What I am saying is that Orr stood out, especially with regard to his production, because of his lesser contemporaries.
Take him and drop him into the modern era. How does that impact his game? Well...to start, his skating no longer stands out. That was a gigantic portion of his game. Secondly, his production would be significantly reduced by virtue of goaltending. He's not scoring from 65 feet on slap shots where the backswing is knee-high in today's game. Third, his production would be further reduced because everyone plays defense in the modern game.
So, what do you end up with? An All-Star caliber defenseman putting up 70-ish points a year, probably less. And not one person saying he's the GOAT. It's entirely possible that the greatest hockey player of all-time retired 45+ years ago. It just isn't the case.
@Tabe said:
Do you think there's any possible chance Orr would lead the league in scoring now? Have a +100 now? Of course not.
Orr was a tremendous player - I just don't think he's in the conversation for greatest ever, thus overrated.
We are having the having the same conversation that I had several years ago with skinpinch about Babe Ruth. The argument that he made, and that you are now repeating with regard to Orr, is that because the quality of competition was lower in one era than in another era, it is not possible for the GOAT to come from the lower-quality era. That argument fails completely as a matter of logic. Of course it's possible for the GOAT to have played at any time for any team. Identifying that the quality of competition was lower is one - just one of many - fact to consider when constructing the context in which you are evaluating that player. But that's where your argument both begins and ends, and that's why it fails.
Assume that the GOAT did play in the 60's/70's. What would his stats look like? If the GOAT happened to be a defenseman, wouldn't his stats look pretty much like Orr's? If not, what would they look like? And why do you think that? The answers to these questions are yours to provide, but it is the answers to these questions that will add up to a valid argument.
Of course it's possible the GOAT came from that era. I am not making that argument and to say otherwise is false.
What I am saying is that Orr stood out, especially with regard to his production, because of his lesser contemporaries.
Take him and drop him into the modern era. How does that impact his game? Well...to start, his skating no longer stands out. That was a gigantic portion of his game. Secondly, his production would be significantly reduced by virtue of goaltending. He's not scoring from 65 feet on slap shots where the backswing is knee-high in today's game. Third, his production would be further reduced because everyone plays defense in the modern game.
So, what do you end up with? An All-Star caliber defenseman putting up 70-ish points a year, probably less. And not one person saying he's the GOAT. It's entirely possible that the greatest hockey player of all-time retired 45+ years ago. It just isn't the case.
So a GOAT can only be playing currently as the current players are much better? So the current GOAT will no longer be the GOAT 20 years from now?
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
Of course it's possible the GOAT came from that era. I am not making that argument and to say otherwise is false.
What I am saying is that Orr stood out, especially with regard to his production, because of his lesser contemporaries.
Take him and drop him into the modern era. How does that impact his game? Well...to start, his skating no longer stands out. That was a gigantic portion of his game. Secondly, his production would be significantly reduced by virtue of goaltending. He's not scoring from 65 feet on slap shots where the backswing is knee-high in today's game. Third, his production would be further reduced because everyone plays defense in the modern game.
So, what do you end up with? An All-Star caliber defenseman putting up 70-ish points a year, probably less. And not one person saying he's the GOAT. It's entirely possible that the greatest hockey player of all-time retired 45+ years ago. It just isn't the case.
But you aren't making an argument, you're merely restating your premises and then adding on some statements disguised as facts because they fit the conclusion you've already reached. If you'd care to answer the questions that I asked, that would get us somewhere, but reaching the conclusion that Orr wasn't the GOAT because his competition is weaker than it would be today is all that you're doing, and that's true whether you say it's false or not.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So your position is that Bobby Orr would be the best player in the NHL right now? How about during Mario's prime?
And I'm not saying he's not the best his competition was weak. I'm saying he's not the best because better players have come along after him. And that his special skill - skating - would not stand out now, thus neutralizing him to a fair degree.
@Tabe said:
Do you think there's any possible chance Orr would lead the league in scoring now? Have a +100 now? Of course not.
Orr was a tremendous player - I just don't think he's in the conversation for greatest ever, thus overrated.
We are having the having the same conversation that I had several years ago with skinpinch about Babe Ruth. The argument that he made, and that you are now repeating with regard to Orr, is that because the quality of competition was lower in one era than in another era, it is not possible for the GOAT to come from the lower-quality era. That argument fails completely as a matter of logic. Of course it's possible for the GOAT to have played at any time for any team. Identifying that the quality of competition was lower is one - just one of many - fact to consider when constructing the context in which you are evaluating that player. But that's where your argument both begins and ends, and that's why it fails.
Assume that the GOAT did play in the 60's/70's. What would his stats look like? If the GOAT happened to be a defenseman, wouldn't his stats look pretty much like Orr's? If not, what would they look like? And why do you think that? The answers to these questions are yours to provide, but it is the answers to these questions that will add up to a valid argument.
Of course it's possible the GOAT came from that era. I am not making that argument and to say otherwise is false.
What I am saying is that Orr stood out, especially with regard to his production, because of his lesser contemporaries.
Take him and drop him into the modern era. How does that impact his game? Well...to start, his skating no longer stands out. That was a gigantic portion of his game. Secondly, his production would be significantly reduced by virtue of goaltending. He's not scoring from 65 feet on slap shots where the backswing is knee-high in today's game. Third, his production would be further reduced because everyone plays defense in the modern game.
So, what do you end up with? An All-Star caliber defenseman putting up 70-ish points a year, probably less. And not one person saying he's the GOAT. It's entirely possible that the greatest hockey player of all-time retired 45+ years ago. It just isn't the case.
So a GOAT can only be playing currently as the current players are much better? So the current GOAT will no longer be the GOAT 20 years from now?
Unless you truly think players get worse over time, which is demonstrably false, then, yeah, there's a really good chance the current GOAT won't be in a generation or so.
There is more agreement on this message board than in my real life interactions, but I will always side with the players in labor negotiations with the owners. I do not believe, collectively, that players are overpaid. There are individuals that leverage their situations into salaries that are not in alignment with their contributions, but overall, players as a group deserve much bigger pieces of the revenue pie.
I also laugh out loud at people that blame owners, players, venues, etc, for the high cost of tickets and concessions and souvenirs. Blame your fellow citizens and fans of the team. If tickets to the Super Bowl had a face value of $1 on them, just how many tickets do you think you could get your hands on? And if you were lucky enough to score some tickets, and someone offered you $8,000 for one of them, would you sell?
Same premise for a Saturday afternoon game at Fenway with the Yankees in town. All tickets are 50 cents, like in "the good ol' days". How many could/would you buy, and is there an amount that you would take to give up the chance to go? The fans collectively set the prices for all of the things associated with the games. If people weren't spending $15 for a beer, they wouldn't sell it for that. They'd sell it for $12, or whatever, until they found a sweet spot in the price to sell the volume that they desire.
@Tabe said:
So your position is that Bobby Orr would be the best player in the NHL right now? How about during Mario's prime?
Obviously, that is unknowable. But yes, I think there's a fair chance that he would be. And like the NFL, where "because, you know, quarterbacks" is the best and only argument ever made on behalf of all the GOAT candidates being QBs, in the NHL "because, you know, scoring" is not a terribly impressive argument. Bobby Orr could score, as a GOAT must, but he could also prevent the other team from scoring, as also a GOAT must. In my opinion, Orr's combination of skills was unmatched, and has yet to be matched. Hockey is a team game, and identifying a GOAT is not a science. I could theoretically be persuaded that Mario, or Wayne, or Gordie, or someone else was the GOAT. But it would take a well-constructed argument, backed with stats, to convince me.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I generally buy into the idea that modern athletes as a whole are better than those from decades past simply because of the advancements made in nutrition, weight training, game theory, etc. However, I also think that an individual from the past can be considered the most dominant player in a sport's history because of what he/she was able to do against the competition at the time. I think Babe Ruth was probably the most dominant player baseball has ever seen because the gap between his production and that of other players of his era was so vast. But in a man-to-man competition against Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey, Jr. or Mike Trout, etc., he likely comes up as inferior because those players have all benefitted from 60+ years of progress after Ruth's days. That idea likely factors into your Bobby Orr discussion as well.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
To add to thr discussion equipment in hockey has changed drastically during Orr's era to present. No helmets vs helmets , stick composition and larger goalie pads and goalies to name a few. Also the elimination of the two line rule in 2005 changed the way the game was played offensively and defensively.
Orr was a wonder to watch play. It's just a shame it was for suck a short period. One thing for sure you noticed him when he was on the ice
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I generally buy into the idea that modern athletes as a whole are better than those from decades past simply because of the advancements made in nutrition, weight training, game theory, etc. However, I also think that an individual from the past can be considered the most dominant player in a sport's history because of what he/she was able to do against the competition at the time. I think Babe Ruth was probably the most dominant player baseball has ever seen because the gap between his production and that of other players of his era was so vast. But in a man-to-man competition against Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey, Jr. or Mike Trout, etc., he likely comes up as inferior because those players have all benefitted from 60+ years of progress after Ruth's days. That idea likely factors into your Bobby Orr discussion as well.
Ah, now this is a concept I can get on board with. If you want to name somebody as the most dominant, then you don't have to judge how they'd perform in another era, etc. It removes the nutrition/equipment/physiological improvements out. That's probably a much easier conversation to have.
And I would definitely agree that Babe Ruth was the most dominant baseball player of all-time.
I don't know that you could make a similar case for Orr since I would say Gretzky dominated to a larger degree with Orr would at least have a (very strong) case.
As Justacommeman said, it's definitely a shame that we got to see so little of Orr. He deserved a better fate.
@dallasactuary said:
Obviously, that is unknowable. But yes, I think there's a fair chance that he would be. And like the NFL, where "because, you know, quarterbacks" is the best and only argument ever made on behalf of all the GOAT candidates being QBs, in the NHL "because, you know, scoring" is not a terribly impressive argument. Bobby Orr could score, as a GOAT must, but he could also prevent the other team from scoring, as also a GOAT must. In my opinion, Orr's combination of skills was unmatched, and has yet to be matched. Hockey is a team game, and identifying a GOAT is not a science. I could theoretically be persuaded that Mario, or Wayne, or Gordie, or someone else was the GOAT. But it would take a well-constructed argument, backed with stats, to convince me.
Here's my absolutely irrefutable, perfect, unimpeachable argument in favor of Mario Lemieux:
He's the only player to score a goal 5 different ways in one game (PP, even strength, SH, penalty shot, empty net).
To add to thr discussion equipment in hockey has changed drastically during Orr's era to present. No helmets vs helmets , stick composition and larger goalie pads and goalies to name a few.
Absolutely, and this is why the "drop so-and-so into a different century and see how good they'd be" argument is so worthless. Would Babe Ruth struggle (for a while, anyway) if you dropped him off in 2022 and handed him a bat half the size of the one he had used? Almost certainly. To equate that with an actual argument that Babe Ruth wasn't the GOAT is so ridiculous it's painful. How about we drop off Mike Trout in 1922 and hand him Ruth's bat (and glove, and wool uniform, and no batting helmet, etc.) and see how he'd do. He'd struggle (for a while anyway), too.
But the basic skills required to play baseball and hockey haven't changed over those 100 years, and players with tremendous skills will adapt to whatever changes you make. Is it possible that Ruth and Orr would fade into the background if they played today? I guess anything is possible, but there's not a scrap of evidence to support the belief that they would. What evidence there is tells me that Ruth and Orr would be phenomenal in today's games, just as they were in their own games. (I think it's scary to imagine how much BETTER Ruth would be today when homers are a dime a dozen, there's medicine to fix your STDs, and trainers to keep your body from breaking down.)
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I have always maintained that the GOAT concept as well as the so-called list of the 100 all-time greatest players... insert your sport here... is ridiculous
Just one of my unpopular views worth sharing but I suspect I have made this clear enough times to the point where it is pointless to continue to assert it
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
I have always maintained that the GOAT concept as well as the so-called list of the 100 all-time greatest players... insert your sport here... is ridiculous
Just one of my unpopular views worth sharing but I suspect I have made this clear enough times to the point where it is pointless to continue to assert it
I'm mostly with you on the GOAT concept. It works fine in sports like tennis or golf, but it's a lot of assumptions and guesswork in baseball, and almost nothing but assumptions and guesswork in the other team sports. Mostly, it's useful for picking fights and having arguments.
But I like the top 100 concept much more, especially if the ordering is explained in some logical fashion. There will still be arguments over the order, but taking a look at the list from top to bottom and recognizing how the quality of players is dropping as you go can be entertaining and even educational if it makes you take a deeper look at a name that looks out of place.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
People are entitled to their opinions... Some opinions are better than others.
As for Golf, a list of the 100 greatest really does not work mainly because of how golf club technology changed over time. Look at the Tommy Armour blade irons and the McGregor woods used by Hogan in the 1940s and compare the so-called "pro-line" clubs of that era to what exists today. There simply is no comparison as to which clubs produce the highest successful shot percentage. Some of the greatest golf courses do not play as originally anticipated based on the new age of club design and the distance generated by the advanced design of clubs- greater sweet spots on irons... oversized metal woods. The skill level to consistently produce results with blade irons with a significantly smaller sweet spot makes comparing or even ranking players like Hogan and Snead to Woods something that makes little if any sense. And in writing this by no means do I want to diminish the accomplishments and greatness of Woods... he is terrific and worthy of the praise/recognition he receives.
Shifting back to MLB. I see the list of the 100 greatest players as merely a rehash and a discussion of what truly is counter productive in terms of capturing the history of the game. And such lists further reduce the significance of players that were excellent that will likely never make it into the HOF. There are those that wrote of Ralph Kiner that he was a man among boys at the time. Anyone who really thinks that should stand next to Ted Kluszewski and say that just to see what happens. My point is simple... greatness is achieved by looking at the times the players that made the game what it was. I suspect Gil Hodges who finally arrived at the HOF... 40+ years late... may not make the top 100. I suspect Rocky Colavito would not make it either. Both were great and as time passes, they should not be reduced to a footnote in the history of MLB. In looking back at the Maris-Mantle HR battle of 1961, no one ever seems to focus on the HR competition during the same season between Killebrew (46), Colavito (45) and Jim Gentile (46). In any other year, the numbers put up by these guys would put them in the running for MVP.
Instead, I would much rather see the energy in arguing about the greatest 100 players be redirected into something useful such as a discussion of excellent to great players that have little if any chance of getting into the HOF. Seems this would be a better use of time as well develop a better understanding of MLB history- there is so much more to it than the HOF. And there are numerous players that deserve a more than a footnote.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Late to the show. I have an unpopular opinion: Doping is rampant in all professional sports. No one likes to hear this bc we want to believe all sport is pure and true. Used to think sport was pure too, but then I made friends with a scientist in charge of the doping tests for the Tour de France during the Armstrong years. Wow that was a wake up call. He does say that now tho', alot of the doping rampant in endurance sports in the past has largely become obsolete bc of nutrition protocols. Turns out, what you eat and a properly designed nutrition regimen can enhance performance better than some of the fav doping products. So endurance specialists are investing more time and study into nutrition. I am sure the same is happening to some degree with team sports - look at Brady for example I am pretty sure he does not dope as his focus has always been on strict nutrition protocols. But he might be in the minority in fb..........
Had to post even though I said my days here are done.
Table- Wayne Gretzky said the skates used in Orr’s day were horrible compared to his era.
Scotty Bowman said the only player he remembers that has lightning quick feet to accelerate on a dime like Connor McDavid is Bobby Orr.
Many who understand edge control understand that Gretzky introduced great edge control to the game.
Orr and McDavid have the quickest foot burst hockey has ever seen.
If Orr played in todays game he would simply dominate, because Gretzky’s edge control would have been taught to him, he’d have better skates to skate on, and his lightning quick feet would allow him to dominate better than McDavid is, because Orr saw the ice better than any player ever.
Just ask yourself this.
What player in the history of hockey ever won MVP of an international tournament playing on one leg ?
Bobby Clarke said Orr couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. That’s how bad ass tough this guy was.
Any other defenseman or player doesn’t even come close to Orr.
He’d make this league look silly today, just like he did in his era.
Gretzky and Lemieux had similar stats. No defenseman even came close to Orrs stats, ever!!!
Bobby Clarke said it’s too bad there wasn’t a better league for Orr to play in. He was that dominant.
So when you watch Connor McDavid playing today on two good knees, just say to yourself that you’re watching half the player that Bobby Orr was, who played on one good knee.
@coinkat said:
I have always maintained that the GOAT concept as well as the so-called list of the 100 all-time greatest players... insert your sport here... is ridiculous
Just one of my unpopular views worth sharing but I suspect I have made this clear enough times to the point where it is pointless to continue to assert it
I'm mostly with you on the GOAT concept. It works fine in sports like tennis or golf, but it's a lot of assumptions and guesswork in baseball, and almost nothing but assumptions and guesswork in the other team sports. Mostly, it's useful for picking fights and having arguments.
But I like the top 100 concept much more, especially if the ordering is explained in some logical fashion. There will still be arguments over the order, but taking a look at the list from top to bottom and recognizing how the quality of players is dropping as you go can be entertaining and even educational if it makes you take a deeper look at a name that looks out of place.
Agree 100% on the GOAT concept.
Top 100 is a good concept but probably even more logistically challenging, but I would imagine the challenge is a big part of the allure for you.
Tabe- One final thought, and if this doesn’t convince you then nothing else will.
Bobby Orr on one good knee is #5 all time in points per game. AND his job was to DEFEND, not score !
The closest to him for defense is #31 Paul Coffey. You know why Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, and Lidstrom aren’t up there with Orr ? Because they aren’t good enough to be. If those guys could dominate like Orr, they would have. Imagine the Red Wings coach saying to Lidstrom “even though I know you can get us 3 points per game because no one can stop you, don’t do that.” If Lidstrom, Potvin or Bourque could skate through defenses with ease, they would have.
I’m not even going to get into his ridiculous plus minus numbers.
Other defensemen would have dominated like Orr if they had the ability to. The truth is they didn’t have his ability. Bobby Hull after playing his first period against the 18 year old in Boston told the ref he better bring out another puck for the second period, because no one is going to take it from that kid.
You couldn’t catch him. After his three length lead on you because of his speed burst, your stride wasn’t fast enough to catch up.
Orr and McDavid are the two quickest skaters ever, with Orr first and McDavid 2nd. No way Gretzky, Lemieux,Crosby or McDavid stop him back then or today.
Would love to see Yzerman skate during Orr’s day. Yzerman would look as silly as everyone else did trying to keep up with him. Yzerman couldn’t catch him in 1995 either. Orr would be way too quick for him.
Ken Dryden said most players came at him at a normal speed. He said he was afraid when Orr came at him because his brain wasn’t used to playing at that level.
@Goldenage said:
Had to post even though I said my days here are done.
Table- Wayne Gretzky said the skates used in Orr’s day were horrible compared to his era.
Scotty Bowman said the only player he remembers that has lightning quick feet to accelerate on a dime like Connor McDavid is Bobby Orr.
Many who understand edge control understand that Gretzky introduced great edge control to the game.
Orr and McDavid have the quickest foot burst hockey has ever seen.
If Orr played in todays game he would simply dominate, because Gretzky’s edge control would have been taught to him, he’d have better skates to skate on, and his lightning quick feet would allow him to dominate better than McDavid is, because Orr saw the ice better than any player ever.
Just ask yourself this.
What player in the history of hockey ever won MVP of an international tournament playing on one leg ?
Bobby Clarke said Orr couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. That’s how bad ass tough this guy was.
Any other defenseman or player doesn’t even come close to Orr.
He’d make this league look silly today, just like he did in his era.
Gretzky and Lemieux had similar stats. No defenseman even came close to Orrs stats, ever!!!
Bobby Clarke said it’s too bad there wasn’t a better league for Orr to play in. He was that dominant.
So when you watch Connor McDavid playing today on two good knees, just say to yourself that you’re watching half the player that Bobby Orr was, who played on one good knee.
Off topic I just wanted to say I miss your posts on this board Goldenage, I hope one day you decide to come back. Best wishes. Robert
Tony LaRussa is overrated and his teams won in spite of him because they were loaded with talent.
This past week Tony LaRussa decided to bat Leury Garcia third. Leury Garcia had the worst lifetime OPS and the worst current season OPS in the lineup, and yet he was inserted in the third spot.
This marked the second time in White Sox history where the third place hitter had both the worst lifetime OPS and current season OPS.
The other time it happened was in 1979 when Mike Squires had that dubious distinction. Squires manger? Tony LaRussa!
LaRussa was so 'smart' that he batted Garcia third in the following game as well.
LaRussa finally came to his senses and moved Garcia out of the three spot.....but then batted him second!!!!
@Goldenage said:
Had to post even though I said my days here are done.
Table- Wayne Gretzky said the skates used in Orr’s day were horrible compared to his era.
Scotty Bowman said the only player he remembers that has lightning quick feet to accelerate on a dime like Connor McDavid is Bobby Orr.
Many who understand edge control understand that Gretzky introduced great edge control to the game.
Orr and McDavid have the quickest foot burst hockey has ever seen.
If Orr played in todays game he would simply dominate, because Gretzky’s edge control would have been taught to him, he’d have better skates to skate on, and his lightning quick feet would allow him to dominate better than McDavid is, because Orr saw the ice better than any player ever.
Just ask yourself this.
What player in the history of hockey ever won MVP of an international tournament playing on one leg ?
Bobby Clarke said Orr couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. That’s how bad ass tough this guy was.
Any other defenseman or player doesn’t even come close to Orr.
He’d make this league look silly today, just like he did in his era.
Gretzky and Lemieux had similar stats. No defenseman even came close to Orrs stats, ever!!!
Bobby Clarke said it’s too bad there wasn’t a better league for Orr to play in. He was that dominant.
So when you watch Connor McDavid playing today on two good knees, just say to yourself that you’re watching half the player that Bobby Orr was, who played on one good knee.
Off topic I just wanted to say I miss your posts on this board Goldenage, I hope one day you decide to come back. Best wishes. Robert
Robert. Thank you. That is a kind statement. Thanks. However I am a man who tries his best to honor his word, so enjoy the forum. Lots of cool dudes here to hang with.
@Goldenage said:
Had to post even though I said my days here are done.
Table- Wayne Gretzky said the skates used in Orr’s day were horrible compared to his era.
Scotty Bowman said the only player he remembers that has lightning quick feet to accelerate on a dime like Connor McDavid is Bobby Orr.
Many who understand edge control understand that Gretzky introduced great edge control to the game.
Orr and McDavid have the quickest foot burst hockey has ever seen.
If Orr played in todays game he would simply dominate, because Gretzky’s edge control would have been taught to him, he’d have better skates to skate on, and his lightning quick feet would allow him to dominate better than McDavid is, because Orr saw the ice better than any player ever.
Just ask yourself this.
What player in the history of hockey ever won MVP of an international tournament playing on one leg ?
Bobby Clarke said Orr couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. That’s how bad ass tough this guy was.
Any other defenseman or player doesn’t even come close to Orr.
He’d make this league look silly today, just like he did in his era.
Gretzky and Lemieux had similar stats. No defenseman even came close to Orrs stats, ever!!!
Bobby Clarke said it’s too bad there wasn’t a better league for Orr to play in. He was that dominant.
So when you watch Connor McDavid playing today on two good knees, just say to yourself that you’re watching half the player that Bobby Orr was, who played on one good knee.
Off topic I just wanted to say I miss your posts on this board Goldenage, I hope one day you decide to come back. Best wishes. Robert
Robert. Thank you. That is a kind statement. Thanks. However I am a man who tries his best to honor his word, so enjoy the forum. Lots of cool dudes here to hang with.
...
I have actually thought to myself that I should take notes here, so as to better know who is who, who roots for what team, who said what, etc. I honestly have to say that I can't remember why you said you were no longer going to post @Goldenage . Heck, it could have been because of me. 😂🤷 I do vaguely remember you posting some thoughts awhile ago that made me take notice and think that we might share some of the same values. Anyway, this place is a good melting pot in a way, if that makes sense, and I find value in it.
@Goldenage said:
Had to post even though I said my days here are done.
Table- Wayne Gretzky said the skates used in Orr’s day were horrible compared to his era.
Scotty Bowman said the only player he remembers that has lightning quick feet to accelerate on a dime like Connor McDavid is Bobby Orr.
Many who understand edge control understand that Gretzky introduced great edge control to the game.
Orr and McDavid have the quickest foot burst hockey has ever seen.
If Orr played in todays game he would simply dominate, because Gretzky’s edge control would have been taught to him, he’d have better skates to skate on, and his lightning quick feet would allow him to dominate better than McDavid is, because Orr saw the ice better than any player ever.
Just ask yourself this.
What player in the history of hockey ever won MVP of an international tournament playing on one leg ?
Bobby Clarke said Orr couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. That’s how bad ass tough this guy was.
Any other defenseman or player doesn’t even come close to Orr.
He’d make this league look silly today, just like he did in his era.
Gretzky and Lemieux had similar stats. No defenseman even came close to Orrs stats, ever!!!
Bobby Clarke said it’s too bad there wasn’t a better league for Orr to play in. He was that dominant.
So when you watch Connor McDavid playing today on two good knees, just say to yourself that you’re watching half the player that Bobby Orr was, who played on one good knee.
Off topic I just wanted to say I miss your posts on this board Goldenage, I hope one day you decide to come back. Best wishes. Robert
Robert. Thank you. That is a kind statement. Thanks. However I am a man who tries his best to honor his word, so enjoy the forum. Lots of cool dudes here to hang with.
...
I have actually thought to myself that I should take notes here, so as to better know who is who, who roots for what team, who said what, etc. I honestly have to say that I can't remember why you said you were no longer going to post @Goldenage . Heck, it could have been because of me. 😂🤷 I do vaguely remember you posting some thoughts awhile ago that made me take notice and think that we might share some of the same values. Anyway, this place is a good melting pot in a way, if that makes sense, and I find value in it.
Your a keeper in my book. I enjoy your posts as well. It wasn’t you.
There was a poster who claimed I was comparing races, when I’ve never even thought about that, let alone write it. A few others liked or agreed with him that I was indeed doing that.
I was falsely accused three times in my life. One was career threatening, where two detectives interrogated me about a lie someone set forth about me. I know what false accusations are, and I stay away from it as best I can. Brings up feelings I don’t want to feel. Enjoy it here.. Lots of classy people.
I hold no grudges or ill feelings towards you, as far as I'm concerned that was long ago and far away. I would welcome and encourage you to return. All is good with me.
I hold no grudges or ill feelings towards you, as far as I'm concerned that was long ago and far away. I would welcome and encourage you to return. All is good with me.
I say this as politely as I can, and not with any ill will.
Of course you don’t hold any grudges. You didn’t have anyone make a false racism claim against you.
I was never comparing races as you said I was. That false accusation was made against me, not you.
I also hold nothing against you at all. If this is the way you think, speak and act that is fine with me. We are all different and I respect that.
However I would choose to never live in the south in the 1800s because of slavery, and I choose to not hang here if others feel I compare races. I gave $1000 each year for 20 years to the United Negro College fund, and did charity for kids from the projects throughout my teaching career.
If you search Michael Jordan - air ball- Nets, I paid for two kids from the projects and me to see Jordan and the Bulls one night. Jordan shot an air ball to end the game and Bulls lost to the Nets.
It’s all good. Enjoy the forum, and thank you for your military service.
Forgot to add I hold no ill will either. I wish the Red Sox and Bruins and Patriots and you and your loved ones all the best.
You and the others who think I compare races are totally entitled to think that way, and I totally respect that. Everyone looks at things differently and that’s perfectly fine.
After that, in the same thread before it was closed, I feel as though @Goldenage defended his point quite well. I think it is relevant for me to say that I have no problem with the posed question, but my first thought upon seeing it was that for sure someone here would take it the wrong way. And that happened. But I would like to see any parties offended by the question to extrapolate out their reasons, especially in light of the defense that the OP provided in the original thread. And I'd love for @Goldenage to stick around.
Of course you don’t hold any grudges. You didn’t have anyone make a false racism claim against you.
Read my post, I made no such allegation. You choose to interpret (like many do here), your version of what you read Perhaps the "grudge comment" was my attempt to overlooking you defaming me"
I was never comparing races as you said I was. That false accusation was made against me, not you.
Nowhere in my brief post do I accuse you of comparing races
I also hold nothing against you at all. If this is the way you think, speak and act that is fine with me. We are all different and I respect that.
Actually you do hold something against me, your very words say so. You make the assumption that you know how I think, speak and act, which is ludicrous on its face. You wouldn't know me if I fell in front of you.
However I would choose to never live in the south in the 1800s because of slavery, and I choose to not hang here if others feel I compare races. I gave $1000 each year for 20 years to the United Negro College fund, and did charity for kids from the projects throughout my teaching career.
Here you go off on a totally unrelated tangent of your thoughts of living in the 1800s. This is BS and totally unrelated to the topic at hand. That you have donated funds to a cause is noteworthy, however, in that profession, one would think you've learned a lot about people...perhaps not.
If you search Michael Jordan - air ball- Nets, I paid for two kids from the projects and me to see Jordan and the Bulls one night. Jordan shot an air ball to end the game and Bulls lost to the Nets.
Again, totally unrelated to the topic.
It’s all good. Enjoy the forum, and thank you for your military service.
No, its not all good, althought I made a gentlemanly attempt to make it so. How obvious you omitted the three times you defamed me, although your F Lee Bailey prowess didn't shine through with your lack of knowlege of the difference between slander and defamation. Odd, I thought how you felt you could defame me three times over something so innocuous. Dont bother to thank me for my service, you don't really mean it. So many have done so as I proudly wear my Vietnam Veteran baseball cap from time to time. Why? To honor the buddies I left behind and the two I escorted home from Dover Air Force Base in a gray box. You have no clue what a horribly shiXXy place that was, and those of us lucky enough to come home were trashed, spit on and called baby killers. No parade for us, that's why sometimes you might see total strangers shake hands and say "welcome home" though its been well over 40 years, we all know what we did and what it was like.
We are not sitting at a bar where unintended consequences arise from misinterpreted words can be corrected, we're in cyberspace, a lot of stuff misses the mark. You chose to feel as you did and let your obvious emotions take control of your brain and lashed out, when in fact a simple query could have resolved this issue quite quickly. I offered an olive branch and you chose to take the lower road and diss my offer to welcome you back to the Sports Page. I obviously don't control the board, but it was my attempt to put this to rest. I really don't care at this point whether you return or not.
I have often used the phrase, "I don't need the fancy-schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see".
As far back as 2012 and 2013, when people were saying that somehow Miguel Cabrera was undeserving of his MVPs over Mike Trout, I would tell them how ludicrous that was. They would go on about W.A.R. this and W.A.R. that, and I would just respond by asking them, "Do you even watch baseball?"
Miguel Cabrera, in those years, was an impossible out when the chips were down. His plate coverage was incredible. I would just tell people though, "Throw the ball up in the zone if you want to get Mike Trout out. He can't hit that high fastball". They would all pooh-pooh me.
Then, in 2014, Trout finally won his MVP. The Angels had the best record in the league. The Royals were just lucky to be there. It was time for the coronation. I told people, don't worry, Mike Trout won't be any problem for them. The Royals will just feed him a steady diet of high fastballs, and he will be a non-factor. Mike Trout was the final out on both Game 2 AND Game 3, swinging and missing for the 3rd strike off of high heat from Greg Holland.
I have referred to this weakness of his time and time again. I have often said, those that don't know this, they just aren't watching.
Well, guess what? I have no idea if this is an accurate advanced stat or not. Those of you that depend on the fancy-schmancy stats, rather than results that your eyes can see, well you can look this up and verify if you want, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't smirk a little bit when I read it. It was always an unpopular opinion, but it's what I've said for years...
.
.
Oooooops! Wrong screengrab! I don't know how that ended up in this post 🤷, although it has also been unpopular when I've criticized his defense....
Topps- I do truly mean it. So I’ll say it again. Thank you so much for your time serving our country.
My dad from Worcester Mass served in Korea, and I lost a treasured hockey player I coached when he was 17. War and death is not easy.
I know the stories, and lived through losing a child I loved.
@countdouglas said:
I have often used the phrase, "I don't need the fancy-schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see".
As far back as 2012 and 2013, when people were saying that somehow Miguel Cabrera was undeserving of his MVPs over Mike Trout, I would tell them how ludicrous that was. They would go on about W.A.R. this and W.A.R. that, and I would just respond by asking them, "Do you even watch baseball?"
Miguel Cabrera, in those years, was an impossible out when the chips were down. His plate coverage was incredible. I would just tell people though, "Throw the ball up in the zone if you want to get Mike Trout out. He can't hit that high fastball". They would all pooh-pooh me.
Then, in 2014, Trout finally won his MVP. The Angels had the best record in the league. The Royals were just lucky to be there. It was time for the coronation. I told people, don't worry, Mike Trout won't be any problem for them. The Royals will just feed him a steady diet of high fastballs, and he will be a non-factor. Mike Trout was the final out on both Game 2 AND Game 3, swinging and missing for the 3rd strike off of high heat from Greg Holland.
I have referred to this weakness of his time and time again. I have often said, those that don't know this, they just aren't watching.
Well, guess what? I have no idea if this is an accurate advanced stat or not. Those of you that depend on the fancy-schmancy stats, rather than results that your eyes can see, well you can look this up and verify if you want, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't smirk a little bit when I read it. It was always an unpopular opinion, but it's what I've said for years...
.
.
Oooooops! Wrong screengrab! I don't know how that ended up in this post 🤷, although it has also been unpopular when I've criticized his defense....
Here's the correct screengrab...
.
Miggy is spectacular and so is Trout. If I could have only one guy on my team? Miggy.
Still good company for Mike.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Goldenage said:
Tabe- One final thought, and if this doesn’t convince you then nothing else will.
Bobby Orr on one good knee is #5 all time in points per game. AND his job was to DEFEND, not score !
Let me ask you this - do you TRULY believe that Orr would be #5 in points per game if he was playing today? If not, what would he be? Explain your reasoning.
Roman Josi has the highest PPG among defensemen this year with 1.18. Fifth in the league overall is Leon Draisaitl with 1.38 PPG. Your position, for reasons I admit I don't even comprehend, is that Bobby Orr, who averaged 1.39 points per game for his entire career, could not possibly have a season now just below his career average then.
Yes, I TRULY believe that Orr could be #5 (or better) in PPG, 0.2 PPG better than Josi, if he were playing today. If there is something besides your feels that tells you otherwise, by all means share it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Yes, I TRULY believe that Orr could be #5 (or better) in PPG, 0.2 PPG better than Josi, if he were playing today. If there is something besides your feels that tells you otherwise, by all means share it.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. 5th in points all-time - not 5th in the league this year - if playing today. You think he's going to average 114 points a year when no defenseman has reached even 95 points in 30 years? Heck, 86 points has only been reached twice in that time.
It's really simple as to why - teams play defense now. Goalies are far superior because of improved athleticism and lighter equipment. 4th-line guys - who didn't even exist in Orr's era - can pretty much all skate. No one plays 30 minutes a night. Everyone blocks shots. The year had his best season (1975), Boston gave up 245 goals. That would be considered an awful number now. This year, Detroit is giving up what is thought to be a ridiculous number of goals at 3.80 per game, with Montreal somehow even worse at 3.90. In 1975, with barely half as many teams in the league, Detroit would only be 7th-worst with that 3.80.
So, no, Orr wouldn't put up anywhere near the numbers he did if he played today. He'd still be great most likely but not 114 points a year.
@Goldenage said:
Imagine the Red Wings coach saying to Lidstrom “even though I know you can get us 3 points per game because no one can stop you, don’t do that.” If Lidstrom, Potvin or Bourque could skate through defenses with ease, they would have.
Funny enough, you just made the perfect case for why Bill Russell and his 15 pts per game belongs nowhere near the GOAT discussion for basketball.
@Goldenage said:
Imagine the Red Wings coach saying to Lidstrom “even though I know you can get us 3 points per game because no one can stop you, don’t do that.” If Lidstrom, Potvin or Bourque could skate through defenses with ease, they would have.
Funny enough, you just made the perfect case for why Bill Russell and his 15 pts per game belongs nowhere near the GOAT discussion for basketball.
How so?
If you want a sense for Bill Russell, see what the Celtics did to two very talented guys in Brooklyn.
Defense still wins. It takes effort, though, that’s why there’s only 5-6 guys in the NBA who play defense AT A HIGH LEVEL for any long stretch.
Most people who watch basketball don’t understand it. Blocked shots, rebounds, steals they’re as important - if not more important than scoring - if you want to win a game.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Goldenage said:
Tabe- One final thought, and if this doesn’t convince you then nothing else will.
Bobby Orr on one good knee is #5 all time in points per game. AND his job was to DEFEND, not score !
Let me ask you this - do you TRULY believe that Orr would be #5 in points per game if he was playing today? If not, what would he be? Explain your reasoning.
Let me ask you this. What would a player in todays game do with Connor McDavid like speed or better. Wayne Gretzky like passing and vision or better, and Steve Yzerman leadership along with McCarty toughness ?
That’s Bobby Orr
You would be thrilled to watch him play. Just YouTube Secretariat Belmont. That video and Orr are one in the same..
Yes. He would lead the league in scoring easily. As I said, Connor McDavid isn’t half as good as him.
2 all time for defensemen Paul Coffey was #31 in PPG and he played over half his career with Gretzky and Lemieux. His defensive work was average at best.
Orr was #5 all time in PPG and he was blocking shots, clearing his net, and working the corners superbly.
No one in todays game could catch him, nor would they be able to play at his level. He’d still need a better league.
Tabe- I appreciate you saying Mario could be the best forward ever. I don’t go there because I feel he and Wayne are very equal.
Most don’t know this, but as much as those two dominated, Mike Bossy averaged more goals per game then both those two and anyone else ever.
Just think about how incredible Mario was. Both Mario and Mike suffered from back problems. Wayne was blessed with good health, never hit anyone, and stayed away from the corners or the net front. Bossy made a living in front of goal and in the slot.
Comments
I've written about this before; that's how I knew it was an unpopular argument. Part of it is the same point I make all the time about team sports; Michael Jordan did now win any NBA titles, the Bulls did. But mostly it's because it was laugh out loud funny - and why I gave up on the NBA (and also pro wrestling) - watching Jordan pick up his dribble, run two steps to his right to bump into an unsuspecting defender, draw a foul, turn back to his left for two more steps towards the basket and finish his layup, then take his free throw. Take away Jordan's exemptions from traveling, palming, etc. and you have a very good player, to be sure, but one no better than several others before and during his career (I have no knowledge of anything that has happened in the NBA (or pro wrestling) since then).
I never got into the NBA aside from a little in the 80’s with the Celtics but I definitely remember seeing Jordan highlights on ESPN back in the day. I haven’t watched enough basketball to make any logical opinion either way but surely never heard anyone say this.
Interesting
I like when a player admires their home run or flips the bat. No different than when a pitchers is yelling and pumped when the get a strikeout to end an inning and scoring chance.
just thought of an opinion housed in my cranium that's bound to be unpopular. i possess no sympathy for teams that are being pounded into submission. none. whenever i hear, "so classless to keep the starters in," or "i can't believe they are still throwing the ball up 30," it grates on my nerves. blowouts are a microcosm of today's society. in too many instances, when someone is down in life they have a tendency to immediately seek help, as opposed to making things happen themselves. there is far, far greater satisfaction out of persevering.
so when i see a team getting thrashed, i view it as a teachable moment. here's a novel idea: instead of expecting the opposing team to save you from yourself, how's about getting pissed off, fighting like a rabid dog and putting an end to the beatdown you're absorbing? the other team is getting paid handsomely to go full bore; why are you asking them to throttle down? it's weak, it's lame, and it's detrimental in the long run.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Of course it's possible the GOAT came from that era. I am not making that argument and to say otherwise is false.
What I am saying is that Orr stood out, especially with regard to his production, because of his lesser contemporaries.
Take him and drop him into the modern era. How does that impact his game? Well...to start, his skating no longer stands out. That was a gigantic portion of his game. Secondly, his production would be significantly reduced by virtue of goaltending. He's not scoring from 65 feet on slap shots where the backswing is knee-high in today's game. Third, his production would be further reduced because everyone plays defense in the modern game.
So, what do you end up with? An All-Star caliber defenseman putting up 70-ish points a year, probably less. And not one person saying he's the GOAT. It's entirely possible that the greatest hockey player of all-time retired 45+ years ago. It just isn't the case.
So a GOAT can only be playing currently as the current players are much better? So the current GOAT will no longer be the GOAT 20 years from now?
But you aren't making an argument, you're merely restating your premises and then adding on some statements disguised as facts because they fit the conclusion you've already reached. If you'd care to answer the questions that I asked, that would get us somewhere, but reaching the conclusion that Orr wasn't the GOAT because his competition is weaker than it would be today is all that you're doing, and that's true whether you say it's false or not.
So your position is that Bobby Orr would be the best player in the NHL right now? How about during Mario's prime?
And I'm not saying he's not the best his competition was weak. I'm saying he's not the best because better players have come along after him. And that his special skill - skating - would not stand out now, thus neutralizing him to a fair degree.
Unless you truly think players get worse over time, which is demonstrably false, then, yeah, there's a really good chance the current GOAT won't be in a generation or so.
There is more agreement on this message board than in my real life interactions, but I will always side with the players in labor negotiations with the owners. I do not believe, collectively, that players are overpaid. There are individuals that leverage their situations into salaries that are not in alignment with their contributions, but overall, players as a group deserve much bigger pieces of the revenue pie.
I also laugh out loud at people that blame owners, players, venues, etc, for the high cost of tickets and concessions and souvenirs. Blame your fellow citizens and fans of the team. If tickets to the Super Bowl had a face value of $1 on them, just how many tickets do you think you could get your hands on? And if you were lucky enough to score some tickets, and someone offered you $8,000 for one of them, would you sell?
Same premise for a Saturday afternoon game at Fenway with the Yankees in town. All tickets are 50 cents, like in "the good ol' days". How many could/would you buy, and is there an amount that you would take to give up the chance to go? The fans collectively set the prices for all of the things associated with the games. If people weren't spending $15 for a beer, they wouldn't sell it for that. They'd sell it for $12, or whatever, until they found a sweet spot in the price to sell the volume that they desire.
Obviously, that is unknowable. But yes, I think there's a fair chance that he would be. And like the NFL, where "because, you know, quarterbacks" is the best and only argument ever made on behalf of all the GOAT candidates being QBs, in the NHL "because, you know, scoring" is not a terribly impressive argument. Bobby Orr could score, as a GOAT must, but he could also prevent the other team from scoring, as also a GOAT must. In my opinion, Orr's combination of skills was unmatched, and has yet to be matched. Hockey is a team game, and identifying a GOAT is not a science. I could theoretically be persuaded that Mario, or Wayne, or Gordie, or someone else was the GOAT. But it would take a well-constructed argument, backed with stats, to convince me.
@Tabe @dallasactuary
I generally buy into the idea that modern athletes as a whole are better than those from decades past simply because of the advancements made in nutrition, weight training, game theory, etc. However, I also think that an individual from the past can be considered the most dominant player in a sport's history because of what he/she was able to do against the competition at the time. I think Babe Ruth was probably the most dominant player baseball has ever seen because the gap between his production and that of other players of his era was so vast. But in a man-to-man competition against Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey, Jr. or Mike Trout, etc., he likely comes up as inferior because those players have all benefitted from 60+ years of progress after Ruth's days. That idea likely factors into your Bobby Orr discussion as well.
^^^^^^^^^^
To add to thr discussion equipment in hockey has changed drastically during Orr's era to present. No helmets vs helmets , stick composition and larger goalie pads and goalies to name a few. Also the elimination of the two line rule in 2005 changed the way the game was played offensively and defensively.
Orr was a wonder to watch play. It's just a shame it was for suck a short period. One thing for sure you noticed him when he was on the ice
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Ah, now this is a concept I can get on board with. If you want to name somebody as the most dominant, then you don't have to judge how they'd perform in another era, etc. It removes the nutrition/equipment/physiological improvements out. That's probably a much easier conversation to have.
And I would definitely agree that Babe Ruth was the most dominant baseball player of all-time.
I don't know that you could make a similar case for Orr since I would say Gretzky dominated to a larger degree with Orr would at least have a (very strong) case.
As Justacommeman said, it's definitely a shame that we got to see so little of Orr. He deserved a better fate.
Here's my absolutely irrefutable, perfect, unimpeachable argument in favor of Mario Lemieux:
He's the only player to score a goal 5 different ways in one game (PP, even strength, SH, penalty shot, empty net).
Absolutely, and this is why the "drop so-and-so into a different century and see how good they'd be" argument is so worthless. Would Babe Ruth struggle (for a while, anyway) if you dropped him off in 2022 and handed him a bat half the size of the one he had used? Almost certainly. To equate that with an actual argument that Babe Ruth wasn't the GOAT is so ridiculous it's painful. How about we drop off Mike Trout in 1922 and hand him Ruth's bat (and glove, and wool uniform, and no batting helmet, etc.) and see how he'd do. He'd struggle (for a while anyway), too.
But the basic skills required to play baseball and hockey haven't changed over those 100 years, and players with tremendous skills will adapt to whatever changes you make. Is it possible that Ruth and Orr would fade into the background if they played today? I guess anything is possible, but there's not a scrap of evidence to support the belief that they would. What evidence there is tells me that Ruth and Orr would be phenomenal in today's games, just as they were in their own games. (I think it's scary to imagine how much BETTER Ruth would be today when homers are a dime a dozen, there's medicine to fix your STDs, and trainers to keep your body from breaking down.)
I have always maintained that the GOAT concept as well as the so-called list of the 100 all-time greatest players... insert your sport here... is ridiculous
Just one of my unpopular views worth sharing but I suspect I have made this clear enough times to the point where it is pointless to continue to assert it
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm mostly with you on the GOAT concept. It works fine in sports like tennis or golf, but it's a lot of assumptions and guesswork in baseball, and almost nothing but assumptions and guesswork in the other team sports. Mostly, it's useful for picking fights and having arguments.
But I like the top 100 concept much more, especially if the ordering is explained in some logical fashion. There will still be arguments over the order, but taking a look at the list from top to bottom and recognizing how the quality of players is dropping as you go can be entertaining and even educational if it makes you take a deeper look at a name that looks out of place.
I also believe Michael Jordan is overrated.
I believe Mike Tyson is wildly overrated.
Clemens and Bonds being elected by the Veterans and not the Writers is a perfect punishment for their behavior.
The NFL is fixed.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Love stinks.
J Giels said it, not me.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
People are entitled to their opinions... Some opinions are better than others.
As for Golf, a list of the 100 greatest really does not work mainly because of how golf club technology changed over time. Look at the Tommy Armour blade irons and the McGregor woods used by Hogan in the 1940s and compare the so-called "pro-line" clubs of that era to what exists today. There simply is no comparison as to which clubs produce the highest successful shot percentage. Some of the greatest golf courses do not play as originally anticipated based on the new age of club design and the distance generated by the advanced design of clubs- greater sweet spots on irons... oversized metal woods. The skill level to consistently produce results with blade irons with a significantly smaller sweet spot makes comparing or even ranking players like Hogan and Snead to Woods something that makes little if any sense. And in writing this by no means do I want to diminish the accomplishments and greatness of Woods... he is terrific and worthy of the praise/recognition he receives.
Shifting back to MLB. I see the list of the 100 greatest players as merely a rehash and a discussion of what truly is counter productive in terms of capturing the history of the game. And such lists further reduce the significance of players that were excellent that will likely never make it into the HOF. There are those that wrote of Ralph Kiner that he was a man among boys at the time. Anyone who really thinks that should stand next to Ted Kluszewski and say that just to see what happens. My point is simple... greatness is achieved by looking at the times the players that made the game what it was. I suspect Gil Hodges who finally arrived at the HOF... 40+ years late... may not make the top 100. I suspect Rocky Colavito would not make it either. Both were great and as time passes, they should not be reduced to a footnote in the history of MLB. In looking back at the Maris-Mantle HR battle of 1961, no one ever seems to focus on the HR competition during the same season between Killebrew (46), Colavito (45) and Jim Gentile (46). In any other year, the numbers put up by these guys would put them in the running for MVP.
Instead, I would much rather see the energy in arguing about the greatest 100 players be redirected into something useful such as a discussion of excellent to great players that have little if any chance of getting into the HOF. Seems this would be a better use of time as well develop a better understanding of MLB history- there is so much more to it than the HOF. And there are numerous players that deserve a more than a footnote.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Boxing is dead.
Don King killed it.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Late to the show. I have an unpopular opinion: Doping is rampant in all professional sports. No one likes to hear this bc we want to believe all sport is pure and true. Used to think sport was pure too, but then I made friends with a scientist in charge of the doping tests for the Tour de France during the Armstrong years. Wow that was a wake up call. He does say that now tho', alot of the doping rampant in endurance sports in the past has largely become obsolete bc of nutrition protocols. Turns out, what you eat and a properly designed nutrition regimen can enhance performance better than some of the fav doping products. So endurance specialists are investing more time and study into nutrition. I am sure the same is happening to some degree with team sports - look at Brady for example I am pretty sure he does not dope as his focus has always been on strict nutrition protocols. But he might be in the minority in fb..........
Best, SH
I can't believe the stupidity of some people.
You can apply this to the post of your choice.
Had to post even though I said my days here are done.
Table- Wayne Gretzky said the skates used in Orr’s day were horrible compared to his era.
Scotty Bowman said the only player he remembers that has lightning quick feet to accelerate on a dime like Connor McDavid is Bobby Orr.
Many who understand edge control understand that Gretzky introduced great edge control to the game.
Orr and McDavid have the quickest foot burst hockey has ever seen.
If Orr played in todays game he would simply dominate, because Gretzky’s edge control would have been taught to him, he’d have better skates to skate on, and his lightning quick feet would allow him to dominate better than McDavid is, because Orr saw the ice better than any player ever.
Just ask yourself this.
What player in the history of hockey ever won MVP of an international tournament playing on one leg ?
Bobby Clarke said Orr couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. That’s how bad ass tough this guy was.
Any other defenseman or player doesn’t even come close to Orr.
He’d make this league look silly today, just like he did in his era.
Gretzky and Lemieux had similar stats. No defenseman even came close to Orrs stats, ever!!!
Bobby Clarke said it’s too bad there wasn’t a better league for Orr to play in. He was that dominant.
So when you watch Connor McDavid playing today on two good knees, just say to yourself that you’re watching half the player that Bobby Orr was, who played on one good knee.
Agree 100% on the GOAT concept.
Top 100 is a good concept but probably even more logistically challenging, but I would imagine the challenge is a big part of the allure for you.
Tabe- One final thought, and if this doesn’t convince you then nothing else will.
Bobby Orr on one good knee is #5 all time in points per game. AND his job was to DEFEND, not score !
The closest to him for defense is #31 Paul Coffey. You know why Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, and Lidstrom aren’t up there with Orr ? Because they aren’t good enough to be. If those guys could dominate like Orr, they would have. Imagine the Red Wings coach saying to Lidstrom “even though I know you can get us 3 points per game because no one can stop you, don’t do that.” If Lidstrom, Potvin or Bourque could skate through defenses with ease, they would have.
I’m not even going to get into his ridiculous plus minus numbers.
Other defensemen would have dominated like Orr if they had the ability to. The truth is they didn’t have his ability. Bobby Hull after playing his first period against the 18 year old in Boston told the ref he better bring out another puck for the second period, because no one is going to take it from that kid.
You couldn’t catch him. After his three length lead on you because of his speed burst, your stride wasn’t fast enough to catch up.
Orr and McDavid are the two quickest skaters ever, with Orr first and McDavid 2nd. No way Gretzky, Lemieux,Crosby or McDavid stop him back then or today.
Would love to see Yzerman skate during Orr’s day. Yzerman would look as silly as everyone else did trying to keep up with him. Yzerman couldn’t catch him in 1995 either. Orr would be way too quick for him.
Ken Dryden said most players came at him at a normal speed. He said he was afraid when Orr came at him because his brain wasn’t used to playing at that level.
Off topic I just wanted to say I miss your posts on this board Goldenage, I hope one day you decide to come back. Best wishes. Robert
Tony LaRussa is overrated and his teams won in spite of him because they were loaded with talent.
This past week Tony LaRussa decided to bat Leury Garcia third. Leury Garcia had the worst lifetime OPS and the worst current season OPS in the lineup, and yet he was inserted in the third spot.
This marked the second time in White Sox history where the third place hitter had both the worst lifetime OPS and current season OPS.
The other time it happened was in 1979 when Mike Squires had that dubious distinction. Squires manger? Tony LaRussa!
LaRussa was so 'smart' that he batted Garcia third in the following game as well.
LaRussa finally came to his senses and moved Garcia out of the three spot.....but then batted him second!!!!
No words. No words. Completely indefensible.
Robert. Thank you. That is a kind statement. Thanks. However I am a man who tries his best to honor his word, so enjoy the forum. Lots of cool dudes here to hang with.
...
I have actually thought to myself that I should take notes here, so as to better know who is who, who roots for what team, who said what, etc. I honestly have to say that I can't remember why you said you were no longer going to post @Goldenage . Heck, it could have been because of me. 😂🤷 I do vaguely remember you posting some thoughts awhile ago that made me take notice and think that we might share some of the same values. Anyway, this place is a good melting pot in a way, if that makes sense, and I find value in it.
Your a keeper in my book. I enjoy your posts as well. It wasn’t you.
There was a poster who claimed I was comparing races, when I’ve never even thought about that, let alone write it. A few others liked or agreed with him that I was indeed doing that.
I was falsely accused three times in my life. One was career threatening, where two detectives interrogated me about a lie someone set forth about me. I know what false accusations are, and I stay away from it as best I can. Brings up feelings I don’t want to feel. Enjoy it here.. Lots of classy people.
Goldenage,
I hold no grudges or ill feelings towards you, as far as I'm concerned that was long ago and far away. I would welcome and encourage you to return. All is good with me.
I say this as politely as I can, and not with any ill will.
Of course you don’t hold any grudges. You didn’t have anyone make a false racism claim against you.
I was never comparing races as you said I was. That false accusation was made against me, not you.
I also hold nothing against you at all. If this is the way you think, speak and act that is fine with me. We are all different and I respect that.
However I would choose to never live in the south in the 1800s because of slavery, and I choose to not hang here if others feel I compare races. I gave $1000 each year for 20 years to the United Negro College fund, and did charity for kids from the projects throughout my teaching career.
If you search Michael Jordan - air ball- Nets, I paid for two kids from the projects and me to see Jordan and the Bulls one night. Jordan shot an air ball to end the game and Bulls lost to the Nets.
It’s all good. Enjoy the forum, and thank you for your military service.
Forgot to add I hold no ill will either. I wish the Red Sox and Bruins and Patriots and you and your loved ones all the best.
You and the others who think I compare races are totally entitled to think that way, and I totally respect that. Everyone looks at things differently and that’s perfectly fine.
❤️🙏
This is is a screenshot of what happened.
After that, in the same thread before it was closed, I feel as though @Goldenage defended his point quite well. I think it is relevant for me to say that I have no problem with the posed question, but my first thought upon seeing it was that for sure someone here would take it the wrong way. And that happened. But I would like to see any parties offended by the question to extrapolate out their reasons, especially in light of the defense that the OP provided in the original thread. And I'd love for @Goldenage to stick around.
Read my post, I made no such allegation. You choose to interpret (like many do here), your version of what you read
Perhaps the "grudge comment" was my attempt to overlooking you defaming me"
Nowhere in my brief post do I accuse you of comparing races
Actually you do hold something against me, your very words say so. You make the assumption that you know how I think, speak and act, which is ludicrous on its face. You wouldn't know me if I fell in front of you.
Here you go off on a totally unrelated tangent of your thoughts of living in the 1800s. This is BS and totally unrelated to the topic at hand. That you have donated funds to a cause is noteworthy, however, in that profession, one would think you've learned a lot about people...perhaps not.
Again, totally unrelated to the topic.
No, its not all good, althought I made a gentlemanly attempt to make it so. How obvious you omitted the three times you defamed me, although your F Lee Bailey prowess didn't shine through with your lack of knowlege of the difference between slander and defamation. Odd, I thought how you felt you could defame me three times over something so innocuous.
Dont bother to thank me for my service, you don't really mean it. So many have done so as I proudly wear my Vietnam Veteran baseball cap from time to time. Why? To honor the buddies I left behind and the two I escorted home from Dover Air Force Base in a gray box. You have no clue what a horribly shiXXy place that was, and those of us lucky enough to come home were trashed, spit on and called baby killers. No parade for us, that's why sometimes you might see total strangers shake hands and say "welcome home" though its been well over 40 years, we all know what we did and what it was like.
We are not sitting at a bar where unintended consequences arise from misinterpreted words can be corrected, we're in cyberspace, a lot of stuff misses the mark. You chose to feel as you did and let your obvious emotions take control of your brain and lashed out, when in fact a simple query could have resolved this issue quite quickly. I offered an olive branch and you chose to take the lower road and diss my offer to welcome you back to the Sports Page. I obviously don't control the board, but it was my attempt to put this to rest. I really don't care at this point whether you return or not.
I have often used the phrase, "I don't need the fancy-schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see".
As far back as 2012 and 2013, when people were saying that somehow Miguel Cabrera was undeserving of his MVPs over Mike Trout, I would tell them how ludicrous that was. They would go on about W.A.R. this and W.A.R. that, and I would just respond by asking them, "Do you even watch baseball?"
Miguel Cabrera, in those years, was an impossible out when the chips were down. His plate coverage was incredible. I would just tell people though, "Throw the ball up in the zone if you want to get Mike Trout out. He can't hit that high fastball". They would all pooh-pooh me.
Then, in 2014, Trout finally won his MVP. The Angels had the best record in the league. The Royals were just lucky to be there. It was time for the coronation. I told people, don't worry, Mike Trout won't be any problem for them. The Royals will just feed him a steady diet of high fastballs, and he will be a non-factor. Mike Trout was the final out on both Game 2 AND Game 3, swinging and missing for the 3rd strike off of high heat from Greg Holland.
I have referred to this weakness of his time and time again. I have often said, those that don't know this, they just aren't watching.
Well, guess what? I have no idea if this is an accurate advanced stat or not. Those of you that depend on the fancy-schmancy stats, rather than results that your eyes can see, well you can look this up and verify if you want, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't smirk a little bit when I read it. It was always an unpopular opinion, but it's what I've said for years...
.
.
Oooooops! Wrong screengrab! I don't know how that ended up in this post 🤷, although it has also been unpopular when I've criticized his defense....
Here's the correct screengrab...
.
Topps- I do truly mean it. So I’ll say it again. Thank you so much for your time serving our country.
My dad from Worcester Mass served in Korea, and I lost a treasured hockey player I coached when he was 17. War and death is not easy.
I know the stories, and lived through losing a child I loved.
Over and out. Enjoy the forum.
Miggy is spectacular and so is Trout. If I could have only one guy on my team? Miggy.
Still good company for Mike.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Let me ask you this - do you TRULY believe that Orr would be #5 in points per game if he was playing today? If not, what would he be? Explain your reasoning.
Roman Josi has the highest PPG among defensemen this year with 1.18. Fifth in the league overall is Leon Draisaitl with 1.38 PPG. Your position, for reasons I admit I don't even comprehend, is that Bobby Orr, who averaged 1.39 points per game for his entire career, could not possibly have a season now just below his career average then.
Yes, I TRULY believe that Orr could be #5 (or better) in PPG, 0.2 PPG better than Josi, if he were playing today. If there is something besides your feels that tells you otherwise, by all means share it.
Pineapples do not belong on pizza.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. 5th in points all-time - not 5th in the league this year - if playing today. You think he's going to average 114 points a year when no defenseman has reached even 95 points in 30 years? Heck, 86 points has only been reached twice in that time.
It's really simple as to why - teams play defense now. Goalies are far superior because of improved athleticism and lighter equipment. 4th-line guys - who didn't even exist in Orr's era - can pretty much all skate. No one plays 30 minutes a night. Everyone blocks shots. The year had his best season (1975), Boston gave up 245 goals. That would be considered an awful number now. This year, Detroit is giving up what is thought to be a ridiculous number of goals at 3.80 per game, with Montreal somehow even worse at 3.90. In 1975, with barely half as many teams in the league, Detroit would only be 7th-worst with that 3.80.
So, no, Orr wouldn't put up anywhere near the numbers he did if he played today. He'd still be great most likely but not 114 points a year.
Funny enough, you just made the perfect case for why Bill Russell and his 15 pts per game belongs nowhere near the GOAT discussion for basketball.
How so?
If you want a sense for Bill Russell, see what the Celtics did to two very talented guys in Brooklyn.
Defense still wins. It takes effort, though, that’s why there’s only 5-6 guys in the NBA who play defense AT A HIGH LEVEL for any long stretch.
Most people who watch basketball don’t understand it. Blocked shots, rebounds, steals they’re as important - if not more important than scoring - if you want to win a game.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Let me ask you this. What would a player in todays game do with Connor McDavid like speed or better. Wayne Gretzky like passing and vision or better, and Steve Yzerman leadership along with McCarty toughness ?
That’s Bobby Orr
You would be thrilled to watch him play. Just YouTube Secretariat Belmont. That video and Orr are one in the same..
Yes. He would lead the league in scoring easily. As I said, Connor McDavid isn’t half as good as him.
2 all time for defensemen Paul Coffey was #31 in PPG and he played over half his career with Gretzky and Lemieux. His defensive work was average at best.
Orr was #5 all time in PPG and he was blocking shots, clearing his net, and working the corners superbly.
No one in todays game could catch him, nor would they be able to play at his level. He’d still need a better league.
...
Welcome to Sports Talk @Little2NoCents
💯
😎
Tabe- I appreciate you saying Mario could be the best forward ever. I don’t go there because I feel he and Wayne are very equal.
Most don’t know this, but as much as those two dominated, Mike Bossy averaged more goals per game then both those two and anyone else ever.
Just think about how incredible Mario was. Both Mario and Mike suffered from back problems. Wayne was blessed with good health, never hit anyone, and stayed away from the corners or the net front. Bossy made a living in front of goal and in the slot.