Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Belfour, Neuwendyk, Gilmour and Howe to the Hall

TheHunTheHun Posts: 1,690
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Congrats to these guys inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Ed Belfour
Doug Glmour
Joe Neuwendyk
Mark Howe


«1

Comments

  • Probstein123Probstein123 Posts: 1,281 ✭
    Mark Howe
    ==> I saw howe play every night in the 80s ( season tickets ) , never thought of him as a dominant player...
    his WHA stats were impressive, not to his NHL...I'm happy for him , but VERY surprised...
    Rick Probstein
    Ebay Store:
    Probstein123
    phone: 973 747 6304
    email: rickprobstein1@gmail.com

    Probstein123 is actively accepting CONSIGNMENTS !!
  • TheHunTheHun Posts: 1,690
    on NHL Network they listed many of the lines he played with, on and the 2nd teamers .... several of which went on to the Hall.

    I suspect he did not get in on his name alone - he was a pretty good player. There are many things we cannot see that the voting panel take into account: leadership, durability and effort.
  • ThoseBackPagesThoseBackPages Posts: 4,871 ✭✭
    Belfour = 1990 Upper Deck

    Officially I'm getting old lol
    Big Fan of: HOF Post War RC, Graded RCs
    WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
  • EagleEyeKidEagleEyeKid Posts: 4,496 ✭✭
    I'm surprised (huh, what?) Mark Howe got in as well.
    I think the Howe name helped.

    Just picked up a couple Nieuwendyk OPC rookies. Still need a 9 or 10 for my PC.
  • HallcoHallco Posts: 3,651 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Solid selections! Glad to see Joe and Doug making it this year.
  • chaz43chaz43 Posts: 2,140 ✭✭✭
    LINDROS "The Man"!!! should already be in. When he was at his best, no one on the 2011 list could touch him. He was the "MAN"!!!!!! chaz
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,616 ✭✭✭✭
    In addition to being a good scoring NHL defenseman and a star winger (yes, winger) in the WHA, Mark Howe retired with a career +400 rating in the NHL. That's good for 12th all time. Only two players with a better career +/- aren't in the HOF, and one is Lidstrom who will get in first ballot when he hangs them up. Howe's HOF induction was way overdue. Now if the voters can just see about getting Oates and Bure in...
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • georgebailey2georgebailey2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭
    Probstein (and to a lessor extent EagleEye),

    I am very surprised by the remarks on Howe. I saw practically every game they played during the 80's and have a dramatically different take on Mark Howe. I have been bleeding Orange and Black since my first visit to the Spectrum in 1971. As great as Clarke, Parent, Barber and Lindros were, in my view, Mark Howe may have been the best player to play for the Flyers. He definitely is the best defensemen they have ever had. From 82-88, he was the best defenseman in the NHL not named Bourque. He should have won at least 2 Norris Trophies had it not been for a collective brain-cramp for Rod Langway and a point record for Coffey that was too flashy to be ignored. Howe never really made mistakes or got beaten. His plus/minus during that period was unbelievable. I thought he was pretty dominant.

    You should read Bill Meltzer's blogs on HockeyBuzz. He is an unbelievable writer. He also has a similar take on Howe. For more Flyers, read PhillyPahanatics.com also.

    Regards,
    Paul
  • GDM67GDM67 Posts: 2,526 ✭✭✭✭
    Really happy to see Mark Howe's name on this list. Well deserved.

    I have to mention that Belfour and Neuwendyk were in two of the very funniest sports commercials ever filmed, that series that had various members of the Stars carting the Cup around during the summer after they won. Joe was using it as a Jell-O mold and Belfour was riding with it on a Tilt-A-Whirl. The one with Modano and Hull (where they locked it in the car) was the best.
    My Sets
  • GarabaldiGarabaldi Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭
    I remember I was watching a show on the Howe's and they said that they made sure that they never called him Dad in the locker room or on the ice. Except one time Mark was breaking towards the goal and he said "Dad, Dad" and Gordie hit with a great pass and he scored.
  • artistlostartistlost Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭
    Great for all four players...no if only we could see Bure and Oates get in...

    mathew
    baseball & hockey junkie

    drugs of choice
    NHL hall of fame rookies
  • cpamikecpamike Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭
    Congrats to all, well deserved!!!

    But what about Kenny Linseman??? image
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep."

    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

    Collecting:
    Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
  • RedHeart54RedHeart54 Posts: 2,282 ✭✭✭
    I'd been thinking about getting a PSA 9 Gilmour rookie ('84 OPC) but they sure don't come up very often. (There are two on ebay now but I don't like the centering.) Leaf fans must really hoard their favorite rookie cards because besides the Gilmour, PSA 9 '86 OPC Wendel Clark rookies never come up anymore.
  • aro13aro13 Posts: 1,961 ✭✭✭
    I am glad Howe is in and congrats to all of the selections.

    Just to clarify, plus/minus stats were not kept until 1967-68 so anybody that had one season before that year is not included in the career leaders.

    Still, what is probably more impressive is that among the leaders post-1967 for average plus/minus per season, Howe is fifth all-time. Bobby Orr, of course, is the runaway leader with an average +82 per 82 game season, followed by Larry Robinson at +43, Mike Bossy at +41, Jimmy Watson at +39 and then Mark Howe at +35.

  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    Mark Howe absolutely deserves the Hall.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    I'm not going to argue on Howe's induction, the majority of his career was well before my time, but if the main reason you're arguing for his inclusion is his +/- rating, that's not really much of a strength...especially considering some of the lines he played with. Sure it's always better to be a +, but it's a very team dependent, and flawed stat. Really it's only value in use is working backwards with it to reveal a player's true worth. For example, take the Capitals of last season where Ovechkin was partially responsible for 84% of the Caps offense at even strength, while first pairing D-man Jeff Schultz (+50 on the season while largely paired with Mike Green) was only responsible for 27% of his team's offense at even strength. That's how little Schultz had to with his +50 rating as compared to his linemates. In contrast, there is Keith Yandle who contributed to 47% of the Yotes' offense at even strength, which was even higher than Mike Green's percentage (42%) of offense at even strength for the Capitals. There are newer stats including CORSI and Relative +/- which adjusts for the strength of the player's team by subtracting the team's average plus-minus, which is great for evaluating a player's true value. Other factors in the more advanced metrics include taking into account the quality of competition a player faces. Obviously, your first defensive pair is going to face each team's top lines more times than not. So by these metrics, it will show what every diehard hockey fan knows, that Pavel Datsyuk has been the best player (not scorer, player) in the NHL over the last three years at +96.6, a hair ahead of Ovechkin's +96.5 and miles ahead of third-place Daniel Sedin +80.2. Lidstrom is fourth at +79.7. You can also look at this season's Norris Trophy winner in Lidstrom who finished the year at a -2 +/- rating. Despite his even play numbers being well below his peak (39 of his points came on the PP), the reason he likely won came from the fact that he faced the toughest Quality of Competition of any player in the league with GP requirements. Lidstrom also had the second highest average time on the penalty kill. Sure a decent portion of his votes came from lifetime achievement and there being no real clear-cut leader this season, but still, clearly not many voters paid much attention to his -2 rating.

  • aro13aro13 Posts: 1,961 ✭✭✭
    lanemyer85 - I do not think anybody is arguing the main reason Howe should be in the HOF is because of his plus/minus. Nobody is advocating Brad Mcrimmon. It is just another statistic that works strongly in his favour.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭


    << <i>lanemyer85 - I do not think anybody is arguing the main reason Howe should be in the HOF is because of his plus/minus. Nobody is advocating Brad Mcrimmon. It is just another statistic that works strongly in his favour. >>



    two posters pointed out his +/- solely...which is what I was referring to. Again, I'm not saying +/- is completely worthless, it's just not a true indicator of a player's worth. It's useful for a tie-breaker scenario. Say if all things were equal, If the choice was Leetch vs Howe and everything was equal except for +/- but because Howe was a career +400 and Leetch was only a career +25, then sure. Otherwise it's not unlike Corey Perry winning the Hart because he had an edge over the other finalists in GWG.
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,616 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>two posters pointed out his +/- solely...which is what I was referring to >>



    Nobody in this thread said Howe got in solely on +/-.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    Nobody in this thread said Howe got in solely on +/-

    that's not what I said. I said two posters solely pointed out his +/-. Semantics, but just noting that's what what I was referring to. If you reread the thread, you'll note that the two posters who pointed out specific stats, in regard to Howe, is +/- only. I'm not diminishing his career or anything, I just found it interesting that Howe's +/- was what those posters noted before his point totals or his Norris finishes etc.
  • georgebailey2georgebailey2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Nobody in this thread said Howe got in solely on +/-

    that's not what I said. I said two posters solely pointed out his +/-. q]

    I brought up his +/- almost in passing, not "solely". My focus was comparing his skill level to other Flyers who are (or, in the case of Lindros - should be) in the HHOF and remarking how he was jobbed of 2 Norris Trophies. Of all the defenseman of that era: Bourque, Potvin, Robinson, Langway, Coffee, Murphy; personally, I would take Howe easily over all but perhaps Bourque and Potvin.

    Howe switched from an all-star forward in the WHA to a defenseman in the NHL, quickly becoming a perennial Norris candidate from 82 through 87. He was a 3 time 1st Team All-Star. The +/- is mentioned in that he had such a strong season in 85-86 that the number is difficult to ignore. You have to remember that elite defensemen play between 22 and 30 minutes a night (Keenan's teams in that era went with virtually only 4 d-men, with the 5-6 pair spotted pretty rarely) and their +/- can be a telling statistic particularly when compared to the team's overall +/-.

  • TabeTabe Posts: 6,178 ✭✭✭✭✭
    +/- is, as has been mentioned, a ridiculously flawed stat. It's also wildly era-biased. Of the top +/- seasons of all-time, you have to get to #58 (Vlady Konstantinov in 1995/96 at +60) before you reach a season from the last 20 years. It's almost like single-season wins in baseball - the game is just so different this particular stat is skewed.

    That said, am very happy to see Howe get in. He was a helluva player for a long, long time.

    Tabe
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    George, I meant strictly statistics. The Norris nods or AS Games and that stuff can be debated of their merit all day long. Seeing that Mike Green has been a finalist twice, and is a fire drill in his own end, that stuff doesn't mean that much to me. BTW, I think you're forgetting Doug Wilson and Phil Housley in that peer group though. I did some digging around and found some of what I was looking for aside from Howe's season average of 46 points per year(55 if you include the WHL years). If you look at the advanced GVT metric...which is like the WAR or Wins Above Replacement/ VORP Value Over Replacement Player stat for baseball (a great tool for measuring different eras as well), Howe would have been the #5 HOF snub behind Housley (+267.7), Vanbiesbrouck(+236.3, also over 100 points higher than Fuhr who ranks as the fourth least deserving HOF inductee to date), Oates(+224.1), Gilmour (+223.4), and Howe at (+195). As PP/ESPN writer T.Awad recently pointed out, "The Hall of Fame judges seem to have two biases: Players who have not won the Stanley Cup are penalized, but more significant is the apparent bias against American players". Which Housley and Vanbiesbrouck can attest to.

    Edit to add - here's how his peers stack up

    Bourque +492.4
    MacInnis +377.8
    Coffey +366.6
    Murphy +310.9
    D.Potvin +293
    Chelios +290 (sort of cheating on the overlapping era on Cheli)
    L.Robinson +289.2
    B.Park +272.2
    Housley +267.7

    I kept getting fluctuating numbers on Doug Wilson so I'm not going to post his total.
  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    +/- is a stat that only the individual player should follow to help his/her game out season by season.
  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    Also, a player's "single season" +/- doesn't mean too much for the record books...but having a great +/- after your career is up is something to admire.
  • eyeboneeyebone Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭
    too easy to get into the hhof, imo. howe, nieuwendyk and gilmour were all very nice players but not sure if any of them are hofers.

    eyebone
    "I'm not saying I'm the best manager in the world, but I'm in the top one." Brian Clough
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭


    << <i>too easy to get into the hhof, imo. howe, nieuwendyk and gilmour were all very nice players but not sure if any of them are hofers.

    eyebone >>



    fair enough. Though since the degree of difficulty upon entry has been set, all of those guys are deserving. FWIW these are the bottom 6 least deserving inductees according to GVT.

    Clark Gillies +112.8
    Dick Duff +126.5
    Rod Langway +128.9
    Grant Fuhr +131.4
    Cam Neely +157.2
    Bernie Federko +157.8
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    I don't think Howe should get in solely based on his +/- but I'd let him in for getting impaled by a net fastener, in the worst of places I might add, and coming back to play another 15 years. In all seriousness though, if Howe had played his entire career in the NHL his offensive totals would have been very close to Housley's and Phil's game on the defensive end was simply embarrassing when compared to Mark Howe. GVT appears to be weighted towards offense and I would be careful using such exotic stats when trying to evaluate defensemen. Overall, defensive contributions are very difficult to measure by such metrics and there's a lot of things great defensemen do on a nightly basis that simply doesn't show up on the stat sheet and cannot be quantitatively analyzed by aggregations such as GVT.

    Adam Oates get my vote as the most overlooked eligible candidate. One of the greatest playmakers in the history of the game and also one of the all-time greats when considering face-off percentage, a very important statistic for centers. Lack of hardware has been, perhaps unfairly, keeping him out.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    well sure it's weighted towards offense because it's based on a team's average scoring level. Plus in simple terms, offense simply has a greater value. It's more difficult to find scorers than plus defenders esp on the blueline. It's true that it won't factor in everything, such as blocked shots or the ability to skate the puck out of one's own end, or hit counts, or fighting, but no one is getting into the HOF based on those things anyway. It aggregates offensive, defensive, and shootout contributions into a single metric while taking into acct the quality of competition faced. The sum of player GVT on a team equals that team’s goal differential plus the replacement level, which is 50% of the average team scoring level. It's pretty accurate especially when dealing with non-goalies. If anything it's weighed heavier towards them because you're taking the defensive value out of the equation. As an example here were the playoff leaders followed by the Hart Trophy race from this season.

    1. Thomas +13.9
    2. Krejci +5.0
    3. Kesler +3.7
    4. Horton +3.4
    5. Bergeron +3.2
    Burrows +3.2
    7. Bieksa +2.6 (1.4 defensive value, 1.2 offensive)
    8. D.Sedin +2.5
    9. Luongo +2.4
    10. H.Sedin +2.2

    1. C.Perry +19.4
    2. D.Sedin +19.2
    3. Kesler +17.6 (5.7 in defensive value)
    4. Toews +17.1 (5.7 in defensive value)
    5. Stamkos +17.0
    6. St. Louis +16.9

    I think it's tough to argue with any of that. I know St.Louis was a Hart finalist, but he gets nicked down by league average defense and a negative -0.7 shootout value with GVT
  • GarabaldiGarabaldi Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>too easy to get into the hhof, imo. howe, nieuwendyk and gilmour were all very nice players but not sure if any of them are hofers.

    eyebone >>



    fair enough. Though since the degree of difficulty upon entry has been set, all of those guys are deserving. FWIW these are the bottom 6 least deserving inductees according to GVT.

    Clark Gillies +112.8
    Dick Duff +126.5
    Rod Langway +128.9
    Grant Fuhr +131.4
    Cam Neely +157.2
    Bernie Federko +157.8 >>



    Cam Neely deserves to be in the HOF and not on one of your least derserving lists. Per usual, Laner can skew any argument in his favor.
  • hockeycrazyhockeycrazy Posts: 309 ✭✭
    I will never understand how Howe got in to the Hall. A nice player for sure, but let's be serious. His admission cheapens ranks. And over Federov? I bleed hockey but a hall of fame that also contains Dick Duff strains credibility. Dave
  • eyeboneeyebone Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭
    i also believe bob pulford is a hofer too, is he not? and leo boivin? those guys seem comparatively "weak" to me. i am sure there are more that could be included on this list.

    perhaps the hhof should stiffen its admission requirements rather than continue to include "nice" players--it is never too late to reset the standard.

    eyebone
    "I'm not saying I'm the best manager in the world, but I'm in the top one." Brian Clough
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    "It's true that it won't factor in everything, such as blocked shots or the ability to skate the puck out of one's own end, or hit counts, or fighting, but no one is getting into the HOF based on those things anyway."

    The above metrics mentioned by yourself are a large part of the reason why Scott Stevens is in the HHOF. The aforementioned abilities are paramount in determining who's an elite defenseman and who isn't. Phil Housley was very talented offensively but he was a liability on the defensive end. He was below average in this aspect and as a defenseman that's going to hurt his chance for the Hall. GVT, in my opinion, does not apply well to hockey when evaluating defensemen on the basis that it is not able to quantify these intangibles. From a coaching perspective the ability to have players on the ice who prevent goals is of the utmost importance. In simple terms defense actually has equal value to offense because if one negates the other the score remains at zero.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    FWIW Stevens ranks at +287.4, so just behind Cheli and Robinson. I only got to see one full year of Housley's career (his second to last season), but I know a lot of hockey fans think certain offensive minded d-men can't play defense because they get caught pinching in at times and propel odd-man rushes without realizing those guys have the puck most of the time so they're going to commit more turnovers than the usual blueline stiff...among other factors. For example, Brian Campbell. After watching every game of his for the last 3 years (he was terrible in his first half of his first season with the Hawks while paired with the useless Matt Walker) while adjusting to a more puck possession system than he was accustomed to in BUFF...but over the last 2 & 1/2 years, he wasn't that far behind D.Keith...who many people would put up there with Lidstrom & Weber among the top two-way mobile blueliners. Everyone has their own opinion, but most of those come from people who would be lucky to have watched 5% of a given player's career games played had that given player not played for whatever team they followed. Especially in pre-Internet/cable/satellite sports package days. Not saying that's the case with you, just in general. It's kind of difficult to make an true informed opinion of a player if one is just watching game highlights, or the 1-6 games that player performs in the games he's playing against one's local market team each year. Maybe he was that inept in this own end, but the stats show he was an above average defenseman as +69.4 of Housley's +267.7 total worth was in defensive value. However, you're certainly free to disagree.



    Cam Neely deserves to be in the HOF and not on one of your least derserving lists. Per usual, Laner can skew any argument in his favor.

    U JUSS HAET THA BRIUNS!!! You're way ahead of schedule G. You're not scheduled to post in hockey threads until next May...but it's good to see you're still trolling with plenty of objection, the usual reading comprehension difficulties, and continuing to bring your usual THE ORGANIZATION WHICH PARTICIPATES IN ICE HOCKEY FROM MY TOWN IS BETTER THAN THE ORGANIZATION WHICH PARTICIPATES IN ICE HOCKEY FROM YOUR TOWN!!! depth to the discussion. Since you haven't figured it out, these aren't my statistics. Introduce yourself to Desjardins and Tom Awad the former of which is considered the Bill James of hockey statistical analysis. I assume you know who Bill James is since he's employed by the baseball team you routinely shill for.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    i also believe bob pulford is a hofer too, is he not?

    no, he loses 100 points of value for helping Bill Wirtz ruin the Blackhawks. Also -50 points for me having to listen to him try to stumble and cigar cough his way through a sentence for a number of years.
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    I am free to disagree because it's unfortunate you use GVT as if it's the beginning and end of all arguments when it comes to evaluating hockey players. It's an obviously flawed statistic if it shows Phil Housley to be an above average defensive defenseman. If you're going to stand behind that notion using these faulty statistics it's obvious the debate is a pointless one. It's an overwhelming consensus that Housley was very much a liability on the defensive end and that is why he's not in the hall of fame yet, if ever. I've watched Housley play numerous times myself, your GVT statistics didn't see him play even once and based on your solely numeric argument it appears you haven't either, at least closely. One second all-star team selection pretty much sums up Phil Housley's career.
  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    I agree -- Cam Neely in the HOF!

    Cam Neely -- HOF Performance!
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I am free to disagree because it's unfortunate you use GVT as if it's the beginning and end of all arguments when it comes to evaluating hockey players. It's an obviously flawed statistic if it shows Phil Housley to be an above average defensive defenseman. If you're going to stand behind that notion using these faulty statistics it's obvious the debate is a pointless one. It's an overwhelming consensus that Housley was very much a liability on the defensive end and that is why he's not in the hall of fame yet, if ever. I've watched Housley play numerous times myself, your GVT statistics didn't see him play even once and based on your solely numeric argument it appears you haven't either, at least closely. One second all-star team selection pretty much sums up Phil Housley's career. >>



    and this overwhelming consensus is where exactly? You're free to your own opinion of course, but I haven't seen this "overwhelming consensus" anywhere. Chelios and Suter speak pretty highly of Housley's ability. I personally think Mike Komisarek is a terrible defenseman...both from what I've seen of him and the numbers back it up, but there have been two GMs which gave him over $4M a year so it's not a consensus. There's nothing "unfortunate" about using stats because I don't sit here and pretend like I've watched every hockey game since birth. So yeah, I'll go by what the top statisticians in the game recorded from each game via the shift charts before I just throw out random declarations of a player's worth based on watching less than 5% of a player's career games. It's not the be all end all, but it's a better option than going on some random guy's opinion of a given player's entire career.

    Edit to add:

    Just a couple of the first articles I ran across....I guess it wasn't a consensus when the Times wrote about him being a two-way defenseman prior to him signing the largest contract at the time with the Caps.
    Housley

    and Scotty Bowman seemed to think pretty highly of him even as a rookie with that whole "the closest thing I've seen to Bobby Orr" gloss.
    SI

  • GarabaldiGarabaldi Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭
    Cam Neely deserves to be in the HOF and not on one of your least derserving lists. Per usual, Laner can skew any argument in his favor.

    U JUSS HAET THA BRIUNS!!! You're way ahead of schedule G. You're not scheduled to post in hockey threads until next May...but it's good to see you're still trolling with plenty of objection, the usual reading comprehension difficulties, and continuing to bring your usual THE ORGANIZATION WHICH PARTICIPATES IN ICE HOCKEY FROM MY TOWN IS BETTER THAN THE ORGANIZATION WHICH PARTICIPATES IN ICE HOCKEY FROM YOUR TOWN!!! depth to the discussion. Since you haven't figured it out, these aren't my statistics. Introduce yourself to Desjardins and Tom Awad the former of which is considered the Bill James of hockey statistical analysis. I assume you know who Bill James is since he's employed by the baseball team you routinely shill for. >>




    Laner, you just bash every player and always have the statistics to be in your favor. Do you really think that Cam Neely is one of the least deserving HOF inductees? They might not be your statistics, but you bring them up non stop. Try the eye ball test it might help.
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    Consensus means most, not all. You always have a few boneheads tendering stupid contracts, look at the deal Jovanovski just signed with the Panthers. Google "Housley Terrible Defensively", that'll just get you started. My opinion is in line with pretty much everyone's so I would consider it valid. Maybe you feel almost everyone else is wrong and you're right? Anything's possible but I highly doubt that to be the case. I certainly feel that if you were in the room with a bunch of hockey analysts and tried to claim Housley was above average defensively you'd be laughed out of said room.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    well even lead TV analysts can be woefully uninformed. Esp when that analyst never played defense during a decade and half long career despite being a on a line with two of the best defensive forwards of their generation. Again not a big deal. It's perfectly ok to agree to disagree.

    Edit: I did run that google search and came up with a handful of responses. All of them from fan message boards. You'll have to excuse me if I don't lend them any credibility.
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    Even if the search did "just" bring up some fan opinions, while some my be off the mark, you can be certain some of them are very valid. It's just easy to dismiss your credibility as anyone else's on the internet. You'll have to excuse me for not lending you any credibility either when you try to argue that Housley was above average defensively. Although, I'm not going to take my time to peruse the online debates I'd be very surprised if you'd even find anyone other than yourself that believes Housley was a skilled defensive player. My mind is kind of boggled that you feel that way about him. I honestly can't believe you've ever watched him play and, if so, you must be woefully unaware of proper defensive zone coverage. He was very talented offensively and certainly a power play specialist to boot. A dominant all-around game? Not a chance. Only once was he even thought of as a top four defenseman in the NHL with his second all-star team selection in 1992. That right there is all the credibility to which I need to attest. Even the NHL placed him outside the top tier of defenseman in the league for 20 years of his 21 year career. There's no more credible source than that.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    I've never said he had a "dominant all-around game". I said I thought he was above average on the defensive side, and obviously elite on the offensive side. AS teams and that stuff means nothing to me esp when said player played the vast majority of his career in small markets like Buffalo and Winnipeg. Half of the time Norris nominations mean nothing for certain finalists...ahem Mike Green. As I've already said, I only got to see him play regularly at the end of his career with the Blackhawks for a season and a half. He posted a +4 over that time on one decent, and one God awful team where his D-pairings would have included a number of stiffs like Todd Gill, Steve Poapst, Boris Miranov, and Alex Karpotsev. I thought then he was a slightly above average defenseman and his defensive GVT agrees with a +4.3 rating over that span. I really don't care that you don't agree, maybe you want a guy who was 5'10 180 to be Scott Stevens out there blowing guys up, but as I've already mentioned, two of his peers in Chelios and G.Suter as well as Scotty Bowman spoke fairly highly of his defensive ability so there are at least 3 pros and at least one former NY Times hockey writer that would agree with me on his ability so I'll just leave it at that.
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    So the writers who agree with you are smart and the ones who don't, well they just all have to be wrong. You say Bowman, Chelios and Suter spoke highly of his defensive abilities but provide no reference links to back up this remark. If you can't provide direct quotes don't bother, because without them such comments are baseless. You can have your Phil Housley and Larry Murphy types, I'll take the Mark Howes and Rod Langways. The latter, which I might add, won back-to-back Norris Trophies in the small market of Washington (during Housley's career) while topping out at 32 and 33 points respectively each season. He also finished second in Hart Trophy voting one season, to some guy named Wayne Gretzky I might add. He has a career GVT of 128.9 compared to Housley's 267.7. Only a fool would take Housley over Langway despite the extremely wide gap in GVT value. Your small hockey market argument makes no more sense than your argument that Housley was above average defensively. If GVT appears to make Housley look like an above average defensive defenseman then GVT is wrong, it's as simple as that. The only take away I get from this discussion is that GVT is obviously flawed metrics because it creates the illusion that Housley was an above average defensive player. Housley had over 1200 career points and was only selected to the NHL second all-star team once. That alone alludes to what his peers thought of his defensive liabilities in contrast to his offensive prowess.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    The small market comment was in reference to your AS Game remark...since you know, fans voted on them beginning in the 80's....nothing to do with the Norris nominations which are also subjective in their own merit anyway. Arguing for AS nods is like saying Jeter is a solid defensive SS for being awarded multiple Gold Gloves. It's a popularity contest among fans, coaches, and players. You know that. I get it, you're not a stats guy. You're not going to sway my opinion (esp when trying to sell the merit of AS voting), and I'm not even trying to sway yours. I'm simply backing up my opinion with some statistics. I couldn't care less if you place no value in them. Have I not said agree to disagree several times now? Move on.
  • georgebailey2georgebailey2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭


    << <i>So the writers who agree with you are smart and the ones who don't, well they just all have to be wrong. You say Bowman, Chelios and Suter spoke highly of his defensive abilities but provide no reference links to back up this remark. If you can't provide direct quotes don't bother, because without them such comments are baseless. You can have your Phil Housley and Larry Murphy types, I'll take the Mark Howes and Rod Langways. The latter, which I might add, won back-to-back Norris Trophies in the small market of Washington (during Housley's career) while topping out at 32 and 33 points respectively each season. He also finished second in Hart Trophy voting one season, to some guy named Wayne Gretzky I might add. He has a career GVT of 128.9 compared to Housley's 267.7. Only a fool would take Housley over Langway despite the extremely wide gap in GVT value. Your small hockey market argument makes no more sense than your argument that Housley was above average defensively. If GVT appears to make Housley look like an above average defensive defenseman then GVT is wrong, it's as simple as that. The only take away I get from this discussion is that GVT is obviously flawed metrics because it creates the illusion that Housley was an above average defensive player. Housley had over 1200 career points and was only selected to the NHL second all-star team once. That alone alludes to what his peers thought of his defensive liabilities in contrast to his offensive prowess. >>



    Yeah...what he said.

    Seriously, Howe was very underrated. Before he began having trouble with his back in the late 80's he was most likely the 2nd best defenseman of the decade. Next to Coffey, he was the best skater. The main thing was that he was very smart. I really don't recall him having a bad game or really ever getting beat or caught out of position. Those Flyers teams were not stacked with HOF'ers like the Isles or Oilers, yet they put together 100 points seasons and two trips to the finals. Having that stud first pairing anchored by Howe was the key factor in their success. It was because other teams had to wait until Marsh and Crossman stepped onto the ice in order for them to score.

    When I said that I think that Howe may have been the best player to play for the Flyers, that was not a casual statement. Clarke won 3 Hart Trophies, but having watched Clarke win those three Harts and Howe play dominantly from 82 through 88, I would choose Howe. Bill Meltzer, who writes articles for NHL.com (Accross the Pond), the Flyers web-site and Hockeybuzz, is one of the best analysts I've ever read and he shares that opinion of Howe.

    Oh, and I would take Howe over Federov seven days a week.
  • e64mtde64mtd Posts: 104 ✭
    I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself.
  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive. Nice try at sarcasm but it's an automatic fail when you're wrong about the point you're attempting to mock me for in the first place.

    I'm simply backing up my opinion with common sense, statistics be darned. I couldn't care less if you place no value in common sense but it's quite plain to see. Now move on yourself. I'm definitely a stats guy but I'm careful with them and understand their limitations as I realize counting stats sometimes don't tell the full or accurate story. For some bizarre reason you seem to think your mathematical analysis is definitive. Not only that but you contradict yourself. You pump your GVT analysis as definitive but you slag on Mike Green at the same time. Go run your GVT analysis for Mike Green's peak seasons and compare him to his defensive contemporaries, you'll like him better. You first state that Housley has no awards recognition because he played in a small market, I provide a perfect example of a player in a small market who won multiple Norris trophies, during Housley's career nonetheless, and now you're saying such trophies are subjective anyways. It's not fair to shift your points when you're countered with an objective point that refutes an earlier statement. If you think the Norris voting is subjective also realize that Langway not only finished second in Hart Voting that year but also second in the coaches as well as the player voting for league MVP. But your GVT analysis for Langway in this season will rank him nowhere near this lofty stature so all these people must be wrong and your hindsight mathematical analysis must be right. I guess everything's subjective unless it aligns with your viewpoint.

    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Wri
  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    blah blah blah I win.
  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭
    The fact that you don't even realize Housley's second all-star team selection is voted upon by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association at the end of the regular season and not the fans tells me your knowledge of the game simply isn't that extensive

    it means I put about as much weight into the voting of the PHWA as I do the majority of the members of the BBWAA. In the 80's & 90's - pre-Internet feeds/NHL Center Ice/Cable Sportsnet packages, like yourself, in all likelihood, the non-Buffalo, or the non-Winnipeg writers saw Housley play in roughly 0.1-0.5% of his career games. That doesn't mean you/they can't have their opinion, it just means the vast majority of them saw about as many of Housley's games per year as Reds' BBWAA writer Hal McCoy watches the Padres play (6 games) each year before placing his MVP/Cy Young/ROY vote. Besides, if the Islanders and Rangers voters don't care about their voters, why should I?


Sign In or Register to comment.