Happy Birthday, Bobby Orr....

Elliotte is correct. It is a Brodeur shot.

http://www.1972summitseries.com/game8recap.html

The country erupted as did the Team Canada bench. Henderson jumped into Cournoyer's arms just long enough for Denis Brodeur (Martin Brodeur's father) to snap the most famous photograph in hockey history.

 

I'm not saying he wasn't the most dominant offensive player of all time, and the space he put between himself and the likes of Kurri, Stastny and (for a couple of years) Lemieux is staggering. I'd just say the degree of domination is inflated due to the era. Listen, as someone said earlier, Orr, Gretzky and Howe are Nos. 1a, 1b and 1c. I just don't think Orr and Howe are taken seriously enough in the debate (especially by U.S. fans).

 

The guy who wrote the "Total Hockey" article is Dan Diamond, the man responsible for the NHL Guide and Record Book. He works for the league. Unless you know something about him that I don't, it seems like a stretch to accuse him of bias against Gretzky -- his employer's meal ticket for so many years. Seems far more likely to me that he's just a guy who wanted to apply some of the statistical analysis that's become so prevalent in baseball to his own sport and see what happened. Sorry if the results weren't pleasing to you.

And I think there is a purpose for such analysis. Sixty goals in 2008 is a far greater accomplishment in 2008 than it was in 1985, just as Pedro Martinez' 1.74 ERA in 2000 (which was nearly two full runs lower than his nearest competitor's) was infinitely more impressive than it would have been in 1968. It's not a matter of punishing players for the era in which they played; it's a matter of putting their numbers in proper context.

 

I would agree with this. Sixty goals today is far more impressive than 60 goals in 1985.

Where I have a problem is when one tries to put players from different eras into the same context, or trying to compare them all to the hypothetical "average" (or replacement-value, if you will) player at his position. That's where the numbers get taken out of context, because those comparisons are, by definition, in a vacuum, and real-life games, by definition, are never played in a vacuum. Real-life stats are not compiled in a vacuum.

We can debate whether Gretzky's 60 goals are more impressive than Ovechkin's 60 (and like we both said, the latter's is definitely the winner.) But we can't quantify that debate, because those 60 weren't compiled under even remotely similar circumstances. I appreciate the effort that Diamond, et al, are making to come up with "adjusted scoring", and I think it's a worthy debate. But the effort to quantify the debate is flawed, because there's no way of knowing if Gretzky's 92 "should have been" 73 in a neutral era because there can be no such thing as a neutral era. Not when humans are involved.

That's why No. 1 seeds don't always win. And that's why special players like Orr and Gretzky are sometimes capable of doing things that nobody thought possible.

 

You can all go to hell. Steve Yzerman was the best two-way player of the modern era.

Now shut the hell up.

 

no more calls; we have a winner. altho fischler might offer red kelly just to be contrary.

my memory is hazy at this point, perhaps JR or elliotte will know/remember better, and i dont want to slander doug harvey. the 1981 canada cup in montreal was the second event i ever covered. i was 21 years old and went to, i think, the chateau champlain to pick up my credential.

a man in the line ahead of me was speaking to the girl at the credential table in an increasingly urgent manner. finally, i heard him turn and point to another man several steps behind but likely within hearing distance and say, 'but that's doug harvey.' And of course it was.

Jeezus i wish i was any kind of writer to recapture this scene. That Doug Harvey needed a sponsor, in montreal of all places, to explain who he was and why he should get tickets, while he shuffled his feet and pretended not to hear -- christ, i just don't know. (JR-Elliotte: i seem to remember that at this time he was so poorly off he lived in a railroad car shunted on a siding; perhaps you know something?) that someone had to justify doug harvey to either an NHL rep or one an NHLPA rep (more likely) was just heartbreaking. i guess a few years later, the Habs initiated an outreach program, and harvey was among the first helped.

i really hope i'm not misremembering here.

On a different note. i worked with dan diamond for 9 or 10 years. altho i am unfamiliar with the 'total hockey' article you reference, i'd be surprised if he authored it. squeezing stats up and down was not dan's style -- he's a traditionalist (perhaps it was meant he edited the book?).

to the conspiratorial idea that dan wouldn't shit where he lives by critizing gretzky (did i read Boomer7's point correctly?), i can tell you that he had knock-down/drag-out fights with ziegler about NHL-critical stuff, and never changed a word despite nhl pressure.

 

i love stevie y, but if modern is the era stevie played in, i might have to offer jari kurri.

 

And Terry Yake is left out of yet another NHL discussion.

 

But Stevie is hotter.

 

I don't disagree that Denis Brodeur shot the game. I've seen contact sheets of his negatives, in fact.

But the Star's Frank Lennon took THE shot.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/08/22/frank-lennon-obit.html

I know this in part because when I was young, Dick Beddoes, who knew my mother, gave me a blown-up version of the picture and cutline. (I know Beddoes was with the Globe, but I presume the pic moved on CP and the Globe ran it.) It was tacked onto the wall of my room and I read and re-read that cutline for many years.

 

I knew Dan Diamond as well--he was packaging hockey books all over town and I have a copy of Total Hockey somewhere. It's a brilliant book--the hockey version of the Baseball Encyclopedi but I can't find my copy. Anyway, Diamond never struck me as a stats junkie and I'd be really surprised if he wrote the article in question. Dan was more of a "big picture" guy.

Doug Harvey was one of the early supporters of the players' organization--hence his trade to the Rangers in '61.

 

Diamond's byline is on the Adjusted Scoring article in "Total Hockey" (Chapter 69 in the version I have, circa 2001), replete with the line "... we set out to create a reliable method of comparing players from disparate eras."

As for "conspiratorial ideas," the first one of those came from JR, who implied that an anti-Gretzky bias might have been the impetus for Adjusted Scoring.

And if Diamond had verbal brawls with Ziegler, I applaud him heartily.