Quote:
Originally Posted by Throttlesteer
No offense, but there's a lot of reminiscing and "homer" justification with many of these arguments. Sure, the names in question were extremely valuable to their teams and contributed to their success. Counting numbers are generally the key for most players, unless they're strongly disliked by the hockey writers.
Honestly, I could probably have put 60 points up each year if I found myself on the top six of those Isles, Habs, or Oilers teams.
I agree with the statement about having Orr in the same space as Gillies. But every other sport has the same challenge. Their Halls of Fame have a fair number of Hall of Very Goods in them.
|
Yeah, some of the comments are hilarious.
The bias people have for teams and players they like definitely clouds logic and even basic common sense.
And no manager that has ever lived would select Goring over Gainey.... Never.
What's next? Huddy over Coffey??
** I should add that I think Goring was an excellent player who greatly contributed to the
Islanders and is well deserving of praise. I just think Gainey is a better player.
His selection as one of the NHL's 100 Greatest I believe supports that.
https://www.si.com/hockey/news/the-t...hrowback-style
https://icehockey.fandom.com/wiki/Li...he_Hockey_News