HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 7 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2009, 05:06 PM
  #1
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,830
vCash: 500
Round 2, Vote 7 (2009 update)

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2
  • The top 15 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
  • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
  • Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days
  • Final voting will occur for two (2) days by private message
  • Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 10 places with remaining players until a list of 100 players is obtained
These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (35):
BM67, Canadiens1958, Canadiens Fan, cottonking, DaveG, Dennis_Bonvie, God Bless Canada, Hockey Outsider, Jekyll, Jungosi, Kyle McMahon, lextune, MXD, Nalyd Psycho, NOTENOUGHBREWER, overpass, papershoes, pappyline, pitseleh, pnep, Pwnasaurus, quoipourquoi, Radovsky, raleh, reckoning, seventieslord, Shirtless Joe, Spitfire11, Sturminator, TheDevilMadeMe, TheGoldenJet, tommygunn, Triffy, ushvinder, Weztex

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes. Anyone wishing to participate who has not submitted a list yet will have until the start of Round 2, Vote 2 to get their list in. Once Vote 2 begins, no additional lists will be accepted.

On that note, I hope everyone is ready to wrack their brains and debate against some of the best hockey minds on the 'net! Have fun!

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 05:10 PM
  #2
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,830
vCash: 500
*** PLEASE NOTE THE VOTING DEADLINE ***

Vote 7 will begin now and debates will run through Sunday 9/19. Any extension to this time frame will be annouced prior to the deadline. Votes must be submitted no later than midnight EST on Sunday 9/19, and voting will run until this time or until all voters have sent their vote in, whichever comes first. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

I will be sending out confirmations when I receive ballots from the voters now. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume I never received it and should either resubmit it or contact me to arrange a different method to submit the ballots. Please submit all ballots via PM to FissionFire or email them to hohtop100@yahoo.com

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 15 OUT OF THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS.

Vote 7 will be for places 61 through 70 on the Top 100 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:
Frank Brimsek
Sprague Cleghorn
Cy Denneny
Peter Forsberg
Tim Horton
Brett Hull
Aurele Joliat
Ted Kennedy
Jari Kurri
Al MacInnis
Sergei Makarov
Boris Mikhailov
Richard "Dickie" Moore
Peter Stastny
Nels Stewart

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 05:33 PM
  #3
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Frank Brimsek
Sprague Cleghorn
Cy Denneny
Peter Forsberg
Tim Horton
Brett Hull
Aurele Joliat
Ted Kennedy
Jari Kurri
Al MacInnis
Sergei Makarov
Boris Mikhailov
Richard "Dickie" Moore
Peter Stastny
Nels Stewart
A few comments...
- Jari Kurri remains 15th in this round.
- Once again, a newcomer has a pretty good chance of being my 1st pick of this round : this time, it's Sprague Cleghorn
- It would have been interesting to compare Cleghorn to Nighbor
- A bit disappointing to see the number of players inferior to Dickie Moore ending up ahead of him. There were a few in round 4, some in round 5 and A HECKOFALOT last round. Especially Andy Bathgate, which goes against pretty much every list compiled so far, and is borderline revisionist(ic). For the record, Moore is at very worst 2nd in my books this round.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 05:57 PM
  #4
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,636
vCash: 500
Here are my numbers and analysis for the players who played since the 1967 expansion. They rest on the idea that there are three separate phases of the game of hockey - even-strength play, power play, and penalty killing - and these should be evaluated separately.

These don't include playoffs or intangibles and can't be taken as the final word, but can hopefully provide some information in certain areas.

Stat Glossary:

$ESGF/G - even-strength goals for per game, adjusted for scoring level. Higher is better.
$ESGA/G - even-strength goals against per game, adjusted for scoring level. Lower is better.
R-ON - Player's even-strength on-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA). Should be higher than R-OFF.
R-OFF - Player's even-strength off-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA).
XEV+/- - Players expected EV+/-, based on off-ice results.
EV+/- - Even-strength plus-minus, adjusted for scoring level.
AEV+/- - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus. =(EV+/-) - (XEV+/-). If you look at just one number, make it this one.
/82 - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus per season.
SH% - . Percentage of team's PPGA the player was on the ice for. Measures a players role in killing penalties, but not effectiveness.
PP% - Percentage of team's PPGF the player was on the ice for. Measures a players role on the power play, but not effectiveness.
$PPP - Scoring-adjusted power play points per game.
$ESP - Scoring-adjusted even-strength points per game.


Al MacInnis

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Al MacInnis 82-85 1.68 0.80 0.61 1.31 1.15 10 26 17 10 3% 90% 0.50 0.28
Al MacInnis 86-90 4.93 1.08 0.74 1.46 1.30 66 137 71 14 39% 82% 0.47 0.39
Al MacInnis 91-96 5.03 1.12 0.72 1.54 1.02 6 162 155 31 42% 88% 0.56 0.44
Al MacInnis 97-03 6.05 1.19 0.90 1.32 1.07 23 142 119 20 46% 87% 0.47 0.40
Al MacInnis 82-03 17.68 1.10 0.78 1.41 1.12 106 468 362 20 39% 86% 0.50 0.40

Al MacInnis was a very good to excellent defenseman for a very long time. While he doesn't have the dominant peak that I'd prefer, I think he has more career value than a number of players already voted to the list.

He was an excellent power play quarterback right from the beginning of his career, and at first that's where he brought most of his value. However, by the late '80s he had developed into a very good even-strength defenseman, and only improved in this area during the 1990s. He remained a very strong defenseman right to the end of his career, as an effective difference-maker at even strength, a solid penalty killer, and, of course, one of the greatest power play quarterbacks of all time.

Offensively, he wasn't a real high scorer at even strength, playing a more conservative but effective game. As a power play quarterback, I think he's behind Orr but in the conversation for second with Harvey and Potvin (and maybe Bourque, Leetch, and Coffey).

While the numbers above only cover the regular season, he also has a strong playoff record.

Brett Hull

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Brett Hull 87-89 1.85 0.78 0.72 1.08 1.14 11 9 -1 -1 0% 61% 0.32 0.60
Brett Hull 90-92 2.89 1.22 1.01 1.21 1.05 8 51 42 15 3% 86% 0.51 0.94
Brett Hull 93-98 5.51 0.95 0.94 1.00 1.07 19 2 -17 -3 29% 78% 0.46 0.73
Brett Hull 99-06 5.71 0.90 0.77 1.16 1.26 64 58 -5 -1 14% 59% 0.40 0.69
Brett Hull 87-06 15.96 0.96 0.87 1.11 1.13 102 120 18 1 16% 72% 0.43 0.76

I'm not terribly impressed with Hull. Yes, he has a great three year peak by the numbers, but how much did Adam Oates have to do with that? And outside of those years, he was not a difference maker at even strength at all. I see him as someone who scored a lot of goals, but created little for his teammates, ended a lot of possessions for his team (with a shot or a turnover), and didn't create many possessions for his team.

I don't mean to say he wasn't a valuable player at all - he was good on the power play, although far from the best among this group. But that alone isn't near enough to put him in the company he's in for this vote.

Peter Stastny

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Peter Stastny 81-88 7.54 1.07 0.91 1.18 1.02 8 101 93 12 9% 73% 0.47 0.83
Peter Stastny 89-92 3.61 0.77 0.89 0.87 0.84 -31 -34 -3 -1 7% 69% 0.37 0.53
Peter Stastny 93-95 1.07 0.56 0.51 1.11 1.10 3 5 2 2 5% 55% 0.25 0.39
Peter Stastny 81-95 12.22 0.94 0.87 1.08 0.97 -20 71 91 7 8% 71% 0.42 0.70

Stastny was an excellent offensive player in North America for about 8 years - and he didn't get started until he was 24. On the other hand, his goals against are poor, and the Nordiques were an average team with him off the ice, so this isn't a situation where a terrible defense was dragging him down. He didn't kill penalties either, making him a fairly one-dimensional player.

Sergei Makarov

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Sergei Makarov 90-94 4.62 0.97 0.72 1.35 1.09 19 94 75 16 1% 49% 0.27 0.66
Sergei Makarov 95-97 0.94 0.72 0.82 0.88 0.83 -8 -8 0 0 0% 27% 0.07 0.54
Sergei Makarov 90-97 5.57 0.93 0.74 1.26 1.04 11 87 75 14 1% 46% 0.24 0.64

Makarov's case rests largely on his years in the Soviet Union. But it's worth noting that his NHL numbers were pretty good. They were better than Jari Kurri's at the same age, for one.

Tim Horton
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Tim Horton 68-69 1.91 1.38 1.15 1.20 1.07 9 37 28 14.42885974 63% 51% 0.13 0.39
Tim Horton 70-74 4.13 1.08 0.96 1.13 1.03 7 41 34 8.353875571 58% 19% 0.05 0.22
Tim Horton 68-74 6.03 1.18 1.02 1.15 1.04 16 78 62 10.27305122 60% 29% 0.08 0.27

Nothing new to say here. Horton's first two years post-expansion were among his three first-team all-star selections. During these years he played huge minutes at even strength, with good numbers, and also played big minutes on the Leafs' league-best penalty kill. He also played a regular role on the power play. In his forties, his even-strength and power play role diminished, but he remained a key penalty killer. Obviously, these numbers don't cover most of his career.

Jari Kurri

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Jari Kurri 81-83 2.83 1.10 0.69 1.60 1.16 22 95 74 26 12% 41% 0.22 0.77
Jari Kurri 84-88 4.68 1.36 0.87 1.57 1.31 81 190 108 23 24% 57% 0.33 0.96
Jari Kurri 89-95 5.57 0.84 0.90 0.93 0.95 -14 -28 -14 -2 31% 58% 0.36 0.57
Jari Kurri 96-98 2.72 0.56 0.65 0.85 1.07 6 -22 -28 -10 33% 30% 0.14 0.37
Jari Kurri 81-98 15.79 0.99 0.81 1.22 1.12 95 236 140 9 26% 52% 0.29 0.75

Kurri's prime was obviously heavily influenced by his linemate Gretzky, but he brought substantial contributions on his own also.

First, Kurri was a contributor on the penalty kill and on the power play. He was a threat to score on the penalty kill - the numbers aren't included in this table but he scored 39 goals and 41 assists over his career while shorthanded. On the power play, he was actually not terribly productive, mostly because he never played big minutes. Edmonton's strategy was always to ride Gretzky and Coffey and cycle through everyone else on the PP.

At even strength, Kurri had excellent numbers during his years in Edmonton. These numbers are obviously influenced by Gretzky to some degree, especially his excellent even-strength scoring. However, Kurri brought strong defense and skills to the table himself, so he likely deserves some of the credit for these numbers. His post-Edmonton even-strength numbers are average, but that was typical of over-30 players at the time.

My thoughts on Kurri are that much of his excellent even-strength scoring record came as a result of playing with Wayne Gretzky. I see him as similar to Steve Larmer or Brian Propp, two wingers who were also very strong defensively and were good scorers. Obviously they never scored 130+ points, but they also never played with Gretzky. I don't mean this to slam Kurri - Larmer and Propp were very good hockey players, and Kurri also contributed more in the playoffs.

Peter Forsberg

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Peter Forsberg 95-97 2.77 1.12 0.68 1.66 1.25 32 101 69 25 36% 59% 0.43 0.92
Peter Forsberg 98-01 3.32 1.09 0.72 1.52 1.09 15 101 86 26 28% 77% 0.55 0.90
Peter Forsberg 03-08 2.93 1.25 0.58 2.16 0.92 -12 161 173 59 2% 75% 0.52 1.00
Peter Forsberg 95-08 9.02 1.15 0.66 1.74 1.08 34 362 328 36 22% 71% 0.51 0.94

Forsberg was hands down the best player of this group and it's not even close. Yes, he had a short career, so you could argue that he had less career value than others, but he dominated like few players have.

His even-strength numbers are superb. Among post-expansion forwards, only Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Lafleur, and Esposito were better even-strength scorers in their prime. Forsberg was on the ice for many fewer (scoring adjusted) goals against than any of them except for Lafleur, suggesting that he was either a strong defensive player (whether by backchecking or by puck possession) or he was scoring his points in fewer minutes.

He was also an excellent power play scorer. After adjusting for scoring level, his power play scoring is among the best post-expansion, behind Lemieux and Esposito, close behind Gretzky and Crosby, and similar to Lafleur, Dionne, Bossy, Sakic, Thornton, and Ovechkin.

He killed penalties in his earlier years in the league as well, before injuries slowed him.

His 2003 season was excellent - arguably the best season of anyone up for voting. He had 94 even strength goals for and only 38 against, and Colorado was slightly outscored while he was on the bench.

Top even-strength scoring rates since 1997-98
Player Year EST ESP ESP/60
Peter Forsberg 2003 1092 73 4.01
Joe Thornton 2006 1125 72 3.84
Jaromir Jagr 2000 1076 67 3.74
Mario Lemieux 2001 711 43 3.63
Jaromir Jagr 2001 1350 78 3.47

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 06:03 PM
  #5
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,443
vCash: 500
I'd say, mostly, the right 10 players are now up for voting this time. Except for Kennedy, who is here too early, and Frank Nighbor, who is rather conspicuous in his absence.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 06:04 PM
  #6
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
I don't see how Kurri can rank below Brett Hull. Both were elite goal scorers, and while Hull was a bit better and lasted longer, Kurri did everything else better. Hull was a pretty good playoff performer, but it's still advantage Kurri in that area.

Cleghorn could top my list in this vote as well, but yes it's a shame Nighbor is still not around. He is starting to emerge as histroy's most forgotten all-time great.

Those who wanted to debate Mikhailov vs Makarov will get their wish. I'm looking forward to those arguments.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 06:24 PM
  #7
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,794
vCash: 500
Comments

Frank Brimsek
Somewhat high but possible.

Sprague Cleghorn
Question of negatives outweighing contributions.

Cy Denneny
Ahead of Nighbour????????????? SSSSSSSSSuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee.

Peter Forsberg
Injuries make it a hard call.

Tim Horton
Should be in this round.

Brett Hull
Too early.

Aurele Joliat
Contributing left winger. Performed.

Ted Kennedy
Very underrated here.

Jari Kurri
Should get in this round.

Al MacInnis
Way too early.

Sergei Makarov
Way too early.

Boris Mikhailov
About right.

Richard "Dickie" Moore
Tremendously underrated. Placing him after Bathgate ..........

Peter Stastny
Way too early.

Nels Stewart
Ahead of Nighbour???????????????


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-10-2009 at 06:44 PM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 06:41 PM
  #8
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
Cleghorn's negatives are probably what drop him from a top-40 contender to top-70. That being said, I don't think there should be a huge gap between him and Chelios. Both were competitors and played for keeps, while both were hotheads that hurt their teams at times. Cleghorn's episodes are somewhat more outrageous, though there are plenty of players from that era with similar track records.

Al MacInnis is an enigma to me. People will make a great case for him with accolades and accomplishments, but I never once got the impression that I was watching somebody who was all that special. I think he might have been the final entry on my top-120 list. I can't forsee myself voting him higher than 15th this round, but I'm sure some good cases for him will be carted out.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:17 PM
  #9
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Cleghorn's negatives are probably what drop him from a top-40 contender to top-70. That being said, I don't think there should be a huge gap between him and Chelios. Both were competitors and played for keeps, while both were hotheads that hurt their teams at times. Cleghorn's episodes are somewhat more outrageous, though there are plenty of players from that era with similar track records.
Era-adjusted insanity? You know I like it.

Quote:

Al MacInnis is an enigma to me. People will make a great case for him with accolades and accomplishments, but I never once got the impression that I was watching somebody who was all that special. I think he might have been the final entry on my top-120 list. I can't forsee myself voting him higher than 15th this round, but I'm sure some good cases for him will be carted out.
I tend to agree, and I was quite surprised with how high MacInnis ended up last time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:21 PM
  #10
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I don't see how Kurri can rank below Brett Hull. Both were elite goal scorers, and while Hull was a bit better and lasted longer, Kurri did everything else better. Hull was a pretty good playoff performer, but it's still advantage Kurri in that area.
I would change that too Hull was an excellent playoff performer, but Kurri was still better.

I probably had both of them higher than most on my original list and I had Jari 14 spots ahead of Brett.

lextune is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:22 PM
  #11
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

I tend to agree, and I was quite surprised with how high MacInnis ended up last time.
McInnis, to me, is Ray Bourque-lite.

In the sense that he was ****ING good against the Habs when it counted the most.

And don't worry... he gets bonus points for that.


Last edited by MXD: 09-10-2009 at 07:33 PM.
MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:28 PM
  #12
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Well, saying Hull was a better goal-scorer than Kurri is pretty much an understatement...

(seriously, I was 7 out of 10 in my Best unranked yet from last round. I think that's pretty good. I really expected Bower to make it, though)

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:32 PM
  #13
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post

His 2003 season was excellent - arguably the best season of anyone up for voting. He had 94 even strength goals for and only 38 against, and Colorado was slightly outscored while he was on the bench.
Very instructive post, especially about Brett Hull.
Too bad it's also instructive of why Dickie Moore didn't make it.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:41 PM
  #14
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,615
vCash: 500
Brimsek is another one who lost his prime to WWII, after five great seasons, (and two cups that he played a HUGE role in), he went off to the service for three years.

After his return he was, by all accounts, never really the same, despite being twice more named a 2nd team all-star.

I had Frank at 62 on my original list but I don't think I'll be voting for him that high this time....

I'll be delving into this round tomorrow when I have more time.

lextune is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 07:49 PM
  #15
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
There is 1 postive for Brett Hull, in 2000 he lead the playoffs in scoring and there was no Adam Oates around. Jari Kurri put up great playoff numbers with gretzky,but he never led any post-season in scoring. Brett Hull also has Jari Kurri beat on durability. Hull was scoring in 2003 and 2004, Jari Kurri was pretty much a 3rd line checker after he turned 34.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 08:24 PM
  #16
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Very instructive post, especially about Brett Hull.
Too bad it's also instructive of why Dickie Moore didn't make it.
I expect you mean that Moore's 1958-59 season was better than Forsberg's 2002-03. I'd take Forsberg (Hart voting favours him, for one), but yes, if there's one season that's better among these players it's Moore's.

Btw, when you say that Bathgate over Moore borders on revisionism, in what sense do you mean that? That it goes against the contemporary opinion of those players, or against how history has traditionally rated these players? If it's the first, I can understand why you would protest. If it's the second, why don't we just defer to THN's 1998 list for the "orthodox" historical interpretation?

I do have Moore very high in this round, and had him fairly high in the last, but I've seen you mention revisionism a few times and wondered what you meant by it.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 11:24 PM
  #17
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,937
vCash: 500
I had Moore very low last time but I had Bathgate even lower, so don't blame me...

I'll post a more detailed list in a bit, but basically, Makarov is a lock for my top spot - only Firsov and Nighbor had a chance to knock him off, and they aren't even options this round.

Tim Horton is likely my #2. Hopefully someone else makes a good case for him, so I don't have to. He's already dropped too far.

Brett Hull is the only guy I won't consider for my Top 10 this round. Everyone else I'm open to arguments for.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2009, 11:56 PM
  #18
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,974
vCash: 500
I am always baffled by the lack of credit Macinnis gets for his excellent play.

True, he came into the league a green boy on defense, and had some terrible gaffs defensively for his first few years, but he developed into a standout player on both ends of the ice by the time he was in his early 20's.

Never flashy or overly physical, nor a rushing defenseman. But he had a terrific transition game, perfect outlet passes and played a very discreet and conservative, yet exceptionally effective two way game at even strength. He was so strong defensively that his coaches almost always placed him on the top PK pairing, and his PP work was sensational.

Were I to compare him to a forward in the modern days, Joe Sakic is the first guy that comes to mind.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 12:39 AM
  #19
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
1. Dickie Moore: How in the hell is this guy still an option. This one is evidence that we were too permissive in allowing guys into this project. Just think this through: pivotal player on a dynasty (probably the greatest team ever assembled), tremendous playoff performer, two Art Ross Trophies, and a tough gritty game. That's a portfolio for a top 50 player who should have been voted in a long time ago.

2. Tim Horton: How in the hell is this guy still an option: the sequel. Rates among the best defensive defencemen of all-time. Strong, powerful and rock-solid in his own zone. Offensive contributions were limited due to system and expectations of defencemen in Original 6. Cog on a dynasty. On what many consider the greatest defensive team ever assembled, Horton was the cornerstone on the blue-line. Six-time all-star. 1962 playoff rates among the best ever for a blue-liner.

3. Ted Kennedy: The class of players added in this round. The best big-game player for this round, even better than Moore once you got beyond the qualifier for the playoffs. Probably the smartest player available for voting in this round. A Hart Trophy. Tremendous competitor, excellent hockey sense, and a fine all-round hockey player. Retro Conn Smythe's don't mean much, but he has three of them - indicative of a guy who was outstanding once the playoffs began.

4. Jari Kurri: If Kennedy isn't the smartest player available for voting in this round, then Kurri is. Outstanding hockey sense. Hand-eye co-ordination led to a tremendous one-timer that rates among the best in the history of the sport. Could beat you with his goal-scoring ability or his playmaking. A fantastic defensive forward, too. Much like the first three options, played a key role on a dynasty. Terrific all-round player and clutch performer.

5. Nels Stewart: A terrifying combination of goal-scoring ability and toughness. Led the league in goals and points in his first year (pre-26, mind you). He would finish in the top 10 in goals 13 times in the next 14 years, including eight top five finishes. His goals-per-game rate of .50 is incredible when you consider the time in which he played. Tough as nails, too. Wasn't a great skater. Wasn't great defensively. But he's the best combination of goal-scoring ability and toughness for this round.

6. Aurel Joliat: Joliat was probably the best LW to ever play the game prior to Ted Lindsay's arrival. (Although a case could be made for guys like Jackson, Blake and Bentley). And Joliat played a game just like Lindsay: highly skilled, but tough and resilient for such a small player. A perfect compliment for Howie Morenz on Montreal's top line. Four-time all-star; would probably have more selections if all-star teams existed for first half of his career.

7. Sprague Cleghorn: A polarizing player. Tough, fiery, highly skilled defenceman who had a penchant for violence. For my money, he's the prototypical 1910s and 1920s player: a guy who could beat you with his speed, his skill and cunning, or he could simply beat you. He'll be high on some lists because of his accomplishments in pre-consolidation hockey, he'll be low on some lists because he was vicious.

8. Boris Mikhailov: One of the true greats of the Soviet regime. I'm not too concerned about what he did in the World Championships or the Olympics. Those weren't best on best tournaments, and in the case of the Worlds, they never will be. I'll take Mikhailov over Makarov because Mikhailov was tougher, grittier and a better overall hockey player.

9. Peter Forsberg: Time to vote in Peter the Great. At his peak, the only thing that could stop Forsberg was an injury. He was a bull of a centre with great strength, speed, skill and flair. He was an excellent back-checker who could put up a goal and two assists while logging big minutes against the opponent's top line. He was physical. And he understood the importance of saving his best hockey for the playoffs.

10. Frank Brimsek: Much like Milt Schmidt, Brimsek was a sort of hard luck guy for the Bruins. When he came up, the Bruins were on the verge of becoming a powerhouse. They won Cups in 39 and 41. He led the league in wins his first two years. The war probably cost Boston a dynasty. The Krauts left midway through 41-42; Brimsek left after 42-43. The team wasn't the same after the war. Eight straight years (only one a war year) as an all-star is very impressive. Good enough to sneak into my top 10.

11. Peter Stastny: Stastny had one of the more remarkable careers in post-expansion hockey - he didn't come to the NHL until he was in his mid-20s. Once he arrived, he was magic: 100 points in his first six seasons. A slick, playmaking pivot who had a knack for making opposing defences look silly. Didn't win a Cup, but a good playoff record considering he played in the parity-rich Adams Division.

12. Cy Denneny: Another quintessential early era player, Denneny was a gifted goal-scorer and a gritty competitor. I don't think it's quite his time yet - there are better players, and better left-wingers who still haven't come up for discussion yet.

13. Al MacInnis: I think Al MacInnis has the best shot I've ever seen. It's not just that he had the monster slapshot - he had that. But he had great shot selection. Much like a great hard-throwing pitcher, he knew when to use the heater; he also knew when to use the change-up, and throw a good shot on net. And with guys like Roberts and Nieuwendyk patrolling the front of the net in Calgary, the change-up was lethal, too. I don't think it's Mac's time just yet - he shouldn't be ahead of Bill Gadsby. But he was such a tremendous offensive weapon early in his career who morphed into an excellent two-way defenceman, and one of the most valuable players in the league.

14. Sergei Makarov: An interesting case. Unlike the other Soviet greats, we got to see Makarov in the show. The problem is, it was past his prime. He won the Calder Trophy in 1990 (and caused the league to change the rule on Calder eligibility in the process). He gets an incomplete for his NHL playoff record. A dynamic offensive force. His World Championship and Olympic accomplishments do nothing for me, but it is worth noting he was an all-star at the 84 Canada Cup.

15. Brett Hull: If you believe the player who was the best at one thing should be No. 1, then you should have Hull at No. 1 for this round. Nobody on this list did anything better than what Hull did best, and that's score goals. He was an absolutely incredible goal-scorer. Hull's problem is he didn't do anything else besides score goals. Wasn't an impressive skater or playmaker. Didn't backcheck. Didn't play physical. (Although he would take a hit to score a goal). He just scored goals. He was one-dimensional. Granted, it was a tremendous dimension, but he'll be the most one-dimensional player we'll consider this round.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 03:00 AM
  #20
Howe Elbows 9
Registered User
 
Howe Elbows 9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gävle, Sweden
Posts: 2,619
vCash: 139
Defensemen:

All-star team selections

Player First AST Second AST Total
Tim Horton 3 3 6
Al MacInnis 4 3 7

Season First AST First AST Second AST Second AST
1953-54 Doug Harvey Red Kelly Bill Gadsby Tim Horton
1962-63 Carl Brewer Pierre Pilote Tim Horton Moose Vasko
1963-64 Tim Horton Pierre Pilote Jacques Laperriere Moose Vasko
1966-67 Harry Howell Pierre Pilote Tim Horton Bobby Orr
1967-68 Tim Horton Bobby Orr Jim Neilson J.C. Tremblay
1968-69 Tim Horton Bobby Orr Ted Green Ted Harris
1986-87 Ray Bourque Mark Howe Al MacInnis Larry Murphy
1988-89 Chris Chelios Paul Coffey Ray Bourque Al MacInnis
1989-90 Ray Bourque Al MacInnis Paul Coffey Doug Wilson
1990-91 Ray Bourque Al MacInnis Chris Chelios Brian Leetch
1993-94 Ray Bourque Scott Stevens Brian Leetch Al MacInnis
1998-99 Nicklas Lidström Al MacInnis Ray Bourque Eric Desjardins
2002-03 Nicklas Lidström Al MacInnis Sergei Gonchar Derian Hatcher

Players not in the HHOF are in italics.

Norris voting

Season First Second Third
1962-63 Pilote Brewer Horton
1963-64 Pilote Horton Vasko
1967-68 Orr Tremblay Horton
1968-69 Orr Horton Green

Season First Second Third
1988-89 Chelios Coffey MacInnis
1989-90 Bourque MacInnis Wilson
1990-91 Bourque MacInnis Chelios
1993-94 Bourque Stevens MacInnis
1998-99 MacInnis Lidström Bourque
2002-03 Lidström MacInnis Hatcher

Hart voting

Season First Second Third Fourth Fifth
1923-24 Nighbor Cleghorn   
1925-26 Stewart Cleghorn Nighbor Smith/Worters 

Career regular season scoring compared to (somewhat) contemporary defensemen

Player Seasons GP G A TP PPG PIM
George Boucher 1918-1928 277 101 66 167 0.60 597
Sprague Cleghorn 1918-1928 259 83 55 138 0.53 538
King Clancy 1921-1928 218 54 44 98 0.45 359

Player Seasons GP G A TP PPG PIM
Ray Bourque 1981-2001 1465 366 1092 1458 1.00 972
Al MacInnis 1981-2004 1416 340 934 1274 0.90 1511
Phil Housley 1982-2003 1495 338 894 1232 0.82 822

Player Seasons GP G A TP PPG PIM
Red Kelly 1949-1967 1197 270 517 787 0.66 304
Bill Gadsby 1949-1966 1090 113 408 521 0.48 1357
Tim Horton 1949-1974 1446 115 403 518 0.36 1611

And another topic, the lone goaltender this round compared to two contemporaries:

Top 3 in shutouts
Season First Second Third
1938-39 Brimsek Broda Kerr
1939-40 Kerr Brimsek, Robertson 
1940-41 Brimsek Broda Mowers
1941-42 Broda Mowers Brimsek, LoPresti
1942-43 Mowers Beveridge, Bibeault, Brimsek, Broda, B. Gardiner 
1945-46 Durnan Bibeault, Brimsek, Lumley 

Summary
Player First Second Third Total
Brimsek 2 3 1 6
Broda 2 6 1 9
Durnan 2 3 2 7

Top 3 in GAA
Season First Second Third
1938-39 Brimsek Kerr Broda
1939-40 Kerr Goodman Brimsek
1940-41 Broda Brimsek, Mowers 
1941-42 Brimsek Broda Henry
1942-43 Mowers Broda Brimsek
1946-47 Durnan Broda Brimsek

Summary
Player First Second Third Total
Brimsek 2 1 3 6
Broda 2 3 4 9
Durnan 6 0 1 7

Only the statistics that are relevant in connection to Brimsek is shown in the above tables.


Last edited by Howe Elbows 9: 09-11-2009 at 04:26 AM.
Howe Elbows 9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 03:37 AM
  #21
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
8. Boris Mikhailov: One of the true greats of the Soviet regime. I'm not too concerned about what he did in the World Championships or the Olympics. Those weren't best on best tournaments, and in the case of the Worlds, they never will be. I'll take Mikhailov over Makarov because Mikhailov was tougher, grittier and a better overall hockey player.


14. Sergei Makarov: An interesting case. Unlike the other Soviet greats, we got to see Makarov in the show. The problem is, it was past his prime. He won the Calder Trophy in 1990 (and caused the league to change the rule on Calder eligibility in the process). He gets an incomplete for his NHL playoff record. A dynamic offensive force. His World Championship and Olympic accomplishments do nothing for me, but it is worth noting he was an all-star at the 84 Canada Cup.
So basically, their careers are worthless

I just can't understand that some people here act like all they were facing was a Poland, East or West Germany, Netherlands or even Finland.

http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=m003

http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=m018

As seen there (scroll down), Makarov faced Czechoslovakia 64 times, Mikhailov 57 times. Sweden 63 and 61 and various Team Canadas 54 and 46 times, respectively. Of the weaker teams, Finland was the only one they faced regularly.

I mean, do you even realize that they faced the same Czechoslovakia in WC and other international tournaments as in the Canada Cup? And that until 1973-74, it was the best possible Sweden that played in the WCs too? And besides, do you think that any other team outside Canada would have given them major problems (regularly) even with their best possible lineup? USA? Nope. Finland? Nope. Sweden (after '73-'74). No, not even them. Hockey is/was ridiculously small sport, and when you got the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, you got 2 out of 3 best teams in the World (maybe the only ones that REALLY mattered).

It was like...

Canada, Soviet Union


Czechoslovakia




Sweden

+ rest...

Now, if you noticed some weaknesses in Mikhailov and/or Makarov, when they faced Canada, that's fine, but if you didn't, I really don't see the problem. Or why don't you just simply take the stand that those guys never proved themselves (a la Ogopogo), so you don't care about them... rather than give them, for want of a better word, backhanded compliments?


Last edited by VMBM: 09-11-2009 at 06:48 AM.
VMBM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 04:52 AM
  #22
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,930
vCash: 500
And not that it's my business or anything, but is certain Gilbert Perreault gonna show up as a candidate soon? I would take him over Mikhailov and have him on the same level as/slightly below Makarov.

VMBM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 04:56 AM
  #23
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
1. Dickie Moore: How in the hell is this guy still an option. This one is evidence that we were too permissive in allowing guys into this project. Just think this through: pivotal player on a dynasty (probably the greatest team ever assembled), tremendous playoff performer, two Art Ross Trophies, and a tough gritty game. That's a portfolio for a top 50 player who should have been voted in a long time ago.

14. Sergei Makarov: An interesting case. Unlike the other Soviet greats, we got to see Makarov in the show. The problem is, it was past his prime. He won the Calder Trophy in 1990 (and caused the league to change the rule on Calder eligibility in the process). He gets an incomplete for his NHL playoff record. A dynamic offensive force. His World Championship and Olympic accomplishments do nothing for me, but it is worth noting he was an all-star at the 84 Canada Cup.
Funny, cause, for me, this is about right for Moore. He was great in the dynasty, but his career outside those 5 years is mediocre as all get out.

Conversely, I think it is a damn shame Makarov is outside the top 50.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:17 AM
  #24
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,794
vCash: 500
Perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
So basically, their careers are worthless

I just can't understand that some people here act like all they were facing was a Poland, East or West Germany, Netherlands or even Finland.

http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=m003

http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=m018

As seen there (scroll down), Makarov faced Czechoslovakia 64 times, Mikhailov 57 times. Sweden 63 and 61 and various Team Canada's 54 and 46 times, respectively. Of the weaker teams, Finland was the only one they faced regularly.

I mean, do you even realize that they faced the same Czechoslovakia in WC and other international tournaments as in the Canada Cup? And that until 1973-74, it was the best possible Sweden that played in the WCs too? And besides, do you think that any other team outside Canada would have given them major problems (regularly) even with their best possible lineup? USA? Nope. Finland? Nope. Sweden (after '73-'74). No, not even them. Hockey is/was ridiculously small sport, and when you got the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, you got 2 out of 3 best teams in the World (maybe the only ones that REALLY mattered).

It was like...

Canada, Soviet Union


Czechoslovakia




Sweden

+ rest...

Now, if you noticed some weaknesses in Mikhailov and/or Makarov, when they faced Canada, that's fine, but if you didn't, I really don't see the problem. Or why don't you just simply take the stand that those guys never proved themselves (a la Ogopogo), so you don't care about them... rather than give them, for want of a better word, backhanded compliments?
Question of perspective. When Makarov and Mikhailov were playing the Swedes and Finns, were they facing the BEST Swedes and Finns from the seventies and eighties? Of course not. Rarely did they face - Borje Salming, Anders Hedberg, Neilson and a approx ten others who were playing in the NHL/WHA. Likewise Finland - Kurri, Ketola, Riihiranta and approx. 10 others were playing in the NHL/WHA. Did you mention this above? No, yet you definitely knew about it based on your previous posts - example quoting Ketola to support Kharlamov.

You cite the number of games Makarov and Mikhailov played against Sweden - Lite, Finland- Lite, Czechs without the Stastny's, Canada during their careers BUT you neglect the length of their international careers - 10 to 15 seasons. So when you do the basic math they may have played Canada ( not an elite Canada) 3-5 times a year, the European teams 5-6 times a year yet never under NHL circumstances such as an eighty game schedule with stretches of 3 games in 4 nights or a seven game playoff series with constant adjustments and changing defensive strategies.
So when you look at international players how do you compare a Vasiliev who looked good and promising for a few games a year against Canada to a Borje Salming who produced game after game at a very high level, in the NHL for over ten seasons?

Basically the vast majority of the stats generated by the better Soviet players came from Soviet league games.Then you look at the joke that was the Soviet league - not exactly competitive - CSKA(stacked), Spartak, and Dynamo and the remaining teams????????? that were the hockey equivalent of the Washington Generals. How many players on the bottom four Soviet teams could have played above the ECHL level? Yet this is what was happening when peristroyka and the break-up of the Soviet Union allowed Soviet players to come to North America. A number of the Soviet League players who were playing regularly against Makarov,Fetisov, Larionov etc wound up in the ECHL yet these were from the bottom 150 of the top 200 Soviet players. Guaranteed that none of the top 500 North American players from the 1990-92 era were playing in the ECHL at that time. (Not interested in reading about those North Americans with major sobriety / substance issues or other self destructive behavior as counter examples).

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:42 AM
  #25
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,930
vCash: 500
As far as Mikhailov vs. Makarov goes...
Firstly, IMO Firsov should be ahead of both (and ahead any Russian whose name is not Fetisov).

Now, I don't see any great differences in Mikhailov's and Makarov's careers; Makarov has more awards, Mikhailov has a slightly better numbers, I think. Mikhailov aged better (probably at his best as a 34-year old in 1978-79), but on the other hand, Makarov made it way earlier to a national team player, so that evens it out. Against top - and actually BETTER - NHL competition, Makarov was more impressive IMO, but it might be a bit unfair, since Mikhailov was denied of the chance to play in the 1976 Canada Cup.

What it comes down to me is skills. Anyone who has seen them both couldn't possibly claim that Mikhailov had better skills - skating, stickhandling, shooting, playmaking, you name it, Makarov was superior. I think the only areas where Mikhailov gave Makarov fits, were goal-scoring (in the slot), and leadership (as the team captain and all), and maybe defensive play (and even that only in the latter stage of his career), and those are just not enough for me. If you were a defenseman, Makarov skating at full speed towards you just gave altogether bigger fright than Mikhailov, I'm sure.

VMBM is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.