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.

Research Thread for NHL Award and All-star Voting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-25-2010, 06:09 PM
  #301
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Exactly where do those numbers come from?

Who (and how) do you determine shot quality?
I'll look up the numbers later when I have time.

Shot quality is basically determined by where the shot comes from (distance from the net and angle). I think they also take into account rebounds.

Stats people put a lot of stock into this formula (it's why they loved Luongo so much in Florida). I take it with a grain of salt, personally, but if the numbers held until the end of the season, it's at least an argument that Brodeur was the 2nd best goalie last year.

Quote:
Funny argument to support Brodeur. Hasn't that always been an argument against him, that for almost all of his career he faced significantly lower quality shots than anyone else?
Yes, it was the argument against him back when he actually had good defensemen in front of him (more than 5 years ago!) Since the last lockout, the team plays a defensive system (so fewer total shots) but has mediocre at best defensemen (so when the system breaks down, the shot quality is really high).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 08:26 AM
  #302
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'll look up the numbers later when I have time.

Shot quality is basically determined by where the shot comes from (distance from the net and angle). I think they also take into account rebounds.

Stats people put a lot of stock into this formula (it's why they loved Luongo so much in Florida). I take it with a grain of salt, personally, but if the numbers held until the end of the season, it's at least an argument that Brodeur was the 2nd best goalie last year.



Yes, it was the argument against him back when he actually had good defensemen in front of him (more than 5 years ago!) Since the last lockout, the team plays a defensive system (so fewer total shots) but has mediocre at best defensemen (so when the system breaks down, the shot quality is really high).
But who keeps these stats?

Is it a league kept stat or does each team keep there own? That would seem to make a big difference in its reliability (what little it would have anyway).

I see your point. But I still doubt that Brodeur would have even been in the top 3 voting if the GMs didn't vote.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 09:04 PM
  #303
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
But who keeps these stats?

Is it a league kept stat or does each team keep there own? That would seem to make a big difference in its reliability (what little it would have anyway).

I see your point. But I still doubt that Brodeur would have even been in the top 3 voting if the GMs didn't vote.
The shot quality models are not official NHL stats, and there are several different versions out there, created by stats gurus like Gabriel Desjardins of behindthenet.ca and Tom Awad of Puck Prospectus.

All the models are based on the stats that the NHL tracks in the game play-by-play, including the distance and type for each shot. In that sense they are based on official NHL stats. Some shot quality models also consider whether the shot was taken on the power play, and whether it was taken within 2 seconds of another shot (rebound). In that sense, they are based on official NHL stats.

But there are real issues with data quality. It's well known at this point that the MSG stringer who records shot details is massively biased towards recording every shot a lot closer to the goal than it was, so New York Ranger shot quality numbers are useless. There may be other cases where data is recorded in a biased manner, although I don't remember the details. While the models are very well designed, their output is only as good at the data they work with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Statistical studies also show that there has been little difference between NHL teams in shot quality after separating out power play shots, at least for recent seasons. Given the data quality issues with shot quality models, they may introduce as much bias as they remove, at least over a large sample of a season or more.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 09:45 PM
  #304
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,115
vCash: 500
Shot Recording

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
The shot quality models are not official NHL stats, and there are several different versions out there, created by stats gurus like Gabriel Desjardins of behindthenet.ca and Tom Awad of Puck Prospectus.

All the models are based on the stats that the NHL tracks in the game play-by-play, including the distance and type for each shot. In that sense they are based on official NHL stats. Some shot quality models also consider whether the shot was taken on the power play, and whether it was taken within 2 seconds of another shot (rebound). In that sense, they are based on official NHL stats.

But there are real issues with data quality. It's well known at this point that the MSG stringer who records shot details is massively biased towards recording every shot a lot closer to the goal than it was, so New York Ranger shot quality numbers are useless. There may be other cases where data is recorded in a biased manner, although I don't remember the details. While the models are very well designed, their output is only as good at the data they work with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Statistical studies also show that there has been little difference between NHL teams in shot quality after separating out power play shots, at least for recent seasons. Given the data quality issues with shot quality models, they may introduce as much bias as they remove, at least over a large sample of a season or more.
There are various forms of shot recording, all dependent on the vantage point or camera position. Until this aspect is standardized for all arenas you will have tolerances that have to be accepted.

Three main methods - part of the NHL model described above, each team designates someone during the game,plus the post game video coach breakdown. Doubtful that anyone will get access to the last two. The video coach breakdown is the most interesting since you get a perspective of the offensive and defensive objectives.

Regardless of the method, the 2010 playoffs clearly illustrated that a goalies performance - SV% is much better when facing perimeter shots as opposed to shots from the slot.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2010, 05:45 PM
  #305
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
The shot quality models are not official NHL stats, and there are several different versions out there, created by stats gurus like Gabriel Desjardins of behindthenet.ca and Tom Awad of Puck Prospectus.

All the models are based on the stats that the NHL tracks in the game play-by-play, including the distance and type for each shot. In that sense they are based on official NHL stats. Some shot quality models also consider whether the shot was taken on the power play, and whether it was taken within 2 seconds of another shot (rebound). In that sense, they are based on official NHL stats.

But there are real issues with data quality. It's well known at this point that the MSG stringer who records shot details is massively biased towards recording every shot a lot closer to the goal than it was, so New York Ranger shot quality numbers are useless. There may be other cases where data is recorded in a biased manner, although I don't remember the details. While the models are very well designed, their output is only as good at the data they work with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Statistical studies also show that there has been little difference between NHL teams in shot quality after separating out power play shots, at least for recent seasons. Given the data quality issues with shot quality models, they may introduce as much bias as they remove, at least over a large sample of a season or more.
Thanks.

Sounds like its just as likely to tell the wrong story as it is the real story.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2010, 03:50 PM
  #306
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,778
vCash: 500
Do these voting records exist in any sort of organized Excel sheet somewhere?

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 07:24 PM
  #307
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Does anyone here think Bobby Hull at #5 is a bit too high. I mean basketball fans consider championships a big deal when it comes to rankings, why not apply that to hockey? Bobby Hull only has 1 ring and before people say "montreal was way more stacked", remember there were many years where the blackhawks finished 1st or second in the league.

His offense really isn't any better than that of Beliveau, Richard, Jagr or Mikita. It seems to me like having 7 goal scoring titles is what got him to #5. His overall top 10 finishes and playoff resume doesnt suggest he's top 5 all times. I would rank bobby hull 8th-12th.

In my opinion, Patrick Roy and Doug Harvey accomplished more in thier careers. I would rather have those two on my team over Bobby Hull anyday.

I can understand why he would be ranked above richard, he's basically a better version on worse team. However, I fail to see a valid argument as to why he's greater than Beliveau, Harvey and Roy.


Last edited by ushvinder: 07-12-2010 at 07:30 PM.
ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 09:28 PM
  #308
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Does anyone here think Bobby Hull at #5 is a bit too high. I mean basketball fans consider championships a big deal when it comes to rankings, why not apply that to hockey? Bobby Hull only has 1 ring and before people say "montreal was way more stacked", remember there were many years where the blackhawks finished 1st or second in the league.

His offense really isn't any better than that of Beliveau, Richard, Jagr or Mikita. It seems to me like having 7 goal scoring titles is what got him to #5. His overall top 10 finishes and playoff resume doesnt suggest he's top 5 all times. I would rank bobby hull 8th-12th.

In my opinion, Patrick Roy and Doug Harvey accomplished more in thier careers. I would rather have those two on my team over Bobby Hull anyday.

I can understand why he would be ranked above richard, he's basically a better version on worse team. However, I fail to see a valid argument as to why he's greater than Beliveau, Harvey and Roy.
Might want to paste this into the correct thread

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 11:32 PM
  #309
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Might want to paste this into the correct thread
Agreed.

But I actually do agree with ushvinder to an extent. What he said is why I rank Beliveau over Hull (I still have Hull over M Richard).

I'm even more sure of Beliveau over Bobby Hull after reading old newspaper articles about how Hull and Mikita drove their coach Rudy Pilous out of Chicago because he wouldn't give them enough ice time.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 06:42 PM
  #310
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Does anyone here think Bobby Hull at #5 is a bit too high. I mean basketball fans consider championships a big deal when it comes to rankings, why not apply that to hockey? Bobby Hull only has 1 ring and before people say "montreal was way more stacked", remember there were many years where the blackhawks finished 1st or second in the league.

His offense really isn't any better than that of Beliveau, Richard, Jagr or Mikita. It seems to me like having 7 goal scoring titles is what got him to #5. His overall top 10 finishes and playoff resume doesnt suggest he's top 5 all times. I would rank bobby hull 8th-12th.

In my opinion, Patrick Roy and Doug Harvey accomplished more in thier careers. I would rather have those two on my team over Bobby Hull anyday.

I can understand why he would be ranked above richard, he's basically a better version on worse team. However, I fail to see a valid argument as to why he's greater than Beliveau, Harvey and Roy.
Yep, you posted this in the wrong thread but I will comment anyway. First all, where were you when we were compiling this list. Hull was the consensus # 5 guy both times we have done this. I think most of us realize that cups are a team award & what counts is playoff performance & Hull performed excellently in the playoffs. His top 10 finishes along with 3 AR's, 2 Harts (with many other top 5 finishes) go along with his record goal scoring wins to make Hull a damn good choice at # 5.

To correct another of your erraneous assumptions-During the 15 Hull/Chicago years. The hawks only finished first overall twice & finished behind montreal 11 out of those 15 years. Yes montreal was way more stacked.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 06:57 PM
  #311
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Agreed.

But I actually do agree with ushvinder to an extent. What he said is why I rank Beliveau over Hull (I still have Hull over M Richard).

I'm even more sure of Beliveau over Bobby Hull after reading old newspaper articles about how Hull and Mikita drove their coach Rudy Pilous out of Chicago because he wouldn't give them enough ice time.
Don't think this is quite true. Maybe Hull & Mikita weren't happy with their ice time under Pilous but this isn't what got him fired. I really think Pilous' strong personality got under Ivan's skin. I think there was general discontentment among the players. The only comment, I remember from the time was Nesterenko's comment that "Pilous couldn't coach a girl's basketball team".

All quotes I have seen from Hull & Mikita regarding Pilous are qiuite complimentary. In fact Hull brought Pilous on board to manage the WHA Winnipeg Jets.

Even if it were true, I don't see why this would put Hull behind Beliveau. Your other rationale as I remember was that it was hard to find the right centre for Hull. Now you seem to have added cup counting. Don't understand it. You usually have good reasons for your opinions but this one is not clear to me.


Last edited by pappyline: 07-16-2010 at 07:08 PM.
pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 01:49 AM
  #312
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Does anyone here think Bobby Hull at #5 is a bit too high. I mean basketball fans consider championships a big deal when it comes to rankings, why not apply that to hockey? Bobby Hull only has 1 ring and before people say "montreal was way more stacked", remember there were many years where the blackhawks finished 1st or second in the league.

His offense really isn't any better than that of Beliveau, Richard, Jagr or Mikita. It seems to me like having 7 goal scoring titles is what got him to #5. His overall top 10 finishes and playoff resume doesnt suggest he's top 5 all times. I would rank bobby hull 8th-12th.

In my opinion, Patrick Roy and Doug Harvey accomplished more in thier careers. I would rather have those two on my team over Bobby Hull anyday.

I can understand why he would be ranked above richard, he's basically a better version on worse team. However, I fail to see a valid argument as to why he's greater than Beliveau, Harvey and Roy.
Basketball is a much more individual sport. One great player can basically make you a contender. If you had the two best or at least two of the top three, as Chicago did with Mikita and Hull in the mid 60's, you're basically expected to win the championship due to that fact alone. The Lakers three in a row team of about 10 years ago with Shaq and Kobe would be a comparable example.

Hockey requires much more depth. James, Wade, Bosh, and whatever nine guys the Miami Heat fill out their roster with are expected to win the NBA title next season. A team with Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, and 17 scrubs might not make the playoffs, let alone win the Stanley Cup. For a real-life example, the Lightning missed the playoffs this year despite strong seasons from three star players in St. Louis, Stamkos, and Lecavalier. That would never happen in basketball.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 09:09 AM
  #313
vippe
Registered User
 
vippe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 11,841
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to vippe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Basketball is a much more individual sport. One great player can basically make you a contender. If you had the two best or at least two of the top three, as Chicago did with Mikita and Hull in the mid 60's, you're basically expected to win the championship due to that fact alone. The Lakers three in a row team of about 10 years ago with Shaq and Kobe would be a comparable example.

Hockey requires much more depth. James, Wade, Bosh, and whatever nine guys the Miami Heat fill out their roster with are expected to win the NBA title next season. A team with Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, and 17 scrubs might not make the playoffs, let alone win the Stanley Cup. For a real-life example, the Lightning missed the playoffs this year despite strong seasons from three star players in St. Louis, Stamkos, and Lecavalier. That would never happen in basketball.
I agree with you, except that Lecavalier really didnt have a strong season hehe

vippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 01:49 PM
  #314
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Don't think this is quite true. Maybe Hull & Mikita weren't happy with their ice time under Pilous but this isn't what got him fired. I really think Pilous' strong personality got under Ivan's skin. I think there was general discontentment among the players. The only comment, I remember from the time was Nesterenko's comment that "Pilous couldn't coach a girl's basketball team".

All quotes I have seen from Hull & Mikita regarding Pilous are qiuite complimentary. In fact Hull brought Pilous on board to manage the WHA Winnipeg Jets.

Even if it were true, I don't see why this would put Hull behind Beliveau. Your other rationale as I remember was that it was hard to find the right centre for Hull. Now you seem to have added cup counting. Don't understand it. You usually have good reasons for your opinions but this one is not clear to me.
What you said (about the difficulty finding teammates who would mesh with Hull), plus Beliveau is one of the greatest playoff performers ever, plus had a Hart record almost as good as Bobby Hull.

Is it "Cup Counting" to give Beliveau lots of credit for being the Canadien's best offensive player in the majority of the 10 Cups that he won? Maybe a little. It's not like Bobby Hull was anything but excellent in the playoffs.

But Beliveau was just... the perfect player. The 1960s Canadiens were not a stacked team, but they bought into a team concept, and Beliveau led the way.

I do think players should get some credit for leading the team to the Cup. It's why I justify ranking Scott Stevens so highly and it's why most of you rank Tim Horton so highly. But I try to separate individual success from team success; it's a big reason I find Dickie Moore and Ted Lindsay to be a bit overrated by history.

For what it's worth, I do think Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau both are a step up from the next best forward ever (likely Maurice Richard).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-17-2010 at 07:04 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 06:45 PM
  #315
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Basketball is a much more individual sport. One great player can basically make you a contender. If you had the two best or at least two of the top three, as Chicago did with Mikita and Hull in the mid 60's, you're basically expected to win the championship due to that fact alone. The Lakers three in a row team of about 10 years ago with Shaq and Kobe would be a comparable example.

Hockey requires much more depth. James, Wade, Bosh, and whatever nine guys the Miami Heat fill out their roster with are expected to win the NBA title next season. A team with Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, and 17 scrubs might not make the playoffs, let alone win the Stanley Cup. For a real-life example, the Lightning missed the playoffs this year despite strong seasons from three star players in St. Louis, Stamkos, and Lecavalier. That would never happen in basketball.
Tell me this, your the GM of the montreal canadians from 1986-1993. Would you trade Patrick Roy for Bobby Hull(assuming his prime is in that era)? Yes or no. I wouldn't.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 06:56 PM
  #316
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Tell me this, your the GM of the montreal canadians from 1986-1993. Would you trade Patrick Roy for Bobby Hull(assuming his prime is in that era)? Yes or no. I wouldn't.
I'll take the copout answer: It depends on the quality of goaltender available to replace Roy.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 06:59 PM
  #317
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
yes. without even thinking twice.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2010, 09:02 PM
  #318
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Tell me this, your the GM of the montreal canadians from 1986-1993. Would you trade Patrick Roy for Bobby Hull(assuming his prime is in that era)? Yes or no. I wouldn't.
I think I would. Hull dominated the league to a greater degree than Roy did. Now, I will grant that the goaltending position is more important than the LW position when building a team, so that's a consideration. But Hull would have been the best winger in the league by a good margin over this time span. I think I would do this trade and assume that I could find an adequate replacement for Roy in goal, gambling that my upgrade at forward would more than offset my presumed downgrade in net.

Keep in mind that a trade would have to be done at an absolute moment in time, which isn't the same thing as asking "would you swap out Bobby Hull for Patrick Roy for the 1986-93 time span?". If that is what you intended to ask, then my answer would be no. There is no guarantee that Montreal would have been more successful with Hull than with Roy, even though I feel Hull was a better player. With Roy, you've got the two Cups. Who knows, maybe Hull would have won them four in that span, but they may also have won zero. Not worth the risk.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 01:53 AM
  #319
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
What you said (about the difficulty finding teammates who would mesh with Hull), plus Beliveau is one of the greatest playoff performers ever, plus had a Hart record almost as good as Bobby Hull.

Is it "Cup Counting" to give Beliveau lots of credit for being the Canadien's best offensive player in the majority of the 10 Cups that he won? Maybe a little. It's not like Bobby Hull was anything but excellent in the playoffs.

But Beliveau was just... the perfect player. The 1960s Canadiens were not a stacked team, but they bought into a team concept, and Beliveau led the way.

I do think players should get some credit for leading the team to the Cup. It's why I justify ranking Scott Stevens so highly and it's why most of you rank Tim Horton so highly. But I try to separate individual success from team success; it's a big reason I find Dickie Moore and Ted Lindsay to be a bit overrated by history.

For what it's worth, I do think Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau both are a step up from the next best forward ever (likely Maurice Richard).
Interesting points here and for the record Hull did leave the NHL in his prime at age 33 after a season where he was 2nd in goals and 7th in points.

Hull's playoff record scoring wise is pretty impressive as well.

Just as no one says much about Orr's lack of Cups(I have always wondered why to some degree though), I donl't think that we can make too much of Hull's one cup compared to Beliveau's 10 cups except to say that he played on teams that had more success in the playoffs than Hull did. To make too fine of a point on "Cup Counting" would be an exaggeration IMO.

To lead the NHL 7 times in goal scoring is an incredible accomplishment even without cup wins.

Side point, is it just me or is AO following a similar career path to Bobby Hull minus Hull's 1 cup win so far?

Picking between Beliveau and Hull to me is like picking between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, just comes down to personal choice not much to pick between the 2 overall, both had their stronger points and both are better than the next forward on the list, whether it be the Rocket or someone else.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 09:01 AM
  #320
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Interesting points here and for the record Hull did leave the NHL in his prime at age 33 after a season where he was 2nd in goals and 7th in points.

Hull's playoff record scoring wise is pretty impressive as well.

Just as no one says much about Orr's lack of Cups(I have always wondered why to some degree though), I donl't think that we can make too much of Hull's one cup compared to Beliveau's 10 cups except to say that he played on teams that had more success in the playoffs than Hull did. To make too fine of a point on "Cup Counting" would be an exaggeration IMO.

To lead the NHL 7 times in goal scoring is an incredible accomplishment even without cup wins.

Side point, is it just me or is AO following a similar career path to Bobby Hull minus Hull's 1 cup win so far?

Picking between Beliveau and Hull to me is like picking between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, just comes down to personal choice not much to pick between the 2 overall, both had their stronger points and both are better than the next forward on the list, whether it be the Rocket or someone else.
2 Cups in what was basically a 9 year career isn't that bad. The Great One had 4 Cups in 20 years, pretty much the same as Orr.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 11:10 AM
  #321
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
2 Cups in what was basically a 9 year career isn't that bad. The Great One had 4 Cups in 20 years, pretty much the same as Orr.
2 Cups in 9 years isn't bad but more was expected of Boston, especially in the 14, 16 league they played in back then.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 12:33 PM
  #322
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
What you said (about the difficulty finding teammates who would mesh with Hull), plus Beliveau is one of the greatest playoff performers ever, plus had a Hart record almost as good as Bobby Hull.

Is it "Cup Counting" to give Beliveau lots of credit for being the Canadien's best offensive player in the majority of the 10 Cups that he won? Maybe a little. It's not like Bobby Hull was anything but excellent in the playoffs.

But Beliveau was just... the perfect player. The 1960s Canadiens were not a stacked team, but they bought into a team concept, and Beliveau led the way.

I do think players should get some credit for leading the team to the Cup. It's why I justify ranking Scott Stevens so highly and it's why most of you rank Tim Horton so highly. But I try to separate individual success from team success; it's a big reason I find Dickie Moore and Ted Lindsay to be a bit overrated by history.

For what it's worth, I do think Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau both are a step up from the next best forward ever (likely Maurice Richard).
I think the difficulty of finding the right linemates for Hull tends to get exaggerated. he never did play on a deep team so the options were limited. He seemed to have great success with whomever he played & he never had superstars as linemates. On RW, it was mainly Balfour, Maki & Hedberg. at centre it was mainly Hay, esposito, martin, and Nilsson. They did give a lot of fringe guys a chance at centre with Hull but they just didn't have enough talent.

In rating players, I believe Hull really gets short changed on his career after he left the NHL. Most people tend to ignore it even though in doing the HOH top 100, we were to includie all leagues which is why there are some non-NHL Russians on the list. In the WHA Hull continued his excellent play at the same time as being the PR guy for a whole league. He won 2 MVP's there plus led Winnipeg to two playoff championships. So you could say Hull has 3 cups. The Hull/Nilsson/Hedberg line revolutionized the North American game & Sather based the Oilers style on that line.

Also Hull's international play during that period should be considered. In the 74 summit, he led the tournament in both goals & points. In the 76 canada Cup, at age 37, he was one point behind the co-leaders and was tied for the lead in goals(tops for Canada). He was also known for his physical play in that series and in the Sweden game put Salming off his game with some early hard but clean hits.

Personally, I have Hull as a solid #5 with a gap to the next tier (Beliveau (probably #6), Shore, harvey,Rocket)


Last edited by pappyline: 07-18-2010 at 07:45 PM.
pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 01:03 PM
  #323
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,115
vCash: 500
Ice Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Don't think this is quite true. Maybe Hull & Mikita weren't happy with their ice time under Pilous but this isn't what got him fired. I really think Pilous' strong personality got under Ivan's skin. I think there was general discontentment among the players. The only comment, I remember from the time was Nesterenko's comment that "Pilous couldn't coach a girl's basketball team".

All quotes I have seen from Hull & Mikita regarding Pilous are qiuite complimentary. In fact Hull brought Pilous on board to manage the WHA Winnipeg Jets.

Even if it were true, I don't see why this would put Hull behind Beliveau. Your other rationale as I remember was that it was hard to find the right centre for Hull. Now you seem to have added cup counting. Don't understand it. You usually have good reasons for your opinions but this one is not clear to me.
Ice time means different things to different players. In Chicago the problem was not the amount of minutes that Hull, Mikita and Pilote received during the Rudy Pilous years but how the minutes were distributed.

I'll illustrate with the power play. The Hawks power play was potent when Hull, Mikita and Pilote were on at the same time. If only one or two of them played the power play it was significantly weaker.

Illustrating with the power play.If the power play with Hull, Mikita and Pilote ran long or the full two minutes, Pilous had serious problems. The next shift had to be played without Hull, Mikita or Pilote on the ice while they rested producing a net disadvantage to the Hawks since Hull and Mikita hardly ever played on the same line.Fringe shift. Next shift Pilote would then play with the Hull or the Mikita line followed by Hull or Mikita with the 3/4d-men pairing.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 01:22 PM
  #324
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Ice time means different things to different players. In Chicago the problem was not the amount of minutes that Hull, Mikita and Pilote received during the Rudy Pilous years but how the minutes were distributed.

I'll illustrate with the power play. The Hawks power play was potent when Hull, Mikita and Pilote were on at the same time. If only one or two of them played the power play it was significantly weaker.

Illustrating with the power play.If the power play with Hull, Mikita and Pilote ran long or the full two minutes, Pilous had serious problems. The next shift had to be played without Hull, Mikita or Pilote on the ice while they rested producing a net disadvantage to the Hawks since Hull and Mikita hardly ever played on the same line.Fringe shift. Next shift Pilote would then play with the Hull or the Mikita line followed by Hull or Mikita with the 3/4d-men pairing.
Maybe I missed something here but how does this affect Hull?
Or are you saying how this affected the Hawks as a team?

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2010, 02:40 PM
  #325
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,115
vCash: 500
Both

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Maybe I missed something here but how does this affect Hull?
Or are you saying how this affected the Hawks as a team?
Illustrating the consequences of a choice on the power play to each of the players concerned and the team.

Canadiens1958 is offline   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 11:29 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.