World War II is what hold Harvey back. He was also a fantastic football and baseball player, so he made not have made his decision on which sport he wanted to play extensively yet. He made the Montreal Canadiens team on his first training camp. Although it definitely took him a couple of years before implementing himself as the best defenceman of his era.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I was wondering about WW2 and saw that he was playing hockey but didn't investigate in full detail on how and why he didn't play for Montreal until the age 23.
Still I have to say that the argument about Bourque's competition compared to Lidstrom needs to be looked at with Harvey as some of the 4 guys on the 1st and 2nd all star teams are well less than inspiring IMO.
I still think on the surface that a lot of his ranking is based on reputation but I will look into it further.
One thing that is always difficult is to not over compensate for guys in the 30 team NHL (or larger than the 06 era) and not fully appreciate the top guys in the 06 era.
Being in my early 40's, and not some young pup as suggested by others, not seeing him play is definitely a disadvantage of truly being able to rank him as well.
But I'm open minded about it and not entrenched in my ranking of the all time best Dmen either and realize that Harvey was the best Dman of his era.
These are relevant points, but my original reasoning for the 'first 10 years' was to show how messier's was so poor compared to the rest of the alpha dogs in the top 35. He is very poor offensively compared to the big dogs like stan mikita. his offense is barely better than a ron francis or ted kennedy.
The hockey news ranked messier above mikita based on his accomplishments in his 30's, but when you look at thier first 10 seasons its just so lopsided in mikita's favour, it seems like messier is not even in his league.
Messier has probably his best years after his first 10 seasons, so of course his resume will look worse that a guy like Mikita who did most of his damage in his first 10.
Using an arbitrary cutoff like 10 just doesn't make any sense. It's bad science. You're ranking players based on career arc, not actual accomplishments. If Mark Messier had come into the NHL at the same age as Peter Stastny, his first 10 seasons would run right up to the 1994 Cup win. Why punish the guy for starting in the NHL as a teenager? If Joe Thornton hadn't been rushed into the league, his 89 point season last year would make the cut instead of his 7 point season as an 18 year old. Who cares how long it takes a player to hit their stride?
Messier has probably his best years after his first 10 seasons, so of course his resume will look worse that a guy like Mikita who did most of his damage in his first 10.
Using an arbitrary cutoff like 10 just doesn't make any sense. It's bad science. You're ranking players based on career arc, not actual accomplishments. If Mark Messier had come into the NHL at the same age as Peter Stastny, his first 10 seasons would run right up to the 1994 Cup win. Why punish the guy for starting in the NHL as a teenager? If Joe Thornton hadn't been rushed into the league, his 89 point season last year would make the cut instead of his 7 point season as an 18 year old. Who cares how long it takes a player to hit their stride?
Personally, I think he has the right idea, just the wrong method. I think alot of guys with great career numbers were actually complilers and were never truly elite at any point in their careers. I think ranking guys on their 8 to 10 best seasons, rather than 1st 10 seasons would remove the compilers from the equation and you would see who the truly elite players were over the course of NHL history. This way you don't remove the late bloomers, especially goalies and d-men who tend to take longer to develop than forwards.
Personally, I think he has the right idea, just the wrong method. I think alot of guys with great career numbers were actually complilers and were never truly elite at any point in their careers. I think ranking guys on their 8 to 10 best seasons, rather than 1st 10 seasons would remove the compilers from the equation and you would see who the truly elite players were over the course of NHL history. This way you don't remove the late bloomers, especially goalies and d-men who tend to take longer to develop than forwards.
Yeah, no doubt. My issue is just with the arbitrary decision to use a player's first 10 seasons. At least starting with their first big season (Messier's 1982 instead of his 1980, for instance) would put guys on an even playing field no matter what age they entered the league.
Using their 8 or 10 best is definitely a better method. At the same time, that punishes guys who might have 12 or 13 elite-level seasons. The difference between Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin is that Bourque did it for twice as long. If you look at just the best 8, I think that really hurts Bourque, and might even put Potvin ahead.
Yeah, no doubt. My issue is just with the arbitrary decision to use a player's first 10 seasons. At least starting with their first big season (Messier's 1982 instead of his 1980, for instance) would put guys on an even playing field no matter what age they entered the league.
Using their 8 or 10 best is definitely a better method. At the same time, that punishes guys who might have 12 or 13 elite-level seasons. The difference between Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin is that Bourque did it for twice as long. If you look at just the best 8, I think that really hurts Bourque, and might even put Potvin ahead.
Ironnically, I'm one of the few around here that has Potvin ahead of Bourque
That said, yeah, using arbitrary criteria has it's negatives. Personally, I weigh what a guy did at his absolute best more importantly than how long he was a very good player. For instance, if Usain Bolt never wins another race, who was the greater sprinter, him with the World Record by alot, or Carl Lewis who was competive a long time, but was never as fast as Bolt at his best? I take Usain Bolt and what he did at his absolute best.
Ironnically, I'm one of the few around here that has Potvin ahead of Bourque
That said, yeah, using arbitrary criteria has it's negatives. Personally, I weigh what a guy did at his absolute best more importantly than how long he was a very good player. For instance, if Usain Bolt never wins another race, who was the greater sprinter, him with the World Record by alot, or Carl Lewis who was competive a long time, but was never as fast as Bolt at his best? I take Usain Bolt and what he did at his absolute best.
Right, but if there were two Usain Bolts that were equally good, but one did it for 5 years longer than the other, wouldn't he be better in your mind?
Being the only player to be a captain for a cup winning team for two different organizations has to count for something when it comes to leadership, doesn't it?
Being the only player to be a captain for a cup winning team for two different organizations has to count for something when it comes to leadership, doesn't it?
I don't see why, honestly.
To me, it's more of a trivia answer than anything else. I don't see why captaining two different teams to a Cup is any better than captaining the same team twice.
To me, it's more of a trivia answer than anything else. I don't see why captaining two different teams to a Cup is any better than captaining the same team twice.
To me, it's more of a trivia answer than anything else. I don't see why captaining two different teams to a Cup is any better than captaining the same team twice.
It's difficult enough to get one group of people to believe in you as their leader at that level, let alone two. That's why is more impressive than captaining the same team twice.
The fact that only one person has done it makes it a great trivia question.
To me, it's like Mario Lemieux's 5 goals in 5 ways. Sure it's a fun trivia answer. But I'd think it was more impressive to score 5 goals, without any of them being into the empty net.
It's difficult enough to get one group of people to believe in you as their leader at that level, let alone two. That's why is more impressive than captaining the same team twice.
Okay, but you could also say "shouldn't the best captain of all time have stuck with his team?"
With modern roster turnover, teams change a lot anyway. How many players did the 1996 and 2001 Avalanche have in common by the way?
The 1995 and 2003 Devils only had 5 players in common, their captain, plus 4 more (Niedermayer, Daneyko, Brodeur, and Brylin).
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-31-2011 at 01:01 PM.
A player who stays with one team the whole time will never be able to captain two different teams to the Cup. That certainly doesn't make him a lesser player or leader.
Okay, but you could also say "shouldn't the best captain of all time have stuck with his team?"
With modern roster turnover, teams change a lot anyway. How many players did the 1996 and 2001 Avalanche have in common by the way?
The 1995 and 2003 Devils only had 5 players in common, their captain, plus 4 more (Niedermayer, Daneyko, Brodeur, and Brylin).
very interesting. if we look at it this way, messier's rangers actually had more common players (7) with his 1990 oilers team than stevens' first and third cup winning teams (5), or sakic's two cup winners (6).
The fact that only one person has done it makes it a great trivia question.
To me, it's like Mario Lemieux's 5 goals in 5 ways. Sure it's a fun trivia answer. But I'd think it was more impressive to score 5 goals, without any of them being into the empty net.
You're comparing an individual stat to a team accomplishment.
A player who stays with one team the whole time will never be able to captain two different teams to the Cup. That certainly doesn't make him a lesser player or leader.
How many guys have even been in the situation that Messier was in?
Who has been captain of a Cup winning team and then got traded to a Cup contender shortly thereafter (2 years for Messier) while still in the prime of his career?
^ that said, jeremy roenick said something on OTR last week that seemed really on point about messier. he called messier the most intimidating player in the league and said "he scared the crap out of me." and joked about trying not to make eye contact with messier at the faceoff circle. "he had it all: he had the meat, he had the toughness, he had the mean streak in him, his talent was incredible."
Being the only player to be a captain for a cup winning team for two different organizations has to count for something when it comes to leadership, doesn't it?
Most great captains stayed with one team for most of their career.
At the end of the day, Messier only captained 2 teams to a Cup win.
How many guys have even been in the situation that Messier was in?
Who has been captain of a Cup winning team and then got traded to a Cup contender shortly thereafter (2 years for Messier) while still in the prime of his career?
The NYR's were cup contenders before Messier? The 5 years before he arrived the finished just around league average and never did anything the playoffs. His first year there the team win the presidents trophy and went further in the playoffs than they had in 5 years.
I find Messier to be overrated, and a few of the posts in this thread already demonstrate why. He would almost certainly be outside my top 25 players ever.
Agreed, likely would have hard time cracking top 30.
I think he's a top 50 player and I enjoyed his play greatly but overall in my mind he's one of those cases where fortunate circumstance combined with very good talent produced a reputation greater than it would have been based purely on that talent. Team sports are full of such stories.
I think he's a top 50 player and I enjoyed his play greatly but overall in my mind he's one of those cases where fortunate circumstance combined with very good talent produced a reputation greater than it would have been based purely on that talent. Team sports are full of such stories.
