FYI, this thread (along with a few others) was recently moved to the history board from the main board. So his statement was probably true at the time he made it
Sorry.
Should have realized that, didn't really take note of poster.
One of the best defensive d-men of his era, but his career and contributions to two Stanley Cup champion teams are largely overlooked due to the hatchet job guys like Cherry and Milbury have done to him.
I think more of Ulf than Cherry & Milbury when the term hatchet is used.
mccrimmon was a favourite of mine. tocchet was awesome, someimes forgotten but crucial guy on two team canadas. liked zezel a lot too. very underrated playmaker, unbelievable at faceoffs.
Ron Francis, Pat LaFontaine, Mike Bossy, Larry Murphy, Al MacInnis, Mike Vernon, Pierre Turgeon, Luc Robitaille, Brian Leetch, Mike Modano, Ulf Samuelsson, Dave Andreychuk, Rick Tocchet, Vladimir Konstantinov, Ken Daneyko, and Bob Probert.
Obviously a lot of these guys you could say "yeah, but all hardcore fans know how good that guy was, so I'm submit Mike Gartner for being underrated in the hardcore fans division. Not because any hardcore fan doesn't know what he brought to the table, but because discussions about Gartner often seem to devolve into "who can say the meanest thing about his place in the HHOF," as if to prove a point about how non-blinded by statistics we all are. Seriously, one poster (I forget exactly who, but it was one of the ones whose opinion I regard highly) once said that he should be embarrassed to be on the HHOF selection committee, as if merely being a top 15-20 scorer for 20 straight years is somehow something to be embarrassed about. Obviously, the guys' career has its flaws, but some of the vitriol I've heard is a mite cartoonish. Brodeur might be another guy who fits the same criteria for being underrated by serious fans.
Yes, he is underrated because his point totals doesn't reflect his super talent. While he definitely should have scored more than he actually did with those linemates in Colorado, he still managed to outscore Forsberg in both the '96 and '97 playoffs. He was such a joy to watch back then.
Yes, he is underrated because his point totals doesn't reflect his super talent. While he definitely should have scored more than he actually did with those linemates in Colorado, he still managed to outscore Forsberg in both the '96 and '97 playoffs. He was such a joy to watch back then.
Isn't "he was talented but should have scored more" just another way of saying "he was flashy but wasn't as good as he looked?"
Agree that he's underrated by people who don't know about his pre-NHL career in the USSR before his knee injury
Untrue in some cases. eg. Kamensky and Kent Nilsson.
Please explain. You win hockey games by scoring and preventing goals, so if a player was loaded with talent but didn't use that talent to help his team score or prevent goals, is it really relevant?
Please explain. You win hockey games by scoring and preventing goals, so if a player was loaded with talent but didn't use that talent to help his team score or prevent goals, is it really relevant?
I agree both Nilsson and Kamensky has skill levels off the charts but their actual performance is left wanting.
My personal favorite for under rated is Ohlund and Thorton two guys that are often forgotten on the West Coast as was Marcel Dionne
Rick Tocchet and Dale Hunter. Both were skilled, mean, nasty and always came up big when their teams needed them most. I'd love to have both on my team.
Tocchet was good but Hunter was a bum. I couldn't believe that he actually eked out 1,000 points. He played for 20 years, never even scored 25 goals in a season and averaged 50 points a year. Yeah, he came up big after the winning goal was score and the goal scorer had his arms up and back turned.
Please explain. You win hockey games by scoring and preventing goals, so if a player was loaded with talent but didn't use that talent to help his team score or prevent goals, is it really relevant?
Thats unfair in the Kamensky case. His skill was based on his skating technique which was ruined when he injured his leg.
Kent Nilsson showed what he could do he was just a man with a family and NA was still not a very nice place for a euro.
I think that Kamensky's linemates from USSR/CSKA, i.e. Vyacheslav Bykov and Andrei Khomutov, are even more underrated than Kamensky. IMO both were better - or at least more consistent - performers than Kamensky. And beautiful skaters & stickhandlers.
Isn't "he was talented but should have scored more" just another way of saying "he was flashy but wasn't as good as he looked?"
Agree that he's underrated by people who don't know about his pre-NHL career in the USSR before his knee injury
Basically agree with you, the knee injury and the earlier career are the main arguments in favour of Kamensky.
But another argument could be: some players might have everything it takes to star in the NHL except that they're not very good at handling the more physical play there. I know that physical play is part of the NHL and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but in the grand scheme of things the level of physicality is arbitrary or contingent. The NHL is the best league in the world not because of the physicality, it would still be the best league in the world if it was less physical. And in such a league it would be easier for skilled, but rather soft players.
Imagine a scenario: An international superleague is formed in the 1980s with the best NHL teams and the best Soviet teams competing for the Stanley Cup year in and year out. Level of play? Beyond NHL level, but the refereeing isn't as tolerant towards hard hitting in my scenario. Kamensky (even the post-injury Kamensky) would most likely have been more of a star in such a league than in the 1990s NHL, even though the level of play was higher. Does that make him a better player? I leave that to you. IMO it doesn't make him a worse player that he wasn't perfectly suited for the particular brand of hockey played in the NHL (as opposed to the level of hockey played in the NHL).
Basically agree with you, the knee injury and the earlier career are the main arguments in favour of Kamensky.
But another argument could be: some players might have everything it takes to star in the NHL except that they're not very good at handling the more physical play there. I know that physical play is part of the NHL and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but in the grand scheme of things the level of physicality is arbitrary or contingent. The NHL is the best league in the world not because of the physicality, it would still be the best league in the world if it was less physical. And in such a league it would be easier for skilled, but rather soft players.
Imagine a scenario: An international superleague is formed in the 1980s with the best NHL teams and the best Soviet teams competing for the Stanley Cup year in and year out. Level of play? Beyond NHL level, but the refereeing isn't as tolerant towards hard hitting in my scenario. Kamensky (even the post-injury Kamensky) would most likely have been more of a star in such a league than in the 1990s NHL, even though the level of play was higher. Does that make him a better player? I leave that to you. IMO it doesn't make him a worse player that he wasn't perfectly suited for the particular brand of hockey played in the NHL (as opposed to the level of hockey played in the NHL).
Does not work. Knee/leg injuries robbed Valerie Kamensky of his unbelievable first step, Saku Koivu of his lateral movement, Alex Mogilny of his acceleration, speed and movement.
No circumstances would return skills lost thru injury.
Does not work. Knee/leg injuries robbed Valerie Kamensky of his unbelievable first step, Saku Koivu of his lateral movement, Alex Mogilny of his acceleration, speed and movement.
No circumstances would return skills lost thru injury.
I didn't mean post-injury Kamensky would have been a bigger star in an international superleague then pre-injury Kamensky would have been in the same environment. I meant post-injury Kamensky would have been a bigger star in such a league then post-injury Kamensky actually was in the NHL.
I didn't mean post-injury Kamensky would have been a bigger star in an international superleague then pre-injury Kamensky would have been in the same environment. I meant post-injury Kamensky would have been a bigger star in such a league then post-injury Kamensky actually was in the NHL.
Sorry for the wording that led to confusion.
Extremely doubtful since in the hypothetical league you would have more players who were optimal elite skaters, not diminished by injury. In the 1990's NHL you had high average to excellent skaters that Kamensky post-injury still surpassed. This group would be reduced in the hypothetical league as would skaters in the bottom tiers below them.
Extremely doubtful since in the hypothetical league you would have more players who were optimal elite skaters, not diminished by injury. In the 1990's NHL you had high average to excellent skaters that Kamensky post-injury still surpassed. This group would be reduced in the hypothetical league as would skaters in the bottom tiers below them.
Okay. Then add one European team after the other to the hypothetical league. Until the level is not above the NHL anymore, but on par. I guess I shouldn't have come up with the hypothetical international league in the first place, but simply said "the NHL with lesser physical play". Because my point is rather simple: Kamensky was not the toughest player and would have been a bigger star in a not-so-physical NHL than he was in the actual NHL. In so far I consider him underrated, because the physicality level could hypothetically be reduced without reducing the league's level of play. The level of play wouldn't differ, but Kamensky's stock would.
Last edited by Theokritos: 08-07-2012 at 10:15 AM.
Reason: Wording
If anything I think Kamensky gets a bit overrated because so many of his best performances were in high-profile international meet-ups (Rendezvous 87 being probably the most obvious example).
mccrimmon was a favourite of mine. tocchet was awesome, someimes forgotten but crucial guy on two team canadas. liked zezel a lot too. very underrated playmaker, unbelievable at faceoffs.
Had those guys won one cup I believe they would be viewed differently. I think propp and Kerr wouldve made the HOF and Howe a lot sooner.
