i have mentioned this before, but i think norm ullman would have won '65 hart under current circumstances. voting in 2 parts is a very important difference.
HART: (324/324, 162-162)
1. Bobby Hull, Chi LW 103 (88-15)
2. Norm Ullman, Det C 96 (22-74)
3. Gordie Howe, Det RW 35 (9-26)
hull dominated in the 1st half, scoring nearly a goal per game (17g in 18 games, 23g in 25 games, 32g in 35 games), but had a big slump in 2nd half before getting knee injuries, and finished with 39g in 61 games. hull fell to 4th in scoring by the end of the season, 12p behind ullman, and got few votes for 2nd half.
ullman was also one of the main reasons DRW finished 1st for the 1st time in 7 years.
also notable is how little vote mikita got, even though he again won the art ross. even though he outscored hull by a wide margin, he still got fewer votes in 2nd half (13 vs 15).
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian
The offensive part at least I am not so sure about.
seems to me ullman was better offensively than richard.
more information on TOI would be very useful, but ullman usually outscored richard, and i think it is a safe bet that habs were superior in transition and possession. i think richard probably had better linemates as well (maurice richard, moore), since ullman did not play much with howe other than in '57 and '58.
both richard and ullman played 20 seasons in NHL, joined NHL in '56, and ullman is only 1 year older, so the offensive comparison is not difficult.
richard had 3 point per game seasons. ullman had 7 in NHL, and 1 in WHA.
OTOH, richard apparently had a larger defensive role, and may have had lower TOI b/c of habs' depth.
imo, playing against top defensive units limits offense more than checking opponents' best offensive players, since keeping possession and making opponents play D is so important in such matchups. i think richard's ES scoring corroborates this.
Here's overpass's post from the Top 70 list that I copied into Henry Richard's profile 2 drafts ago:
Originally Posted by overpass
Here are the top even-strength scorers in the NHL from 1955-56 (when Richard broke in as a 19 year old) to 1966-67, a 12 year period.
This table doesn't cover Gordie Howe's prime, and doesn't include Mikita and Hull who starred during the latter part of this period. Still, it's very impressive that Henri Richard was (probably) the best player in the league at even-strength over a 12 year period.
I think Malone and Bentley dropped for a good reason, but both are pretty good values here. I'm not going to hate on Malone for playing on the wing, but it was clearly not his natural position, so I wouldn't expect him at his very best on the LW, either. That being said, I think a somewhat out of position Malone at LW is more valuable than a full strength Malone at C.
Ullman is a good center for Lafleur, and would be for pretty much any puck-dominant high round winger. He's been paired quite successfully with Andy Bathgate in the past, as well. I think this adds to his value, as there just aren't a huge number of centers who can play this style of hockey.
My take, in general, on centers converting to the wing is that it can obviously work, but it is not a sure thing. Center is the hardest forward position to play, and often players get put at center because they are the best forwards coming up, not because they cannot play the wing. Hockey is full of stories of centers converting successfully to the wing. Hell, San Jose's entire top line is made up of natural centers right now, and they are functioning very well.
That being said, sometimes things that look good on paper don't work on the ice, and there is always an element of uncertainty with every position switch. When there is uncertainty about player performance, I try to estimate upper and lower bounds of what our reasonable expectations of performance could be, and then take the middle point. So I always downgrade players outside of their natural positions, sometimes more and sometimes less.
To be honest, pure goalscoring centers (not like there are a ton of these, but Malone is one) are probably the players who will be least effected by a switch to the wing. I am most skeptical of how defense translates from C to wing for reasons which should be obvious, and secondarily concerned with playmaking. Goalscoring is the easiest skill to carry over, IMO.
With our third selection, the 88th overall in this year draft, les Nordiques de Quebec are very please to select, from Pilot Mound, Manitoba, defenceman Jack 'Black Jack' Stewart
Black Jack Stewart is Rod Langway before Rod Langway
''We are thrilled to select one of the best defensive defenceman of his generation to anchor and guide our defence. 'Black Jack' is one of the most hard hitting, bruising defenceman in the history of the game. He brings high defensive IQ, poise, good skating abilities, leadership, a great shot and a bag full of intimdation. A general on defence; a tower of strenght, Jack fit perfectly the style of game Les Nordiques will demonstrate on the ice.''
Last edited by EagleBelfour: 01-28-2013 at 08:48 AM.
One of the top playmaking centers ever to compete in the NHL, Elmer Lach spent his entire 14-year career with the Montreal Canadiens. He helped "les glorieux" win the Stanley Cup three times and gained much acclaim as the center on the club's dreaded Punch Line with Toe Blake and Maurice Richard. Lach also received accolades for his determination on the ice and his resilience in battling a host of serious injuries.
Most observers were particularly impressed with his blinding speed and devotion to defensive play.
With the conclusion of the 1953-54 season, Lach's fourteenth, Elmer Lach had played 664 regular season contests, collecting 215 goals and 408 assists for 623 points. In 76 postseason games, he accumulated 64 points on 19 goals and 45 assists. But the points, as impressive as they are, reflect but one aspect of an outstanding career. The skilled centre was master of the faceoff and was effective defensively as he was in the offensive zone. The Hockey News ranked Lach number 68 on their 100 Greatest Hockey Players in 1998. In 1966, Elmer Lach was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame.*
Elmer Lach on the Punch Line:
The three of us did like to win. We made sure that we didn't have any goals scored against us. We hated that more than wanting to score. As for Rocket, he enjoyed scoring the goals and I enjoyed watching him.
Coach Dick Irvin on Lach:
Dick Irvin declares that only two hockey players in recent memory have had the capacity to "make" wings.
"One was (undrafted) and the other was Elmer Lach" said Dick. "(Undrafted) was the better playmaker but he wasn't as good a hockey player as Elmer because he was weak defensively."
"Lach was the only player I knew who could check four ways - forecheck, backcheck, and both sides of the ice as well."
87? The good people of Pilot Mound, Manitoba won't much care for such a ridiculous choice of number.
Now there's a number you can set your watch to.
You're reading too much into that picture! I was just trying to find a Nordiques jersey with a captaincy letter on it. Stewart will wear the great #2, symbol of great defenceman.
If the 'Langway?' is a question of why I'm comparing both of them, I would answer that Rod Langway and Jack Stewart are ridiculously similar players. Small edge defensively to Langway, Stewart was the most punishing hitter and the most physical of the two, but although both great leaders, Langway epitomize the Washington Capitals during his tenure with them; a terrific leader. Langway also peaked higher, winning two Norrises in a row and almost winning the Hart Trophy over Wayne Gretzky, of all people, but Jack Stewart have an edge offensively (which doesn't mean much compare to Langway, but I ought to point it out)
Both had decent amount of years as elite defenceman. They played pretty much exactly the same style of defence. Terrific defensive IQ, always making the safe play, awesome shot blocker. It's picking straw as to whom is the better all-time better. A matter of preference IMO.
We're very happy to get Lach. We wanted a forward who was a strong two-way player and could also play a leading role on a top offensive line. Lach fit that description perfectly and was a step above the other remaining options.