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.

Hopefully gain some insight on Makarov

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-24-2013, 05:24 PM
  #51
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
Thanks. Some of those win margins are pretty impressive too. I know his 9 is higher than any of the other Soviets. How do most the other Soviet superstars rank compared to him?
Here's an analysis of Soviet league top 3 finishes from awhile back:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=624953

Surprisingly, Petrov is next closest with 5 domestic scoring titles. Petrov's more famous linemate, Kharlamov only had 1 domestic scoring title.

The only other guys with more than 2 are a couple of guys from the 1950s.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 01:08 PM
  #52
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Again, I think that evaluating Soviet stars against each other can be done through comparing them to the NHL stars they played against. If you consider Gretzky to be better than Esposito, you can feasibly rank Makarov higher than Kharlamov.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2013, 03:28 PM
  #53
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I admit, I don't know anything about Makarov's presence in the dressing room; Fetisov and Larionov were the leaders of that squad. Never heard anything but praise for his character, though. I have also witnessed Messier's "leadership" in Vancouver (you are centering Bure and Mogilny and what?) and his second stint in New York, when NYR repeatedly failed to make playoffs year after year. Usually leadership increases with age ("elder statesmen"), while in Messier's case it was the opposite. I'd definitely put Makarov above Messier and somewhere around Maurice Richard.
I don't care much for Messier post-1997 either, but ignoring his career in the previous 18 years is shortchanging him. That's a little bit of a stretch putting Makarov not only ahead of the Moose but at Richard's level. Messier and Richard we saw first hand as two of the greatest players of all-time and two incredibly clutch players that it always seems never failed to show up. You are flirting with the idea of putting Makarov as a top 10 player when the truth is he didn't age terribly well in the grand scheme of things.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 08:47 PM
  #54
seekritdude
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Is this really worth mentioning?
Why not? He only played in 60 games that season as he was injured on and off through out the year. The sharks only won THREE games the whole year when he was not in the line up. He and gilmore were the best players that playoffs to before he sharks got knocked out. Larionov was really good that year he doesnt get enough credit. Everyone on that team basically but the OV line was a minus player that year but he was a plus 20 if you care about those kinda stats. If you like ron mclean or care his opinon he also said that year he thought larionov was just as good as gretzky that year.

seekritdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 10:01 PM
  #55
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I don't care much for Messier post-1997 either, but ignoring his career in the previous 18 years is shortchanging him. That's a little bit of a stretch putting Makarov not only ahead of the Moose but at Richard's level. Messier and Richard we saw first hand as two of the greatest players of all-time and two incredibly clutch players that it always seems never failed to show up. You are flirting with the idea of putting Makarov as a top 10 player when the truth is he didn't age terribly well in the grand scheme of things.
I don't get your reasoning. Makarov was a top notch player up until he retired at the age of 36 (SJ was just a mediocre team, and, again, had he been traded to Detroit...). Everything Messier did after the age of 36 was a disaster. So how can you say that Messier aged better than Makarov? Besides, snipers as a general rule have a faster drop-off rate.

As far as peak and prime go, I think this is no contest. Makarov's domination over his peers is something Messier could only dream of. Even if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the list of his competitors, Messier still did not dominate his league to a degree that Makarov dominated his. Plus there is this thing called "eye test." Watch them play, compare their technique and skill, and tell me who was a better player.

I'm also not buying the "never failing to show up" argument. Messier's stint in Vancouver pretty much nullifies it. If he "never failed to show up" and felt like he didn't have it in him anymore, he shouldn't have signed that ridiculous contract and retired. Which is what Makarov did, a much more honest and honorable way of concluding your career. You can say that Makarov also took part in some devastating losses (OG80, CC87), but nobody ever blamed him for any of them.


Last edited by Sentinel: 03-27-2013 at 10:09 PM.
Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 10:46 PM
  #56
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I don't get your reasoning. Makarov was a top notch player up until he retired at the age of 36 (SJ was just a mediocre team, and, again, had he been traded to Detroit...). Everything Messier did after the age of 36 was a disaster. So how can you say that Messier aged better than Makarov? Besides, snipers as a general rule have a faster drop-off rate.

As far as peak and prime go, I think this is no contest. Makarov's domination over his peers is something Messier could only dream of. Even if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the list of his competitors, Messier still did not dominate his league to a degree that Makarov dominated his. Plus there is this thing called "eye test." Watch them play, compare their technique and skill, and tell me who was a better player.

I'm also not buying the "never failing to show up" argument. Messier's stint in Vancouver pretty much nullifies it. If he "never failed to show up" and felt like he didn't have it in him anymore, he shouldn't have signed that ridiculous contract and retired. Which is what Makarov did, a much more honest and honorable way of concluding your career. You can say that Makarov also took part in some devastating losses (OG80, CC87), but nobody ever blamed him for any of them.
As poor as Messier's record with the Canucks was, he was still of some value to his team. Makarov was retired, and therefore of no value to any team. Are you saying you think that no value is better than limited value?

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 11:21 PM
  #57
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
As poor as Messier's record with the Canucks was, he was still of some value to his team. Makarov was retired, and therefore of no value to any team. Are you saying you think that no value is better than limited value?
Read the "Messier in Vancouver" thread and tell me he was "of some value to his team." As far as Canucks fans are concerned, he should have never been born.


Last edited by Sentinel: 03-28-2013 at 07:14 AM.
Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 03:01 AM
  #58
Adityase
Registered User
 
Adityase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 1,317
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Adityase
I actually think Larionov's NHL career was better than Makarov's but the point is still true that both should be in the Hall of Fame. Let's remember that Larionov left via free agency to the Panthers and was soon reacquired by the Wings before the 2002 cup run. He was vital to their success for 3 cups.

Adityase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:21 AM
  #59
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adityase View Post
I actually think Larionov's NHL career was better than Makarov's but the point is still true that both should be in the Hall of Fame. Let's remember that Larionov left via free agency to the Panthers and was soon reacquired by the Wings before the 2002 cup run. He was vital to their success for 3 cups.
A good point. And Larionov's NHL career was definitely better than Makarov's (even though the only individual award between them, Calder, went to Makarov), but: (1) Larionov was younger when both entered NHL (2) he was lucky that his skills were in demand with the club that suited his playing style. I love Larionov dearly, but Makarov was a better player. And, again, we shouldn't blame Makarov for not being traded to Detroit in 95. He would have played at least as long as Fetisov, ending up with two Cups.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:47 AM
  #60
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
When vs Why

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
A good point. And Larionov's NHL career was definitely better than Makarov's (even though the only individual award between them, Calder, went to Makarov), but: (1) Larionov was younger when both entered NHL (2) he was lucky that his skills were in demand with the club that suited his playing style. I love Larionov dearly, but Makarov was a better player. And, again, we shouldn't blame Makarov for not being traded to Detroit in 95. He would have played at least as long as Fetisov, ending up with two Cups.
Perhaps the question should be asked why the Red Wings did not acquire Makarov when he was available in 1995.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 10:22 AM
  #61
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Perhaps the question should be asked why the Red Wings did not acquire Makarov when he was available in 1995.
Probably because Bowman wanted a creative Russian center who was younger. That gave him the options to play Fedorov on wing or even on defense. Kinda goes back to "what does your team need right now".

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 10:30 AM
  #62
seekritdude
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Just to say if people are forgetting makarov did try to play again with dallas who had some pretty talented players themselves that year and it didnt work out. And the year before makarov was in the dog house and didnt feel like playing unless larionov was in the line up. Which also in that shortned season he only played so much.

seekritdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 12:48 PM
  #63
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Probably because Bowman wanted a creative Russian center who was younger. That gave him the options to play Fedorov on wing or even on defense. Kinda goes back to "what does your team need right now".
Extending your reasoning to the Red Wings roster at the time Bowman saw a journeyman - Doug Brown or two rookies Mathieu Dandenault and Martin Lapointe as better options or filling needs better than Sergei Makarov.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:32 PM
  #64
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I don't get your reasoning. Makarov was a top notch player up until he retired at the age of 36 (SJ was just a mediocre team, and, again, had he been traded to Detroit...). Everything Messier did after the age of 36 was a disaster. So how can you say that Messier aged better than Makarov? Besides, snipers as a general rule have a faster drop-off rate.

As far as peak and prime go, I think this is no contest. Makarov's domination over his peers is something Messier could only dream of. Even if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the list of his competitors, Messier still did not dominate his league to a degree that Makarov dominated his. Plus there is this thing called "eye test." Watch them play, compare their technique and skill, and tell me who was a better player.

I'm also not buying the "never failing to show up" argument. Messier's stint in Vancouver pretty much nullifies it. If he "never failed to show up" and felt like he didn't have it in him anymore, he shouldn't have signed that ridiculous contract and retired. Which is what Makarov did, a much more honest and honorable way of concluding your career. You can say that Makarov also took part in some devastating losses (OG80, CC87), but nobody ever blamed him for any of them.
Well it's a little confusing here. Messier didn't add a whole lot to his career post 1997 but he was still playing in the NHL after 36 years old and I think when you are comparing him to a player who didn't play at all after 36 years old you give credit to the guy who was still contributing. Catastrophe or not, a 60 point season in the NHL still beats nothing. I also don't think that takes anything away from what Messier did prior to 1997 either.

The whole "he aged better" ties into just how these two men fared when they were in the same league from 1989-'95. Makarov peaked at 86 points, Messier had 129. Messier won two Harts, two Cups and had two Smythe worthy runs. The year after Makarov left the NHL (1996) Messier finished 2nd in Hart voting. I'll take into account the fact that Makarov entered a new league with some obvious adjustment periods and I'll even include the fact that under Tikhonov Makarov would have been burned out. However, you also have to take into account Messier's career in the 1980s too. A Conn Smythe, tons of deep Cup runs, playing a LOT of hockey too. Still, he aged better than Makarov.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:34 PM
  #65
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekritdude View Post
Just to say if people are forgetting makarov did try to play again with dallas who had some pretty talented players themselves that year and it didnt work out. And the year before makarov was in the dog house and didnt feel like playing unless larionov was in the line up. Which also in that shortned season he only played so much.
Makarov was a player who relied a lot on his speed when he was in his prime. Is it any surprise that he didn't work out in Dallas when he was 38 years old?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 05:22 PM
  #66
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Mike Gartner

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Makarov was a player who relied a lot on his speed when he was in his prime. Is it any surprise that he didn't work out in Dallas when he was 38 years old?
So did Mike Gartner.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...gartnmi01.html

Same age as Sergei Makarov. Both RWs. All that is left are the linemate/unit/team in league,international play comparisons.

Green unit for Makarov throughout except for the NHL. Gartner for the most part played on offensively challenged teams in the NHL.with Washington, solid two way teams otherwise. Internationally he was never the #1 RW.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 05:30 PM
  #67
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So did Mike Gartner.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...gartnmi01.html

Same age as Sergei Makarov. Both RWs. All that is left are the linemate/unit/team in league,international play comparisons.

Green unit for Makarov throughout except for the NHL. Gartner for the most part played on offensively challenged teams in the NHL.with Washington, solid two way teams otherwise. Internationally he was never the #1 RW.
Gartner is a rare example of a player whose speed didn't decline until an older age than most.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 05:42 PM
  #68
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gartner is a rare example of a player whose speed didn't decline until an older age than most.
Exactly. The claim seems to be that Sergei Makarov was a rare player also, Kharlamov like speed. So the comparable with Mike Gartner is very fair.

But once the other four members of the Green Unit are stripped away what is left?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:24 PM
  #69
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Exactly. The claim seems to be that Sergei Makarov was a rare player also, Kharlamov like speed. So the comparable with Mike Gartner is very fair.

But once the other four members of the Green Unit are stripped away what is left?
Expecting Makarov to live up to a guy who was an outlier in terms of longevity is not fair at all. Makarov's longevity was well above average for a player of that era.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 07:21 AM
  #70
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
You can compare Makarov to Gartner all you want, but it won't be in Gartner's favor Sergey had a much, MUCH higher peak and prime.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:05 AM
  #71
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gartner is a rare example of a player whose speed didn't decline until an older age than most.
Gartner still holds the All-star record for fastest skater, set in 1996 when he was 36-37 years old and two years away from retirement. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gartner would be as fast as a skater at the age of 53 years old than many NHLers. Just a hunch. But as an NHLer he never lost his speed.

Not saying he is comparable to Makarov at all, just showing some appreciation for the man.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 09:06 AM
  #72
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
You can compare Makarov to Gartner all you want, but it won't be in Gartner's favor Sergey had a much, MUCH higher peak and prime.
I was hoping more along the lines that you would explain the reasoning behind Makarov and Messier's career from 1989-'95 while they were in the same league. You get the feeling if Makarov aged as well as you said he did (it isn't as if he aged poorly, just not as good as Messier) he wouldn't have been blown out of the water by Messier in that time frame when they were in the same league.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 02:30 PM
  #73
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I was hoping more along the lines that you would explain the reasoning behind Makarov and Messier's career from 1989-'95 while they were in the same league. You get the feeling if Makarov aged as well as you said he did (it isn't as if he aged poorly, just not as good as Messier) he wouldn't have been blown out of the water by Messier in that time frame when they were in the same league.
So my question at this point is why isn't he rated higher by the Soviets themselves? Kharlamov seems to be consistantly placed above him, yet the stats don't seem to bear this out at all. In fact, the more you look, the more one sided it is in Makarov's favor. Often Makarov isn't even top 3. Yet he clearly dominated his peers far more than any other Soviet forward.

Yes, I've read about the Soviet (and European in general, really) appreciation for the "artistry" or the player and rating that often more than the actual results. But you'd think at some point, people would look at the actual stats and start to question this.

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 04:09 PM
  #74
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
So my question at this point is why isn't he rated higher by the Soviets themselves? Kharlamov seems to be consistantly placed above him, yet the stats don't seem to bear this out at all. In fact, the more you look, the more one sided it is in Makarov's favor. Often Makarov isn't even top 3. Yet he clearly dominated his peers far more than any other Soviet forward.

Yes, I've read about the Soviet (and European in general, really) appreciation for the "artistry" or the player and rating that often more than the actual results. But you'd think at some point, people would look at the actual stats and start to question this.
It's like saying "these people prefer milk chocolate, but at some point they should realize that dark is better." They just look for something else in the game entirely and often dismiss the stats. I'm not saying it's right, in fact I think it's ridiculous, but hey, that's what I think is happening.

As for Makarov vs. Messier: even if I accept Messier's superiority in 89-94 (not by much, given the teams they were on), I believe his Canucks and Rangers II stints nullify this advantage. Which leaves us with the 80s, where Makarov, IMO, wins decisively.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 06:20 PM
  #75
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
It's like saying "these people prefer milk chocolate, but at some point they should realize that dark is better." They just look for something else in the game entirely and often dismiss the stats. I'm not saying it's right, in fact I think it's ridiculous, but hey, that's what I think is happening.

As for Makarov vs. Messier: even if I accept Messier's superiority in 89-94 (not by much, given the teams they were on), I believe his Canucks and Rangers II stints nullify this advantage. Which leaves us with the 80s, where Makarov, IMO, wins decisively.
Pretty hard to argue with that.

One can be made on physicality and playoffs I suppose but it wouldn't be the strongest of arguments IMO.

Hardyvan123 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 05:23 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.