HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top Forwards - Determining positions. Updated Wingers list Post 276

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2013, 02:49 PM
  #176
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Extremely unlikely, considering Kelly was already declining as a defenseman before the trade to Toronto, and that Harvey was already demolishing him in the voting before he started to decline.
As a final point, I will note that Kelly had better longevity as a player. Harvey declined considerably shortly after Kelly was traded, while Kelly excelled as a forward. Kelly likely wouldn't have popped up on the All-Star teams (outside of potentially the two aforementioned years he beat Harvey in Hart voting) but Harvey only made five in the ten years after Kelly switched; the first two-plus of which (before the trade) he played sort of a "half-and-half" game.

Quote:
Anyway, if you want to talk about this further, please make a new thread.
Noted, and agreed. I had already come to that conclusion.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 06:49 PM
  #177
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,617
vCash: 500
Wow, this really doesn't have to be this difficult.

1. Do a list for centers and another for wingers. As was already mentioned in this thread, LW and RW are more or less the same thing (like LD and RD) and furthermore, there are approximately as many significant wingers as there are centers in history. If we do as many LWs and RWs as we do centers, we're getting into wingers nowhere near as good as some centers who missed their cut.

2. Look at every forward and determine what they should be considered: center or winger. 95% of the time this will be very simple and straightforward. The other 5% of the time you will have a player who played more than a couple of seasons away from his "main" position. The vast majority of these cases will also be easy to sort out. It's just the 50/50 guys and the ones who may have played more games at one position but achieved more at their secondary position that will be reason for debate. I'm guessing maybe five players, at most, will warrant such debate.

3. Once we've determined what list each player is eligible for, rank them as players. The list of LWs would actually be "the greatest players of all-time who are most often identified as left wingers" and what would be wrong with that?

In theory, Sid Abel, who is a borderline top-100 player of all-time, could miss both the center and winger lists, despite the fact that if we just settle on him being a LW or C and judge him as a player, he'd be a top-25 winger or a top-25 center. Just to give one extreme example.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 07:40 PM
  #178
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
NoIV

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wow, this really doesn't have to be this difficult.

1. Do a list for centers and another for wingers. As was already mentioned in this thread, LW and RW are more or less the same thing (like LD and RD) and furthermore, there are approximately as many significant wingers as there are centers in history. If we do as many LWs and RWs as we do centers, we're getting into wingers nowhere near as good as some centers who missed their cut.

2. Look at every forward and determine what they should be considered: center or winger. 95% of the time this will be very simple and straightforward. The other 5% of the time you will have a player who played more than a couple of seasons away from his "main" position. The vast majority of these cases will also be easy to sort out. It's just the 50/50 guys and the ones who may have played more games at one position but achieved more at their secondary position that will be reason for debate. I'm guessing maybe five players, at most, will warrant such debate.

3. Once we've determined what list each player is eligible for, rank them as players. The list of LWs would actually be "the greatest players of all-time who are most often identified as left wingers" and what would be wrong with that?

In theory, Sid Abel, who is a borderline top-100 player of all-time, could miss both the center and winger lists, despite the fact that if we just settle on him being a LW or C and judge him as a player, he'd be a top-25 winger or a top-25 center. Just to give one extreme example.
Bolded is false.

LD and RD may be switched in certain situations and some dmen in the history of hockey could play both - Harvey, Orr, Bourque,Potvin Lidstrom to name a few(arguably top five post red line). But you cannot assign a checking forward to a defenseman. On the other hand, have you seen P.K. Subban play LD at even strength? Scary.

But if you were to take the following five retired LWs Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovlich,Ted Lindsay,Dickie Moore, Bob Gainey you could not play them on RW. Hull and Mahovlich would be slowed down significantly having to take passes on their backhand. Coaches would have loved to move them and free them from checkers like Claude Provost and others. Lindsay and Moore would lose the advantageous forehand pass to the slot out of the LWs offensive corner and be limited to th Rd out of the RW offensive corner. If playing RW was so easy for a LW, Bowman would have loved playing Gainey on RW against physical LW instead of Rejean Houle while Lemaire/Perron would have loved playing him on RW instead of Chris Nilan against speed LW.

Mirror the situation for RW and you will have similar scenarios plus explanations for Maurice Richard's low assist totals.

You focus on the ratio of Wingers to Centers. Why is this in any way important? The issue is defining the top LWs and the top RWs by focusing on what defines quality at each position.

Example - comparing LW attributes of Bert Olmstead a traditional LW/LHS and Wayne Cashman a LW/RHS. Looking at their assist total and their teammates/team scoring the forehand passing advantage, mentioned above, is rather obvious.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:41 PM
  #179
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,617
vCash: 500
Nome of that matters. Even if it's true that those players can not switch wings, if they were the opposite hand and all other things were equal, they'd still achieve greatness on the other wing. Same can be said for defensemen.

Wing is wing.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 09:08 PM
  #180
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
NoV

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Nome of that matters. Even if it's true that those players can not switch wings, if they were the opposite hand and all other things were equal, they'd still achieve greatness on the other wing. Same can be said for defensemen.

Wing is wing.
But they did not achieve greatness on the other wing and the objective of the project should be to understand why they achieved greatness on LW or RW.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 10:15 PM
  #181
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
But if you were to take the following five retired LWs Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovlich,Ted Lindsay,Dickie Moore, Bob Gainey you could not play them on RW. Hull and Mahovlich would be slowed down significantly having to take passes on their backhand. Coaches would have loved to move them and free them from checkers like Claude Provost and others. Lindsay and Moore would lose the advantageous forehand pass to the slot out of the LWs offensive corner and be limited to th Rd out of the RW offensive corner.
Why does handedness matter in that instance? The only time it affects them for a pass from the corner is if they are on the rush with the puck; and they can instead go around behind the net or cut straight to the net with a FOREHAND shot available to them (see Ovechkin and Bure for examples of this).

Quote:
If playing RW was so easy for a LW, Bowman would have loved playing Gainey on RW against physical LW instead of Rejean Houle while Lemaire/Perron would have loved playing him on RW instead of Chris Nilan against speed LW.

Mirror the situation for RW and you will have similar scenarios plus explanations for Maurice Richard's low assist totals.
Richard played with with a series of talented centers (Lach, H.Richard, etc.) and his role was to put the puck in the net. He focused on scoring goals (and was very, very good at it) and gave only the minimal consideration to other areas of the game. He was a speedy shoot-first player with a mean streak who was playing on his off wing. Does that description sound familiar? It should; it also fits Ovechkin (until this season) and Bure (after 1992).

Playing styles may change depending on handedness (you have far more net on your forehand from your off-wing, but passing on the rush and defending along the boards can be more difficult).

But ultimately, what you're saying about Gainey, etc. is that a LW can't succeed on the RW in any capacity. That's not true. And with your Gainey example, it's also not true with regards to defense. Right-handed Jere Lehtinen played Selke-level defense on both wings (and was robbed of two Selkes by Rod Brind'Amour's career nice-guy image and more recently developed high-level defensive game). Right-handed Kirk Maltby, who broke into the league as a RW with Edmonton, was one of the league's top defensive forwards for a decade while playing LW for Detroit.

If anything, what you're saying is that those players were not as versatile as other, similar players; which would be a strike against those incapable of playing both wings effectively.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 10:17 PM
  #182
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
But they did not achieve greatness on the other wing and the objective of the project should be to understand why they achieved greatness on LW or RW.
No, it is to determine WHETHER they achieved greatness, and to what degree.

WHY is a completely different question.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 12:19 AM
  #183
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,048
vCash: 500
I'm going to make an executive decison and say that IF we divide forwards, we're doing centers first. It lets us punt on tweeter to split up wigs between LW and RW or not.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of seventieslord's post 177

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 12:38 AM
  #184
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
No, it is to determine WHETHER they achieved greatness, and to what degree. WHY is a completely different question.
How can you separate the WHY from the WHETHER euz? A guy who achieved greatness as a Left Winger for example who may have been converted to Defence, Right Wing or Centre experimentally & sparingly, well, thats just an oddity, a blip in his career arc. A Coaching decision. As much by necessity as by any rational thought or design. You could create an entirely new category which I think would be fair, call it UTILITY PLAYERS, then break that one down according to elite performances over a career, certainly Red Kelly would come to mind immediately.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 12:39 AM
  #185
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wow, this really doesn't have to be this difficult.

1. Do a list for centers and another for wingers. As was already mentioned in this thread, LW and RW are more or less the same thing (like LD and RD) and furthermore, there are approximately as many significant wingers as there are centers in history. If we do as many LWs and RWs as we do centers, we're getting into wingers nowhere near as good as some centers who missed their cut.

2. Look at every forward and determine what they should be considered: center or winger. 95% of the time this will be very simple and straightforward. The other 5% of the time you will have a player who played more than a couple of seasons away from his "main" position. The vast majority of these cases will also be easy to sort out. It's just the 50/50 guys and the ones who may have played more games at one position but achieved more at their secondary position that will be reason for debate. I'm guessing maybe five players, at most, will warrant such debate.

3. Once we've determined what list each player is eligible for, rank them as players. The list of LWs would actually be "the greatest players of all-time who are most often identified as left wingers" and what would be wrong with that?

In theory, Sid Abel, who is a borderline top-100 player of all-time, could miss both the center and winger lists, despite the fact that if we just settle on him being a LW or C and judge him as a player, he'd be a top-25 winger or a top-25 center. Just to give one extreme example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm going to make an executive decison and say that IF we divide forwards, we're doing centers first. It lets us punt on tweeter to split up wigs between LW and RW or not.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of seventieslord's post 177
So in other words, you both agree with the suggestion I made ages ago; if we are having separate lists for centers and wingers (either "all wingers" or both wings separately) that we do an "all forwards" list and then divide out that list by position. Such as if you were to take my top 20 players and divide it into positions:

You'd start with this:
Howe
Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Yzerman
Beliveau
Hull
Hasek
Jagr
Lidstrom
Bourque
Harvey
Richard
Plante
Roy
Mikita
Sakic
Esposito
Fetisov
Morenz

And get this:
Gretzky
Lemieux
Yzerman
Beliveau
Mikita
Sakic
Esposito
Morenz

Hull

Howe
Jagr
Richard

Orr
Lidstrom
Bourque
Harvey
Fetisov

Hasek
Plante
Roy

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 12:54 AM
  #186
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
How can you separate the WHY from the WHETHER euz? A guy who achieved greatness as a Left Winger for example who may have been converted to Defence, Right Wing or Centre experimentally & sparingly, well, thats just an oddity, a blip in his career arc. A Coaching decision. As much by necessity as by any rational thought or design. You could create an entirely new category which I think would be fair, call it UTILITY PLAYERS, then break that one down according to elite performances over a career, certainly Red Kelly would come to mind immediately.
The WHY is a completely different discussion. What we are currently doing is trying to determine whether forwards should be rated in an all encompassing "forwards" list, separate "centers/wingers" lists, or further separated into "centers/left wingers/right wingers" lists. The WHY is not relevant because different players succeeded for different reasons; left-handed shoot-first left winger Pavel Bure succeeded when he was moved to the right wing because it gave him a better angle when he cut to the net. Alex Ovechkin moved to right wing this season and played much better defensively than in previous years, but scored most of his goals on the power play, and he did THAT on the LEFT wing. Brendan Shanahan spent his first few seasons as a right winger. When Adam Oates was traded for Craig Janney, the Blues made another change; they put Shanahan on Janney's left wing. Shanahan scored 50 goals in two consecutive seasons. Another great example is Jiri Hudler in 2011-12. He played the right wing as a sniper and as a net-front "Holmstrom" type player. He scored 23 even-strength goals and 40 even-strength points. On the PP, he went 2-8-10 splitting his PP season between the point and the left wing.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:18 AM
  #187
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
How can you separate the WHY from the WHETHER euz? A guy who achieved greatness as a Left Winger for example who may have been converted to Defence, Right Wing or Centre experimentally & sparingly, well, thats just an oddity, a blip in his career arc. A Coaching decision. As much by necessity as by any rational thought or design. You could create an entirely new category which I think would be fair, call it UTILITY PLAYERS, then break that one down according to elite performances over a career, certainly Red Kelly would come to mind immediately.
For the purposes of this project, I honestly don't care about "why" a player was good. It's an interesting part of history to explore, but doesn't determine his ranking. For his ranking, I just care about how good he was. So I agree with eva's post 182.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:23 AM
  #188
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The WHY is a completely different discussion...
Ya, understood, thing is, I think a lot of members would like to discuss & debate the "why". Better you should be inclusive, that people are realizing edification with their entertainment. Makes for a more inclusive rather than exclusive debate. Doesnt leave anyone behind. Savvy?

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:26 AM
  #189
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, understood, thing is, I think a lot of members would like to discuss & debate the "why". Better you should be inclusive, that people are realizing edification with their entertainment. Makes for a more inclusive rather than exclusive debate. Doesnt leave anyone behind. Savvy?
Listen, I think discussing "why" a player was as good as he was is fascinating and definitely should be part of the discussion phase of the project. I just don't think it should necessary be what determines where he ranks. His ranking should be based entirely on how good he was. The "why" is part of the explanation as to well... why he was as good as he was.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:27 AM
  #190
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Listen, I think discussing "why" a player was as good as he was is fascinating and definitely should be part of the discussion phase of the project. I just don't think it should necessary be what determines where he ranks.
Agree. And so therefore perhaps a Time Limit? 24-48hrs per selection? Or less?

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:36 AM
  #191
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Maurice Richard and Other Misconceptions

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Why does handedness matter in that instance? The only time it affects them for a pass from the corner is if they are on the rush with the puck; and they can instead go around behind the net or cut straight to the net with a FOREHAND shot available to them (see Ovechkin and Bure for examples of this).



Richard played with with a series of talented centers (Lach, H.Richard, etc.) and his role was to put the puck in the net. He focused on scoring goals (and was very, very good at it) and gave only the minimal consideration to other areas of the game. He was a speedy shoot-first player with a mean streak who was playing on his off wing. Does that description sound familiar? It should; it also fits Ovechkin (until this season) and Bure (after 1992).

Playing styles may change depending on handedness (you have far more net on your forehand from your off-wing, but passing on the rush and defending along the boards can be more difficult).

But ultimately, what you're saying about Gainey, etc. is that a LW can't succeed on the RW in any capacity. That's not true. And with your Gainey example, it's also not true with regards to defense. Right-handed Jere Lehtinen played Selke-level defense on both wings (and was robbed of two Selkes by Rod Brind'Amour's career nice-guy image and more recently developed high-level defensive game). Right-handed Kirk Maltby, who broke into the league as a RW with Edmonton, was one of the league's top defensive forwards for a decade while playing LW for Detroit.

If anything, what you're saying is that those players were not as versatile as other, similar players; which would be a strike against those incapable of playing both wings effectively.
Very deficient portrayal of Maurice Richard. The following links will present the proper perspective.

H-R stats package:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...richama01.html

notice at age 17 he was playing a midget team in his neighbourhood/district, sponsored by the Paquette garage as a center - normal for neighbourhood teams. Star player played center.

After his junior year at age 18, he played senior hockey for the senior Canadiens, main farm club for the Montreal Canadiens. So Maurice Richard was playing senior hockey as an underager. The experience did not last long as he broke his right ankle.
H-R under transactions implies this happened in the Nov.3, 1940 game against Boston this is incorrect as evidenced by the following link to the November 3, 1940 season opener Boston at Montreal:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=4659%2C582585

As evidenced by the game line-up and write-up NO MENTION of Maurice Richard being able to participate in the game or being hurt.

Maurice Richard was in the line-up for the seniot Canadiens of the QSHL on November 6, 1940, recording an assist before being hurt:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...5269%2C1171153

Maurice Richard made the Montreal Canadiens at the start of the 1942-43 season, playing LW on a line with Tony Demers RW and Elmer Lach center:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...rontpage&hl=fr

scroll to page 18 of the above link for the pre game story and background about Maurice Richard, especially note the injuries.

First game report Richard draws accolades:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...rontpage&hl=fr

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=4086%2C168112

Notice that the second link clearly refers to Tony Demers playing his natural position of RW.

Maurice Richard was hurt in the December 27, 1942 game - right leg injury sidelining him for the rest of the year. Copies of the Gazette are not available for the December time period but the HSP gives us a portrait of the game:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19420063

Maurice Richard was playing on a line with O'Connor at C and Gordie Drillon at RW.

So until injured in his first NHL season Maurice Richard played LW.

Start of the 1943-44 season and Maurice Richard is shifted to RW on a line with Toe Blake at LW and Elmer Lach at C. Start of the Punch Line:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...4255%2C5440651

Jere Lehtinen. Your "robbed" portrayals are getting tiresome. View his H-R stats and transactions:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lehtije01.html

Note that in the Stars 8th game of the 1999-2000 season Lehtinen suffered a leg injury that kept him out for most of the season. He came back as a LW and played LW the next few years but was never the same explosive skater as before.

Lehtinen injury problems with his ankle and knee are outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jere_Lehtinen

Like Maurice Richard, Jere Lehtinen adjusted his position due to injuries.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:48 AM
  #192
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Greatness

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
No, it is to determine WHETHER they achieved greatness, and to what degree.

WHY is a completely different question.
Since we are looking at evaluating 30 or so at a position LW, C, RW the whether they achieved greatness part of the discussion is a given. To what degree? If the players' position(s) are defined properly then the rankings will flow properly.

So far it has been illustrated that two top players - Red Kelly and Maurice Richard were not defined properly accordingly to position. At least the proper definition now exists.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:12 PM
  #193
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Maurice Richard made the Montreal Canadiens at the start of the 1942-43 season, playing LW on a line with Tony Demers RW and Elmer Lach center:

<snip>

Maurice Richard was hurt in the December 27, 1942 game - right leg injury sidelining him for the rest of the year. Copies of the Gazette are not available for the December time period but the HSP gives us a portrait of the game:
And if you look at his statistics, you notice something. It was his worst GPG season (and Richard only had one other season where he was below 0.40 GPG), and he only had two other seasons where he had more assists than goals.

Quote:
Start of the 1943-44 season and Maurice Richard is shifted to RW on a line with Toe Blake at LW and Elmer Lach at C. Start of the Punch Line:
And the change of Richard from a "general" offensive player to a "pure sniper".

Quote:
Jere Lehtinen. Your "robbed" portrayals are getting tiresome. View his H-R stats and transactions:

Note that in the Stars 8th game of the 1999-2000 season Lehtinen suffered a leg injury that kept him out for most of the season. He came back as a LW and played LW the next few years but was never the same explosive skater as before.

Lehtinen injury problems with his ankle and knee are outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jere_Lehtinen

Like Maurice Richard, Jere Lehtinen adjusted his position due to injuries.
Lehtinen played RW for Modano in the late 90s. He was shifted to LW on Modano's line when the Stars acquired Brett Hull, not when he was injured.

Dallas vs. Anaheim; Jan 15th, 1999 recap

Lehtinen/Modano/Hull SI reunion article

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 04:16 PM
  #194
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Bottom Line

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
And if you look at his statistics, you notice something. It was his worst GPG season (and Richard only had one other season where he was below 0.40 GPG), and he only had two other seasons where he had more assists than goals.



And the change of Richard from a "general" offensive player to a "pure sniper".



Lehtinen played RW for Modano in the late 90s. He was shifted to LW on Modano's line when the Stars acquired Brett Hull, not when he was injured.

Dallas vs. Anaheim; Jan 15th, 1999 recap

Lehtinen/Modano/Hull SI reunion article
Bottom line is that proof has been provided that Maurice Richard actually started in the NHL as a LW, which you admit by running numbers.

Your SI link that explains Jere Lehtinen's injuries also contradicts your initial "robbed" portrayal. So Lehtinen was not "robbed" as claimed, rather his performance in terms of Selke votes was injury impacted.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:44 PM
  #195
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm going to make an executive decison and say that IF we divide forwards, we're doing centers first. It lets us punt on tweeter to split up wigs between LW and RW or not.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of seventieslord's post 177
Thank goodness.

This whole wing debate is getting like....why is everyone looking at me?

Anyways for myself a guy like the Moose is a center and I will consider his entire career when voting, just like I did with Kelly.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:57 PM
  #196
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Anyways for myself a guy like the Moose is a center...
Moose Goheen shot Left but played Right Wing throughout his career. Dont believe he ever played Centre Hv.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 06:03 PM
  #197
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Interesting....

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Nome of that matters. Even if it's true that those players can not switch wings, if they were the opposite hand and all other things were equal, they'd still achieve greatness on the other wing. Same can be said for defensemen.

Wing is wing.
Bolded is interesting.

Assume for a moment that we accept your premise as bolded. So we would rank the top X Centers and the top X Wingers. Offensive wingers would dominate and the defensive wingers like George Armstrong, Bob Pulford, Craig Ramsay, Jere Lehtinen and others would have a hard time slotting in the initial list submissions. The ones who played some center would be far removed from center consideration.

Conversely a .5X / X / .5X, LW / C / RW consideration opens slots in the initial submissions for the defensive wingers with a better chance of moving up.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 06:12 PM
  #198
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bolded is interesting.

Assume for a moment that we accept your premise as bolded. So we would rank the top X Centers and the top X Wingers. Offensive wingers would dominate and the defensive wingers like George Armstrong, Bob Pulford, Craig Ramsay, Jere Lehtinen and others would have a hard time slotting in the initial list submissions. The ones who played some center would be far removed from center consideration.

Conversely a .5X / X / .5X, LW / C / RW consideration opens slots in the initial submissions for the defensive wingers with a better chance of moving up.
Wingers are wingers.

Just as defensemen are defensemen.

Why would you seperate wings into left & right but not Dmen into left & right?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 07:52 PM
  #199
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wow, this really doesn't have to be this difficult.

1. Do a list for centers and another for wingers. As was already mentioned in this thread, LW and RW are more or less the same thing (like LD and RD) and furthermore, there are approximately as many significant wingers as there are centers in history. If we do as many LWs and RWs as we do centers, we're getting into wingers nowhere near as good as some centers who missed their cut.

2. Look at every forward and determine what they should be considered: center or winger. 95% of the time this will be very simple and straightforward. The other 5% of the time you will have a player who played more than a couple of seasons away from his "main" position. The vast majority of these cases will also be easy to sort out. It's just the 50/50 guys and the ones who may have played more games at one position but achieved more at their secondary position that will be reason for debate. I'm guessing maybe five players, at most, will warrant such debate.

3. Once we've determined what list each player is eligible for, rank them as players. The list of LWs would actually be "the greatest players of all-time who are most often identified as left wingers" and what would be wrong with that?

In theory, Sid Abel, who is a borderline top-100 player of all-time, could miss both the center and winger lists, despite the fact that if we just settle on him being a LW or C and judge him as a player, he'd be a top-25 winger or a top-25 center. Just to give one extreme example.
I'm not sure to what extent, if at all, I'm going to participate in this project - that being said, I agree that this is the best way to proceed.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 07:57 PM
  #200
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,946
vCash: 500
Or pull an Ovechkin and have players eligible for 'C', 'LW', 'RW' and 'multipositional'. Let the chips fall where they may.

VanIslander 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 10:39 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.