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.

Round 2, Vote 11 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-01-2012, 10:25 PM
  #101
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Dryden better than Tretiak? Very arguable.
Certainly you can find some dissenters, but that's the majority view. In the incomplete top 70 players project, Dryden was ranked 39th and Tretiak was ranked 44th. Going back to the original top 100 list from 2008, Dryden was also ahead (37-52).

Of course, during the Summit Series, Dryden and Esposito split time - one could argue that 8 games of Tretiak is better than 4 games each of Dryden and Esposito.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Also arguable.
Goals in the 72 Series: Esposito 7, Henderson 7, Yakushev 7, Cournoyer 3, Kharlamov 3, Mikhailov 3, Petrov 3, Shadrin 3.
Assists in the 72 Series: Esposito 6, Maltsev 5, Shadrin 5, Clarke 4, Kharlamov 4, Petrov 4, Yakushev 4.
Yet every time the players in the summit series are ranked, the Canadians are ranked far ahead.

Going back to the top 100 list from 2008, the Canadians had Mikita (14), Esposito (20), Clarke (22), Mahovlich (49) and Perreault (85) - not to mention Cournoyer who is not ranked on in the official top 100, but was 102nd on the aggregated list. The Soviets only have Kharlamov (30) and Mikhailov (68).

Yes, I realize that not all of these players were in their primes (Clarke especially) and I realize that Perreault and Mikita only played two games each. I just find it odd that the Canadians have a small advantage in net, apparently an enormous advantage in terms of forwards, and an even more massive advantage on the blueline - yet they won the series by the narrowest of margins. The Soviet performance in subsequent tournaments (victories in 1979 and 1981; a close loss to perhaps Canada's best team of all-time in 1987) show that this wasn't a fluke.

A team can be more or less than the sum of its parts (dependent upon luck, coaching and chemistry) and the Soviets clearly had an advantage in terms of the latter two, but I just think that a lot of Soviet starts are significantly underrated compared to NHL players during the eighties and nineties. It appears that I'm in the minority here and I can accept that, just wanted to ensure my viewpoint is documented for the record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Of the players in that 5-year period, only Langway and Wilson really stick out as all-time greats. Langway of course was a one-way force, leaving Wilson as the only great two-way defenseman to come into the league in a roughly 5-season period. Pretty strange. I'm not sure whether this speaks to changes in the league, the talent pool, the WHA/international situation... and whether it says anything about Wilson. He was part of a very weak talent pool, but stood out as the only one who excelled in an all-round game in the 1980s.
There's an interesting article from Sports Illustrated from 1978 promoting the excellent group of rookie defensemen: Barry Beck, Reed Larson, Doug Wilson, Brad Maxwell, Robert Picard and Stefan Persson. Chicago coach Bob Pulford said: "It was just a fluke that all these guys came at once... It's the best group I can remember. They're not the guys that stand back and hit, but there's an aspect to the athlete today that the old guys didn't have. They're bigger and faster, and they all grew up watching Bobby Orr play defense by controlling play in both ends of the ice. I don't think there's any question that Orr revolutionized the way defense is played". Link

Not sure if the expectations were too high when they were rookies, or if they all legitimately disappointed. Only Wilson is even close to being a HOF calibre defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Sheltered, maybe not, but was he ever a shutdown player himself?
I found an article in Sports Illustrated from 1983 indicating that Wilson was fairly weak defensively, at least at this stage in his career. Link.

"[Wilson] last season won the NHL's Norris Trophy (best defenseman) primarily because he scored 39 goals, the second-highest total ever by a defenseman (Bobby Orr had 49 in 1974-75). This year Wilson leads the Hawks in scoring with 22 points on four goals and 18 assists and in shots on goal with 54. Defensively, though, he's still a liability...

With nine seconds remaining in the opening period and a face-off in the Chicago defensive zone to the right of Goaltender Tony Esposito—a situation in which Wilson would cover the slot—Tessier left Wilson and his partner, Bob Murray, on the bench and sent out Greg Fox and Keith Brown in their place.

While Tessier later maintained that the decision was no reflection on Wilson's defensive ability, he did say, "Had the face-off been at the other end, Doug would've been out there. He's a great offensive defenseman, and I won't put any shackles on him. But I think we're going to see him become more of a two-way player, which he's perfectly willing to do.""


If anybody watched the Blackhawks in the early eighties, let us know if it was typical for Wilson's coaches to give him easier defensive matchups. Still, I find it unlikely that he would be sheltered to the same extent that Zubov was in Dallas (where Hatcher and his partner, usually Matvichuk, got the majority of the most difficult defensive assignments).


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 02-01-2012 at 10:38 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:27 PM
  #102
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I can't see Stapleton and White making the cut, I really can't. Neither is a Hall of Fame, nor ever talked about as a snub.

I mean, look who we have now - Art Coulter who was a post season All Star 4 Times and a playoff hero. Doug Wilson, who was a post season All Star 3 times himself, with one of them beinga Norris season. How do you put Stapleton or White ahead of them?
for starters, White is just a Bobby Orr away from being a three-time 1st-team all-star.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 02:10 AM
  #103
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
...every time the players in the summit series are ranked, the Canadians are ranked far ahead.

Going back to the top 100 list from 2008, the Canadians had Mikita (14), Esposito (20), Clarke (22), Mahovlich (49) and Perreault (85) - not to mention Cournoyer who is not ranked on in the official top 100, but was 102nd on the aggregated list. The Soviets only have Kharlamov (30) and Mikhailov (68).

Yes, I realize that not all of these players were in their primes (Clarke especially) and I realize that Perreault and Mikita only played two games each. I just find it odd that the Canadians have a small advantage in net, apparently an enormous advantage in terms of forwards, and an even more massive advantage on the blueline - yet they won the series by the narrowest of margins. The Soviet performance in subsequent tournaments (victories in 1979 and 1981; a close loss to perhaps Canada's best team of all-time in 1987) show that this wasn't a fluke.

A team can be more or less than the sum of its parts (dependent upon luck, coaching and chemistry) and the Soviets clearly had an advantage in terms of the latter two, but I just think that a lot of Soviet starts are significantly underrated compared to NHL players during the eighties and nineties. It appears that I'm in the minority here and I can accept that, just wanted to ensure my viewpoint is documented for the record.
You've got a point, but your forward argument is a bit circular, isn't it? [I]
"1) Very few Soviet forwards are among the all-time top players (according to HFBoards), Canada has a huge advantage in offence.
2) Still, the Soviets were nearly on par with Canada. How is that possible with their considerable disadvantage in offence?
3) Conclusion: It must have been the Soviet defencemen who made up for it. Obviously, Soviet defencemen are underrated on HFBoards!"


You're arguing against a HFBoards voting result by...leaning on a HFBoards voting result. It works just as well the other way round:

1) Very few Soviet defencemen are among the all-time top defencemen (according to HFBoards), Canada has a huge advantage in defence.
2) Still, the Soviets were nearly on par with Canada. How is that possible with their considerable disadvantage in defence?
3) Conclusion: It must have been the Soviet forwards who made up for it. Obviously, Soviet forwards are underrated on HFBoards!"


Maybe the likes of Petrov, Yakushev, Maltsev and Shadrin deserve more love?

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 04:22 AM
  #104
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
for starters, White is just a Bobby Orr away from being a three-time 1st-team all-star.
And Fern Flaman is just a Doug Harvey away from the following Norris voting record:

1954-55: #2
1955-56: #4
1956-57: #2
1957-58: #2
1958-59: #4

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 07:26 AM
  #105
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,213
vCash: 500
And Art Coulter is an Eddie Shore away from having 4 1st Teams (assuming the RD, LD crap works out )

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 07:39 AM
  #106
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Esposito was more physical, chippier against the Soviets than in the NHL.
What should Ragulin have done about it? Dropped the gloves with Esposito?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Main difference was the skating.Kuzkin and Davydov could make quicker, sharper turns in close quarters. They were better against the non-physical forecheck in their zone than Ragulin was when playing against minor pros or structured junior teams coached by Scotty Bowman. They showed sign that they could transition the puck if it became part of their team plan.

Ragulin did not show any of these qualities.
Thank you. I respect your account because I believe that you know what you're talking about. But what about the European perception of Ragulin? Ragulin was an Soviet League All-Star from 1961-1964 and 1966-1969 and 1972. Davydov has a strong All-Star record too, but Kuzkin was an All-Star only twice: 1965 and 1971. And then you have the IIHF tournaments: Ragulin was an World Championship All-Star from 1963-1967 and he received the IIHF Directorate Best Defenceman Award in 1966. Davydov received the same award one year later, but he was never on the All-Star team. Kuzkin never received any international honor. Ragulin was considered the outstanding Soviet defenceman for years even though others were better really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And Art Coulter is an Eddie Shore away from having 4 1st Teams (assuming the RD, LD crap works out )
Fine, so that gives you three new locks so far: Bill White, Fern Flaman and Art Coulter. No, seriously, Orr is #1 in the list, Harvey #2 and Shore only #4, so you lose.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 08:23 AM
  #107
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,078
vCash: 500
Team

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
You've got a point, but your forward argument is a bit circular, isn't it? [I]
"1) Very few Soviet forwards are among the all-time top players (according to HFBoards), Canada has a huge advantage in offence.
2) Still, the Soviets were nearly on par with Canada. How is that possible with their considerable disadvantage in offence?
3) Conclusion: It must have been the Soviet defencemen who made up for it. Obviously, Soviet defencemen are underrated on HFBoards!"


You're arguing against a HFBoards voting result by...leaning on a HFBoards voting result. It works just as well the other way round:

1) Very few Soviet defencemen are among the all-time top defencemen (according to HFBoards), Canada has a huge advantage in defence.
2) Still, the Soviets were nearly on par with Canada. How is that possible with their considerable disadvantage in defence?
3) Conclusion: It must have been the Soviet forwards who made up for it. Obviously, Soviet forwards are underrated on HFBoards!"


Maybe the likes of Petrov, Yakushev, Maltsev and Shadrin deserve more love?
Overlooked is that the Soviets played as a team from game one whereas Canada came together as a team after game 5.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 08:30 AM
  #108
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overlooked is that the Soviets played as a team from game one whereas Canada came together as a team after game 5.
This concisely addresses an issue I've had since the start of the discussion.

Hockey results aren't decided formulaically. We don't look at a Stanley Cup series and say, "X had the advantage in forwards and Y had the advantage in goal, and X won the series, therefore X has better defensemen". And certainly we wouldn't use that logic to conclude anything at all about the individual defensemen on Team X.

There are always detailed narratives within a series that decide its outcome, which are loosely but not completely captured by statistics. Trying to boil these narratives down to derivative logic is just not going to work.

I had the same issue with the application of this mindset to All Star voting a few threads ago. We can't simply say that if X has the most points but Y gets more votes, then Y is the better defensive player. Real-life hockey doesn't work that way.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:09 AM
  #109
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Hockey results aren't decided formulaically. We don't look at a Stanley Cup series and say, "X had the advantage in forwards and Y had the advantage in goal, and X won the series, therefore X has better defensemen".
The syllogistic formula is fine. The only issue is: what exactly is the content of the premises? In a example like yours, the premises are apparently too schematic and not differentiated enough to be useful. In reality the advantage in forwards could be so big that X would still win the series even with a disadvantage in defensemen. The conclusion would fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
And certainly we wouldn't use that logic to conclude anything at all about the individual defensemen on Team X.
If the premises are formulated more precisely and its content is correct (a question of facts, for example: how much time did Team Canada spend to prepare, how much time did the Soviets spend, was Team Canada out of shape or not etc), why not? Not about any individual defenseman in the first place, but about a team's defence in general. And after you've drawn that general conclusion, you'd have to look into the individuals. Who actually contributed to the good/bad performance? Ragulin or Lutchenko?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I had the same issue with the application of this mindset to All Star voting a few threads ago. We can't simply say that if X has the most points but Y gets more votes, then Y is the better defensive player. Real-life hockey doesn't work that way.
You mean real-life voting doesn't work that way.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:17 AM
  #110
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The syllogistic formula is fine. The only issue is: what exactly is the content of the premises? In a example like yours, the premises are apparently too schematic and not differentiated enough to be useful. In reality the advantage in forwards could be so big that X would still win the series even with a disadvantage in defensemen. The conclusion would fail.
In reality a team with disadvantages in all areas will occasionally win a series because they're well-coached, motivated, and lucky.

I see no reason to introduce a formula which requires verification via first-person observation. Just skip the formula and go straight to the observation. These games are on film, we can see for ourselves how Ragulin performed against Canada without making an abstraction of it.


Quote:
If the premises are formulated more precisely and its content is correct (a question of facts, for example: how much time did Team Canada spend to prepare, how much time did the Soviets spend, was Team Canada out of shape or not etc), why not?
Because it's not reliable at face value. And by the time you go through all the research necessary to verify the content to make it reliable, you've eliminated the need for a forumla. So what is the purpose of the formula other than to be a poor substitute for research?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:23 AM
  #111
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,213
vCash: 500
I think it should be common sense that of the only stat we have about two players is their point totals and people who saw them play preferred the one with lower point totals, then the one with higher point totals must have been missing something

I'm also not sure how it's relevant to this round.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:48 AM
  #112
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,078
vCash: 500
Compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
What should Ragulin have done about it? Dropped the gloves with Esposito?



Thank you. I respect your account because I believe that you know what you're talking about. But what about the European perception of Ragulin? Ragulin was an Soviet League All-Star from 1961-1964 and 1966-1969 and 1972. Davydov has a strong All-Star record too, but Kuzkin was an All-Star only twice: 1965 and 1971. And then you have the IIHF tournaments: Ragulin was an World Championship All-Star from 1963-1967 and he received the IIHF Directorate Best Defenceman Award in 1966. Davydov received the same award one year later, but he was never on the All-Star team. Kuzkin never received any international honor. Ragulin was considered the outstanding Soviet defenceman for years even though others were better really?



Fine, so that gives you three new locks so far: Bill White, Fern Flaman and Art Coulter. No, seriously, Orr is #1 in the list, Harvey #2 and Shore only #4, so you lose.
The template for playing Phil Esposito was well known in the NHL - look at the 1965-71 playoff results when he faced the 1965 Canadiens, 1966 Wings, 1967 Leafs, 1968,1969, 1971 Canadiens. Ther defensemen had to compete with Esposito for every inch of space in the slot area and gradually move him out of his comfort zone.

Take away his stick side as much as possible, adjust to his various quick spin moves,do not allow him to leverage his size and create separation, manage the rebounds. Generally frustrate him with good hard hockey. Frustrated he would take a few needless penalties. The various defensemen from the teams in question are already ranked or will be, will others - Gary Bergman outplayed the younger Ragulin in 1972. Even the support dmen from the teams in question - Terry Harper, Ted Harris, Bob Baun, Leo Boivin, Larry Hillman did a better job against Esposito tha Ragulin did in 1972. Of course they could all skate better than Ragulin could whilch is the key factor when handling the bolded. This was the major oops with Ragulin.

Seems that you are saying that Ragulin should benefit from a shallow talent pool in the Soviet Union or Europe for defensemen in the 1960`s, especially the first half of the decade.

Basic issue is the best Canadian forward that Ragulin competed against was Fran Huck - a very small player. Against some of the bigger Czech forwards - notably Nedomansky he did not impress. In NA tours he looked weak against the AHL/CHL call-ups - red Berenson, Bill Sutherland, Andre Boudrias, Bill Inglis types.

Until 1972 he did not face big NA forwards, yet because he played in the Soviet Union with little depth and was named an All-Star we are prepared to rank him above players who competeed successfully against the likes of Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich, Bobby Hull, Andy Bathgate and other big strong forwards. Leo Boivin with the sadsack Bruins played and held his own against elite,big NHL forwards 70 games a season. With months of prepartion, Alexander Ragulin showed in under 6 games in 1972 that he could not do the job.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:50 AM
  #113
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,078
vCash: 500
Losing

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
In reality a team with disadvantages in all areas will occasionally win a series because they're well-coached, motivated, and lucky.

I see no reason to introduce a formula which requires verification via first-person observation. Just skip the formula and go straight to the observation. These games are on film, we can see for ourselves how Ragulin performed against Canada without making an abstraction of it.




Because it's not reliable at face value. And by the time you go through all the research necessary to verify the content to make it reliable, you've eliminated the need for a forumla. So what is the purpose of the formula other than to be a poor substitute for research?
I would suggest that the key element may be the stronger team losing the series due to poor coaching and prepartion with a dash of arrogance thrown in.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:14 AM
  #114
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
And Fern Flaman is just a Doug Harvey away from the following Norris voting record:

1954-55: #2
1955-56: #4
1956-57: #2
1957-58: #2
1958-59: #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And Art Coulter is an Eddie Shore away from having 4 1st Teams (assuming the RD, LD crap works out )
Orr trumps Shore and Harvey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think it should be common sense that of the only stat we have about two players is their point totals and people who saw them play preferred the one with lower point totals, then the one with higher point totals must have been missing something
It's obvious.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:22 AM
  #115
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Orr trumps Shore and Harvey.
Definitely true. But on the other hand, Coulter and Flaman's non-Orr competition probably beats out Stapleton and White's non-Orr competition. Coulter also had prime Earl Seibert, Babe Siebert, and Ebbie Goodfellow, while Flaman had Gadsby and a couple of guys also up for voting this round (Tom Johnson, Allan Stanley, Harry Howell).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 11:00 AM
  #116
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I see no reason to introduce a formula which requires verification via first-person observation. Just skip the formula and go straight to the observation. These games are on film, we can see for ourselves how Ragulin performed against Canada without making an abstraction of it.

...by the time you go through all the research necessary to verify the content to make it reliable, you've eliminated the need for a forumla. So what is the purpose of the formula other than to be a poor substitute for research?
Well, you're right of course. It's just that I'm kind of in love with...the syllogism in general...and I didn't like your claim it's not applicable to hockey. It's applicable and it works well if you make good use of the premises. It's just not a very useful tool for practical purposes, I don't disagree with you on that. But I got a bit carried away in defending my beloved syllogism, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The template for playing Phil Esposito was well known in the NHL...Generally frustrate him with good hard hockey. Frustrated he would take a few needless penalties.
Good points. Even without facing a hard physical game, Esposito got frustrated a couple of times and took some avoidable penalties against the Soviets. They could and should have used his temper as a weapon against him, but they didn't really do it. Playing a physical game was probably a bit too much to ask from the Soviets in 1972. Didn't they scout the NHL players enough or did they just fail to draw the conclusions? I wonder what a capable North American coach could have done with that Soviet team under his guidance, given the very good physical condition the Soviet players were in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Seems that you are saying that Ragulin should benefit from a shallow talent pool in the Soviet Union or Europe for defensemen in the 1960`s... because he played in the Soviet Union with little depth and was named an All-Star we are prepared to rank him above players who competeed successfully against the likes of Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich, Bobby Hull, Andy Bathgate and other big strong forwards.
Not at all. Ragulin shouldn't be in the top 60 discussion in my opinion. I'm not comparing Ragulin to any NHL player, I'm comparing him to Davydov and Kuzkin because you said both were better. I wonder why the perception in Europe was so different that Ragulin was considered outstanding while Davydov and especially Kuzkin were not.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 11:32 AM
  #117
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Not at all. Ragulin shouldn't be in the top 60 discussion in my opinion. I'm not comparing Ragulin to any NHL player, I'm comparing him to Davydov and Kuzkin because you said both were better. I wonder why the perception in Europe was so different that Ragulin was considered outstanding while Davydov and especially Kuzkin were not.
With all due respect, Europe > Canadiens1958

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 12:14 PM
  #118
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Now that we are 2 rounds from the end, I think it's time to start thinking about which guys we'd be comfortable not seeing appear on our final list.
Players up for voting this round I think should definitely make the Top 60
Coulter, Mantha, Reardon, Pulford, Flaman

Players up for voting this round I think should definitely NOT make the Top 60
Konstantinov, Zubov, Howell, Stapleton

Players up for voting this round I'm on the fence about making the Top 60
Stanley, Wilson, Cameron, Patrick, Johnson, Ragulin

*lists in random order

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 07:26 PM
  #119
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think it should be common sense that of the only stat we have about two players is their point totals and people who saw them play preferred the one with lower point totals, then the one with higher point totals must have been missing something

I'm also not sure how it's relevant to this round.
Well it does have some relevance in measuring offense between 2 different players. Of course there are other variables involved but stats tell us a ton about offensive abilities of players.

I read a very interesting theory the other day on why people disagree so much about who is better in hockey ect.. at the end of the day the team with the most goals wins a game right?

But we don't not solely make our judgments on statistics.

If we went back and watched film from past games and removed the actual goal scoring plays could we tell form the game play which team won?

Which players had the biggest impact on the game?

Sometimes yes but in many of cases we couldn't.

This simply isn't the case as often in football as we can tell alot from field position apart from actual scoring plays.

In baseball we would have hits, SO BB's ect to give us a better indication of which team probably won the game.

Of course hockey and defenseman especially is about more than the stats but it's something to think about.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:04 PM
  #120
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Vote 11 will begin now. [B]Votes must be submitted between 6PM EST on Saturday 2/4/12 and 6PM on Sunday 2/6/12.
.
Ehhh...

TDDM, clarification needed, pls.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:44 PM
  #121
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Ehhh...

TDDM, clarification needed, pls.
Wait this is awesome news the 48 hour day that we all have been waiting for to get more stuff done.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 11:06 PM
  #122
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Players up for voting this round I think should definitely make the Top 60
Coulter, Mantha, Reardon, Pulford, Flaman

Players up for voting this round I think should definitely NOT make the Top 60
Konstantinov, Zubov, Howell, Stapleton

Players up for voting this round I'm on the fence about making the Top 60
Stanley, Wilson, Cameron, Patrick, Johnson, Ragulin

*lists in random order
All stars aside, the actual play of these two players wasn't very different and Reardon's playoff record is among the bottom 25% of the top 60 list bar none IMO.

341 games in the 40's just isn't top 60 material IMO (although he might arguably be better than some of the other guys this round especially if we are all star counting).

In 48 for example Montreal missed the playoffs with Readon as a 2nd team all star and Lach and Richard being 1st team all stars.

Harvey was 23 and on the team as well so maybe he wasn't that great then either and while Toe Blake missed a great deal of the season there is simply too much credit going around to some of the players here and Reardon for this thread IMO.

I think people are missing the fact that part of the reason he was an all star for those 5 years is that the competition was extremely low at the time on the Defence until Kelly and Harvey took the reigns in the early 50's.

If he was an absolute superstar for those 341 games it would be one thing but....

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 12:03 AM
  #123
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Ehhh...

TDDM, clarification needed, pls.
Heh, supposed to be Saturday through Monday

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:05 AM
  #124
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,549
vCash: 500
Kind of a weak set of arguments this time. None of these guys really get the blood pumping.

Here's a rough attempt at how they line up generationally:


Harvey Pulford 1893-1908

Lester Patrick 1904-1928
Harry Cameron 1917-1931

Sylvio Mantha 1923-1937
Art Coulter 1929-1944

Ken Reardon 1940-1950

Fern Flaman 1944-1964
Allan Stanley 1946-1969
Tom Johnson 1947-1965

Harry Howell 1952-1976
Pat Stapleton 1959-1978
Alexander Ragulin 1962-1974

Doug Wilson 1977-1993
Vladimir Konstantinov 1984-1997

Sergei Zubov 1988-2010

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:29 AM
  #125
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,078
vCash: 500
Kuzkin/Davydov

[QUOTE=Theokritos;43453485]Well, you're right of course. It's just that I'm kind of in love with...the syllogism in general...and I didn't like your claim it's not applicable to hockey. It's applicable and it works well if you make good use of the premises. It's just not a very useful tool for practical purposes, I don't disagree with you on that. But I got a bit carried away in defending my beloved syllogism, that's all.



Good points. Even without facing a hard physical game, Esposito got frustrated a couple of times and took some avoidable penalties against the Soviets. They could and should have used his temper as a weapon against him, but they didn't really do it. Playing a physical game was probably a bit too much to ask from the Soviets in 1972. Didn't they scout the NHL players enough or did they just fail to draw the conclusions? I wonder what a capable North American coach could have done with that Soviet team under his guidance, given the very good physical condition the Soviet players were in.



Not at all. Ragulin shouldn't be in the top 60 discussion in my opinion. I'm not comparing Ragulin to any NHL player, I'm comparing him to Davydov and Kuzkin because you said both were better. I wonder why the perception in Europe was so different that Ragulin was considered outstanding while Davydov and especially Kuzkin were not.[/QUOTE]

Kuzkin - must have had something going for him in Europe as his international record attests. He was the Soviet captain in the 1972 Summit Series and as stated previously out performed Ragulin.

http://www.1972summitseries.com/kuzkin.html

Davydov was a Dynamo player. Non CSKA players tended to fly under the radar.

http://www.1972summitseries.com/davydov.html

Canadiens1958 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 04:38 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.