I would put Miroslav Satan in that group. He was a very productive & dangerous player, very underrated because he mostly played on non contending teams (and because he has a funny name.)
You´re right, Satan is underrated. Maybe even more alone on his team than Bondra. One small step after the others mentioned, at least in my book. I would probably place him after Bondra and before Stumpel on a "90´s slovak-list". A great generation indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
Scoring goals is definitely harder job than playmaking - it's my opinion, that's why it's a rare breed at high level. How many elite snipers (capable of scoring at rate 40+ per season) are there now? Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Stamkos... I would say not more than 6-8 players. How many elite playmakers are there (capable of 40+ asissts) ? I bet at least 30.
I think it comes down to you and me favouring different kind of players. Nothing wrong with that. For an outside I eye I probably undervalue the sniper and you the playmaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
Ad 2) No-one with clear mind doesnt list Bondra as the greatest Slovak player, even without Mikita who never played any hockey before he arrived to Canada, there is at least P. Stastny and Zdeno Chara. He is definitely one of the most popular players, because he carried Slovak NT to Gold on WC with 7 goals and scored crucial game-winner in final game. It's not point of the topic but I have hard time to put Palffy ahead of Bondra. Was Palffy more talented? Hell, yes, probably most talented forward born in Slovakia. Was his career better than Bondra's one? Not sure about this.
It´s me derailing the thread. Sorry As Theokritos pointed out they at their peak were quite equal goalscorers with Palffy being more dominant in other areas of the game. Can see why Bondra is so poular in Slovakia (the goals during the gold...), even if I think he didn´t do much in the national team besides that. Maybe it´s a bit like me as a swede for a breefe second thinking about taking Nylander before Näslund. For only NHL-followers even mentioning it may be madness, but adding memories from Tre Kronor Nylander actually has it closer than one would think... Amongst the "average swedish hockey/sports-fan" I´m actually quite sure people value Nylander more.
"Talent" is the same as potential. Being #6 in scoring on he other hand is an actual achievement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
What exactly Palffy accomplished? Always played for crappy teams and he didnt carry them anywhere. To some extent his career can be compared to Kovalchuk pre-Devils or Nash.
Bondra won two retrospective Richards, played in SCF and became a face of his franchise, scored an iconic goal on WC and was leading scorer during that run...
So Bondra is better because he played for the Washington Capitals and because of the 2002 World Championship?
"Talent" is the same as potential. Being #6 in scoring on he other hand is an actual achievement.
Being #6 is being behind 5 guys. Being #1 means you are the best.
Quote:
So Bondra is better because he played for the Washington Capitals and because of the 2002 World Championship?
Dont know what you mean by first part but he was integral part and cornerstone of Capitals for decade. For 2nd part, you probably won't find many people claiming Palffy is better than Bondra in Slovakia. It's the same as perception on Lidstrom vs. Forsberg or Sundin in Sweden.
I believe Bondra belongs into HOF from about start of the millenium and I'm building a case for him since I'm on the boards. I do not think Palffy belongs into HOF. I believe Bondra does.
I think it comes down to you and me favouring different kind of players. Nothing wrong with that. For an outside I eye I probably undervalue the sniper and you the playmaker.
I agree
Quote:
It´s me derailing the thread. Sorry As Theokritos pointed out they at their peak were quite equal goalscorers with Palffy being more dominant in other areas of the game. Can see why Bondra is so poular in Slovakia (the goals during the gold...), even if I think he didn´t do much in the national team besides that. Maybe it´s a bit like me as a swede for a breefe second thinking about taking Nylander before Näslund. For only NHL-followers even mentioning it may be madness, but adding memories from Tre Kronor Nylander actually has it closer than one would think... Amongst the "average swedish hockey/sports-fan" I´m actually quite sure people value Nylander more.
Very well put together. Still - ranking Bondra ahead of Palffy is not any foolishness. As an european fan, I see a very good arguments for Nylander. It's not like he couldnt be better player than Näslund - actually I am willing to accept that. Maybe he just wasnt so effecient on small rink size. Some NHL stars look lost on bigger ice for comparision.
I agree that most of these players are iffy, but... A few people have mentioned before on these boards that the top 15 scorers from the 1980-1990 period are all in the Hall of Fame (Anderson was the last inductee). For comparison, here’s the top 15 scorers from the 1990-2000 period.
Jagr
Oates
Sakic
Gretzky
Yzerman
Recchi
Hull
Turgeon
Fleury
Francis
Sundin
Roenick
Gilmour
Robitaille
Messier
All played a roughly comparable number of games. It’s interesting that the conventional wisdom around here is that three of the players on this list (Turgeon, Fleury, Roenick) probably won’t get in the HOF, while Recchi is borderline. Is that because the topline talent just wasn't as good as in the '80s? Or is it because people are a lot more critical of recent players while glossing over the flaws of players long since retired? I'm not sure.
I’d also be curious to know if Turgeon (at #8 up there) is the highest-scoring player over a 10-year period to get left out of the Hall. (He's at #6 if you go between 1988 and 1998.)
I for one value the topline talent of the 90´s before the 80´s. But they sure had a harder time collecting sexy numbers. I for one wouldn´t mind anyone on that list in the Hall. And out of the players begining to play a couple of years into the 90´s Selänne, Fedorov, Forsberg, Lindros, Bure amongst others are players who stood out spectacular and in my book should be in at one time... Many careers derailed by injuries, not to mention the DPE and to a lesser degree the lockout... And that people forget weaknesses and get nostalgic as times goes by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
I agree
Very well put together. Still - ranking Bondra ahead of Palffy is not any foolishness. As an european fan, I see a very good arguments for Nylander. It's not like he couldnt be better player than Näslund - actually I am willing to accept that. Maybe he just wasnt so effecient on small rink size. Some NHL stars look lost on bigger ice for comparision.
Was Bondra really worse player than Turgeon?
I mean just look at their scoring finishes and take into consideration Bondra was a pure goal scorer and Turgeon playmaker.
Yes, absolutely he was. And don't dismiss Turgeon as a goal scorer either. He was not a pure playmaker in the same way Bondra was a pure goal scorer.
to answer the question: no to all three. Although Turgeon's offensive record is such that, if it was just a little stronger, or if he just had something else to his game or his resume that strengthened his case, he would be in. To me, he's the closest.
Someone on here (forget who, my apologies) made a good case that Turgeon has had extremely bad luck with injuries, because they always seemed to occur during his best seasons. He played enough total games to amass some great career numbers but missed out on multiple top 3-5 finishes (and possibly even an Art Ross trophy win) by getting injured at the wrong times.
Whether or not Turgeon makes the HOF (and I don't really think he should be there, but he might not be the worst modern inductee), I really hope it doesn't end up being decided partly on something that happened in junior hockey.
Being #6 is being behind 5 guys. Being #1 means you are the best.
And being #11 is being behind 10 guys. Which is the best rank Bondra ever achieved in the NHL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
...you probably won't find many people claiming Palffy is better than Bondra in Slovakia. It's the same as perception on Lidstrom vs. Forsberg or Sundin in Sweden.
So you have Forsberg over Lidström? Or Sundin over Lidström? I don't. Most hockey fans in Sweden haven't had the opportunity to observe and follow Lidström day in day out throughout the season for 20 years. How are they entitled to be better jurors than their North American counterparts? Only because they are from the same country as Lidström? Some Swedish fans even rank Kenny Jönsson over Nicklas Lidström based on the 2006 Olympics. Legitime point of view because it's a Swedish point of view? No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
I believe Bondra belongs into HOF from about start of the millenium and I'm building a case for him since I'm on the boards. I do not think Palffy belongs into HOF. I believe Bondra does.
I don't think Pálffy belongs in the HOF and I don't think Bondra belongs in the HOF. But I'd have Pálffy ahead of Bondra for sure.
Someone on here (forget who, my apologies) made a good case that Turgeon has had extremely bad luck with injuries, because they always seemed to occur during his best seasons. He played enough total games to amass some great career numbers but missed out on multiple top 3-5 finishes (and possibly even an Art Ross trophy win) by getting injured at the wrong times.
Whether or not Turgeon makes the HOF (and I don't really think he should be there, but he might not be the worst modern inductee), I really hope it doesn't end up being decided partly on something that happened in junior hockey.
that was me, piggybacking off the arguments made by MS prior to that.
Scoring goals is definitely harder job than playmaking - it's my opinion, that's why it's a rare breed at high level. How many elite snipers (capable of scoring at rate 40+ per season) are there now? Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Stamkos... I would say not more than 6-8 players. How many elite playmakers are there (capable of 40+ asissts) ? I bet at least 30.
Elite playmaking, like Henrik and Foppa bring is just as rare. They are able to elivate lesser players to be elite goal scorers. I can assure you Alex Burrows isn't a 30 goal scorer without Henrik.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
And being #11 is being behind 10 guys. Which is the best rank Bondra ever achieved in the NHL.
Why do you think that stats goals + assists is the best way of evaluating offense output - maybe you will be surprised but some leagues and national associations use different stats to evaluate offensive output. I have some of them at home. I.e. system where goal is listed as 1.5x and assists as 1x. In soccer there are no assists. Why? Probably because scoring goal is what matters. Putting the puck in the net.
Quote:
So you have Forsberg over Lidström? Or Sundin over Lidström? I don't.
No. I have Lidstrom above Forsberg or Sundin. But for someone who put emphasiz on bigger ice (where skills*> athleticism) or Olympic games. When a player shine on olympics it means something. Why? Because it's where the best hockey is played. Not NHL. So when Forsberg or Sundin perform better there one could make a case for them. It's same as when you put 30 NHL teams into 8. Smaller sample size and all that stuff.. Still, it isn't the best-on-best for nothing.
Quote:
I don't think Pálffy belongs in the HOF and I don't think Bondra belongs in the HOF. But I'd have Pálffy ahead of Bondra for sure.
Well, you're entitled to your own opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho
Elite playmaking, like Henrik and Foppa bring is just as rare. They are able to elivate lesser players to be elite goal scorers. I can assure you Alex Burrows isn't a 30 goal scorer without Henrik.
So why they get a free pass for they inability to score and goal scorers are bashed as puck-hogs or selfish player?
So why they get a free pass for they inability to score and goal scorers are bashed as puck-hogs or selfish player?
They don't, generally speaking, a great playmaker makes everyone better so they have a greater impact on the game. That's why points is the stat that gets you the scoring title.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it quite rare to see one-season wonder playmakers, whereas the one-season wonder goal scorers are plentiful? Is it easier to feed off an elite playmaker than it is to feed off an elite goal scorer?
I can't think of many players to have Henrik Sedin-esque stats for just a single season. Joe Juneau is the one who comes to mind at this moment. I can, however think of many players to have Ovechkin-esque stats in a single season, and that's usually because they played that season with a Henrik Sedin-esque player.
It's probably due to the nature of both positions. A playmaking centre's top quality is to make the surrounding players better. A goalscoring winger's top quality is usually to take any chances he gets in order to score.
I'd say both positions are important to fill on a competitive team, but I don't buy the myth that the goal scorer is the more hard-to-find player. Elite playmakers are extremely rare.
Why do you think that stats goals + assists is the best way of evaluating offense output - maybe you will be surprised but some leagues and national associations use different stats to evaluate offensive output. I have some of them at home. I.e. system where goal is listed as 1.5x and assists as 1x.
Probably there is no ideal way to evaluate offensive output in general terms. Strictly speaking, every goal scored and its circumstances are unique. Going through a whole team and scoring all by yourself is a greater achievement than shoving in a puck that your teammates have already set up perfectly so that it's more difficult not to score than to score. Still, both acts get you 1 goal in the scoring list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
In soccer there are no assists. Why? Probably because scoring goal is what matters.
There are assists in soccer, they're just not listed very often. Which is poor, regardless whether you think goals are more important or not. Wayne Rooney for example scored 26 goals and 3 assists in the Premier League in 2009-10. Then, in 2010-11, he scored 10 goals and 11 assists (while playing fewer minutes over the course of the season). From 26 goals to 10 goals - a huge drop. But if you figure in the assists and the fewer minutes, Rooney's offensive production had basically remained the same. While his defensive play had improved so that he was actually a better player in 2010-11 than in 2009-10. The numbers of goals alone is completely misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee
When a player shine on olympics it means something. Why? Because it's where the best hockey is played. Not NHL.
Canada Cup/World Cup is best-on-best too. So is Vancouver 2010. And in fact, the IIHF has decided that the NHL size is now a legitime IIHF/Olympic size as well. Which opens the door for more Olympic tournaments (and possibly World Championships, but they're not best-on-best) on NHL size rinks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it quite rare to see one-season wonder playmakers, whereas the one-season wonder goal scorers are plentiful? Is it easier to feed off an elite playmaker than it is to feed off an elite goal scorer?
I can't think of many players to have Henrik Sedin-esque stats for just a single season. Joe Juneau is the one who comes to mind at this moment. I can, however think of many players to have Ovechkin-esque stats in a single season, and that's usually because they played that season with a Henrik Sedin-esque player.
It's probably due to the nature of both positions. A playmaking centre's top quality is to make the surrounding players better. A goalscoring winger's top quality is usually to take any chances he gets in order to score.
I'd say both positions are important to fill on a competitive team, but I don't buy the myth that the goal scorer is the more hard-to-find player. Elite playmakers are extremely rare.
Good post to think about. The axiom is 1 goal = 1 assist. If we recognize this we should recognize it litterally the same on "global platform" (40 goals = 40 assits) - and here we go: everyone must admit there is not many 40+ goals scorers but there is significantly more players with 40+ assists every year. In last 15 years we have seen exactly one season with 60+ goals. We have seen 61 (!) seasons with 60+ A's. Even season 80+ A's is more common with 5.
As it stands now, to become elite playmaker you need to put higher numbers than to become elite scorer. It's easier to rack up assists no matter how you look at it. I agree that players who actually "make play" are pretty rare too, but goal scorer who scores on almost every "sure" chance is harder to find.
Being #6 is being behind 5 guys. Being #1 means you are the best.
Dont know what you mean by first part but he was integral part and cornerstone of Capitals for decade. For 2nd part, you probably won't find many people claiming Palffy is better than Bondra in Slovakia. It's the same as perception on Lidstrom vs. Forsberg or Sundin in Sweden.
I believe Bondra belongs into HOF from about start of the millenium and I'm building a case for him since I'm on the boards. I do not think Palffy belongs into HOF. I believe Bondra does.
Well Bondra has more career value but it's hardly enough to make him a HHOF player, he was too one dimensional, with other similar guys being much better Bure especially, and his playoff resume is simply really weak.
As for the OP Turgeon has the best case and maybe Roenick in a slash player/media eventually but its a real longshot for him.
Turgeon's case is quite a bit higher than both of these guys IMO.
The simple reality is that DPE players will be screwed over by the era they played in because the not impressive totals will always color the perception even amongst people who ought to know a bit better.
Let's say Bondra has his peak years in 1983-1986 or even 1990-1993 rather than 1995-1998 and instead of a total of 150 goals in 220 games, he has a total of say 208 goals in 220 games. And instead of leading the league with 52 goals twice, he led it with 74 goals twice. Instead of 504 goals, we look at 650.
He'd be a HOF shoo-in rather than a "maybe but doesn't deserve it".
The simple reality is that DPE players will be screwed over by the era they played in because the not impressive totals will always color the perception even amongst people who ought to know a bit better.
Let's say Bondra has his peak years in 1983-1986 or even 1990-1993 rather than 1995-1998 and instead of a total of 150 goals in 220 games, he has a total of say 208 goals in 220 games. And instead of leading the league with 52 goals twice, he led it with 74 goals twice. Instead of 504 goals, we look at 650.
He'd be a HOF shoo-in rather than a "maybe but doesn't deserve it".
Dave Andreychuk isn't in the HHOF and he was probably a more complete player than Bondra
Maybe that's a bad example because Dave didn't have the the peak of Bondra. But Bondra is such a unique player - I don't think there's a player in modern history who had fewer assists per goal.
Tim Kerr maybe? Although he was a completely different style and type of player from Bondra, he's similar to him in regards to goal-assist ratio, atleast in his peak seasons.
Why do you think that stats goals + assists is the best way of evaluating offense output - maybe you will be surprised but some leagues and national associations use different stats to evaluate offensive output. I have some of them at home. I.e. system where goal is listed as 1.5x and assists as 1x.
By the way: Apply that system to Bondra vs Pálffy and you receive:
Good post to think about. The axiom is 1 goal = 1 assist. If we recognize this we should recognize it litterally the same on "global platform" (40 goals = 40 assits) - and here we go: everyone must admit there is not many 40+ goals scorers but there is significantly more players with 40+ assists every year. In last 15 years we have seen exactly one season with 60+ goals. We have seen 61 (!) seasons with 60+ A's. Even season 80+ A's is more common with 5.
As it stands now, to become elite playmaker you need to put higher numbers than to become elite scorer. It's easier to rack up assists no matter how you look at it. I agree that players who actually "make play" are pretty rare too, but goal scorer who scores on almost every "sure" chance is harder to find.
First, using the axiom of 1 goal to 1 assist makes no sense at all. In an earlier post you suggested 1:1.5, which makes more sense.
Let's look at elite playmaking in a direct sense in today's league. How many players are there in the league today that are capable of putting up say a an 80A season? They are extremely few.
Off the top of my head I'd say it's possible for, but certainly not expected of: Henrik Sedin, Joe Thornton, Ryan Getzlaf, Nicklas Bäckström, Pavel Datsyuk, Brad Richards, Martin S:t Louis, Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby. There are some up-and-coming players who might reach that level in the near future, but let's not include them for now.
Fact of the matter is that since the 1999-00 season, only three players have accomplished this feat. Joe Thornton, Sidney Crosby and Henrik Sedin. Using as you suggested earlier, a 1.5:1 ratio of assists to goals, this threshold is ca 53 goals. There are 5 players who scored 53 or more goals since 1999-00. Bure, Jagr, Sakic, Cheechoo and Ovechkin.
If we lower the bar to 40G or 60A then we have 50 players scoring 40 goals or more and 23 players scoring 60 assists or more.
The numbers suggest that elite playmakers are slightly more scarce than elite goal scorers, and that high-level playmakers are twice as scarce as high level goal scorers. I'm not willing to say the difference is that big, but these numbers should beyond any doubt prove that the old adage that top goal-scorers are harder to find is but a myth that doesn't live up to its' claims.
Why do you think that stats goals + assists is the best way of evaluating offense output - maybe you will be surprised but some leagues and national associations use different stats to evaluate offensive output. I have some of them at home. I.e. system where goal is listed as 1.5x and assists as 1x. In soccer there are no assists. Why? Probably because scoring goal is what matters. Putting the puck in the net.
No. I have Lidstrom above Forsberg or Sundin. But for someone who put emphasiz on bigger ice (where skills*> athleticism) or Olympic games. When a player shine on olympics it means something. Why? Because it's where the best hockey is played. Not NHL. So when Forsberg or Sundin perform better there one could make a case for them. It's same as when you put 30 NHL teams into 8. Smaller sample size and all that stuff.. Still, it isn't the best-on-best for nothing.
Well, you're entitled to your own opinion
So why they get a free pass for they inability to score and goal scorers are bashed as puck-hogs or selfish player?
Only if 3 teams are Canadian and there is 2-3 "All-star teams" made out of Europe and Scandinavia.
NHL, has the best checkers and defensive defensmen aswell as the best scorers. A couple of 2 week tournaments every 2 years might not be the best judge of players.
As Theokritos pointed out they at their peak were quite equal goalscorers with Palffy being more dominant in other areas of the game. Can see why Bondra is so poular in Slovakia (the goals during the gold...), even if I think he didn´t do much in the national team besides that. Maybe it´s a bit like me as a swede for a breefe second thinking about taking Nylander before Näslund. For only NHL-followers even mentioning it may be madness, but adding memories from Tre Kronor Nylander actually has it closer than one would think... Amongst the "average swedish hockey/sports-fan" I´m actually quite sure people value Nylander more.
