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.

How close was Keith Tkachuk to Eric Lindros?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2013, 11:17 AM
  #26
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I don't think physical play has anything to do with it. Someone like Theo Fleury managed to be fairly productive without having extremely high PIM totals (although he got up there a couple of times). Wendel Clark was over 250 his first two years, then never over 200 again (in fact, only over 150 once more). In Cam Neely's three 50-goal seasons, his PIM totals were 117, 98, and 54. Jeremy Roenick's career high was 130.
Well, Theo and JR didn't play like any of the guys you mentioned or as a PF, so it's hard for me to compare them to Tkachuk. Neely's PIM totals was when he was on one leg, he had slowed down the rough stuff by this point. Clarke is a good example on paper. but maybe someone else can chime in about Clarke as I didn't really watch him play that much.

Again, there was a time when PIMs carried a badge of honor and those types of players were revered for being able to play tough as nails and put the puck in the net. Fans nowadays did not favorably view that style of play as much. It's different now, so it's hard for me to put in words exactly what a big deal it was to get 200 PIMs and net 50.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 11:42 AM
  #27
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I recall attending Game 2 of the Blues-Sharks series in 2004 in San Jose. (Separately, this is still the worst refereed game I have ever seen at any level in my life.) Blues trailed by a goal with almost exactly two minutes to play, and down 1-0 in the series, needed desperately to use the final two minutes to stage any hope of getting back in the series. Scott Hannan had the puck at the center red line and dumped it in. Tkachuk took two full strides, the puck was already bouncing off the Blues' end boards, and Tkachuk just went out of his way to charge him right in front of the ref. Maybe the only good, obvious call in the game, obviously ending the game. I was blown away by the selfishness of it. The guy was making 10M/yr at the time and his NTC was the reason the Blues had to trade Pronger instead once the lockout ended.

Anyway, I can make a pretty good argument that Keith Tkachuk is the least clutch first line forward to ever play in the NHL. Nobody has been a first liner on more choking teams (THREE separate 3-1 chokes, and also a 3-2 choke.) After his third choke, a blown 3-1 had only happened 20 times ever and he'd been a major forward on 15% of them in all NHL history. Mind-boggling. Four game sevens, zero points. Zero tying or go ahead third-period goals in 85 playoff games (more than an entire season). When you look closely at when Tkachuk would score, he'd get a goal in a 6-0 blowout early in a series and then utterly disappear. His playoff goals were almost all irrelevant. He NEVER produced in the playoffs when it mattered. I say this not as a general statement but as someone who watched nearly all of those games and who has done the actual research. He was a selfish choker and he absolutely deserves the label. He was definitely worse than Joe Thornton in this regard. At the time of his retirement he had also earned over 70 million and ranked fourth on the all time money list.

I hated Eric Lindros, but he was easily better than Tkachuk.
i think tkachuk has some competition in prime bertuzzi, but yeah all of that is pretty consistent with how i feel about the guy.

i will say, though, in his first couple of years in winnipeg, he was a lethal forechecker. he was the best jet in that '92 series where vancouver came back from the 3-1 deficit. as time went on, he lost that element of his game. sure, he'd still dominate guys in the corners and bully guys in front of the net, but he was no longer the first man in on every dump in, plastering defensemen to the end boards every shift. that guy was downright frightening.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 11:54 AM
  #28
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
It's different now, so it's hard for me to put in words exactly what a big deal it was to get 200 PIMs and net 50.
It's very true. Those 200 mins could be assumed to be full of 5 minute fighting majors (for "answering the bell" for how they played, of course), and it's very much frowned upon these days for 50 goal scorers (or even just "top goal scorers", to "adjust for era", lol) to rack up PIMs with their fists. "Why let a bum take your best player off the ice for 5 mins?", "Why risk injuring those valuable hands?", etc, etc.

Shanahan, Stevens, Roberts, Thachuk, Clark, Lindros, Neely all fit the bill, and there certainly was a "badge of honour" that went with not just playing that way, but being recognized among the best at doing so.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 01:11 PM
  #29
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
It's very true. Those 200 mins could be assumed to be full of 5 minute fighting majors (for "answering the bell" for how they played, of course), and it's very much frowned upon these days for 50 goal scorers (or even just "top goal scorers", to "adjust for era", lol) to rack up PIMs with their fists. "Why let a bum take your best player off the ice for 5 mins?", "Why risk injuring those valuable hands?", etc, etc.

Shanahan, Stevens, Roberts, Thachuk, Clark, Lindros, Neely all fit the bill, and there certainly was a "badge of honour" that went with not just playing that way, but being recognized among the best at doing so.
Yes, fighting was a big part of the game back then. Now we have threads where 50% of the people whine for mandatory face shields. I have to be honest, I think those fans should go watch soccer, hockey is not for them and they are eroding the greatness of the game. Same as with 50 goals and 200 PIMs, fans that didn't watch back in those days, do not understand what a big deal it is. I wish I could express it and tell newer fans what that did for a team, how it translated on the ice for the player and what it did for a team on the whole to have a Keith Tkachuk beat the snot out of you than turn around get a hattie to win the game but I don't know how with a fan base that cries for face shields.

Now Lucic makes a questionable check which used to be common place but now it gets 500000 people calling him dirty.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  #30
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Again, there was a time when PIMs carried a badge of honor and those types of players were revered for being able to play tough as nails and put the puck in the net.
Badge of Honour or not it wasn't good all the time to have your star player in the box for 5 minutes with a no talent goon. Or hurt and out of the lineup for 20-30 games a season because of a needless fight with a no talent goon or a reckless retaliation hit on a no talent goon. Cam Neely for example was asked to tone down on the fights because he was needed on the ice to help his team. Players like Kevin Stevens and Gary Roberts could do that kind of stuff more because better players on the team carried the load.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 02:02 PM
  #31
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
Badge of Honour or not it wasn't good all the time to have your star player in the box for 5 minutes with a no talent goon. Or hurt and out of the lineup for 20-30 games a season because of a needless fight with a no talent goon or a reckless retaliation hit on a no talent goon. Cam Neely for example was asked to tone down on the fights because he was needed on the ice to help his team. Players like Kevin Stevens and Gary Roberts could do that kind of stuff more because better players on the team carried the load.
Reading this, you obviously do not understand how the game was nor will I ever make you understand. Bobby Orr dropped the gloves regularly. Nuff said.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 03:43 PM
  #32
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Well, Theo and JR didn't play like any of the guys you mentioned or as a PF, so it's hard for me to compare them to Tkachuk. Neely's PIM totals was when he was on one leg, he had slowed down the rough stuff by this point. Clarke is a good example on paper. but maybe someone else can chime in about Clarke as I didn't really watch him play that much.

Again, there was a time when PIMs carried a badge of honor and those types of players were revered for being able to play tough as nails and put the puck in the net. Fans nowadays did not favorably view that style of play as much. It's different now, so it's hard for me to put in words exactly what a big deal it was to get 200 PIMs and net 50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Yes, fighting was a big part of the game back then. Now we have threads where 50% of the people whine for mandatory face shields. I have to be honest, I think those fans should go watch soccer, hockey is not for them and they are eroding the greatness of the game. Same as with 50 goals and 200 PIMs, fans that didn't watch back in those days, do not understand what a big deal it is. I wish I could express it and tell newer fans what that did for a team, how it translated on the ice for the player and what it did for a team on the whole to have a Keith Tkachuk beat the snot out of you than turn around get a hattie to win the game but I don't know how with a fan base that cries for face shields.
I don't need an explanation; I was actually alive then and remember these days.

From 1917-18 to 1979-80, there was not one single skater who had 50 goals and 200 PIMs. Heck, there wasn't one who had 40 goals and 200 PIMs, or 50 goals and 150 PIMs. The only guy to hit 40 goals and 150 PIMs was Brian Sutter in 1978-79, with 41 goals and 165 PIMs.

From 1980-81 to 1989-90, there were no skaters who had 50 goals and 200 PIMs. There were three who had 40 goals and 200 PIMs; Brian Sutter (once), Pat Verbeek (twice), and Al Secord (twice). Two had 50 goals and 150 PIMs, those being Secord and Rick Vaive. A handful of others have 40 goals and 150 PIMs (Kevin Dineen, Rick Tocchet, Mark Hunter, Cam Neely, Warren Young, Mike Foligno, Paul MacLean).

From 1995-96 to 2012-13, there was one player who had 50 goals and 200 PIMs. That was Keith Tkachuk, who did it once. That season is the only one in that time span with 40 goals and 200 PIMs, and one of two (he has the other) with 50 goals and 150 PIMs. Eric Lindros (one time) is the only other one who had 40 goals and 150 PIMs in a season.

And that means that we're basically looking at the time span of 1990-91 to 1993-94 where this "badge of honor" existed. Three players had 50 goals and 200 PIMs (Stevens, Roberts, Shanahan). Tocchet, Verbeek, and Tkachuk all had 40 goals and 200 PIMs, and Shanahan and Stevens had 50 goals and 150 PIMs. 40 goals and 150 PIMs also included Tocchet, Stevens (both different season from the previous ones), Fleury, Owen Nolan, and John MacLean.

1994-95 had two prorated seasons of 40 goals and 150 PIMs (23 goals and 88 PIMs), which were Theo Fleury and Joe Murphy. Whether that could have been sustained is unknown, so it's tough to even list them.

So in all of NHL history, here's what we have.
50 goals and 200 PIMs - 4 players, 4 total seasons
40-49 goals and 200 PIMs - 5 players, 8 total seasons
50 goals and 150 PIMs - 5 players, 5 total seasons
40 goals and 150 PIMs- 13 players, 14 total seasons

But here's the important thing. Look at that list of names. How many HOFers are on there? How many marginal HOFers? How many All-Stars? How many marginal All-Stars? How many were ever regarded as the best in the game, the best of the second tier, or anything else?

It was a short-lived phenomenon. I stand by my original opinion, which is that it was something that was hyped by THN in order to fill an issue with their "Intensity Quotient" and, like many other random groupings, is interesting but not meaningful. Plenty of players have intimidated others to an extreme extent, but you don't see them anywhere on this list. Why is that?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 05:40 PM
  #33
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,858
vCash: 500
That's all fine and good, Mayor Bee, but it's much more complicated. For starters, what constitutes a penalty, how they're called, and when/how often, has evolved tremendously over the time span you're covering there. The size of the league, and thus games played, has as well. Heck, the roles the players on the ice have played, and the "division of labour" depending on the strengths/weaknesses of the individuals has evolved as well.

But the major problem, imo, is looking at this like we're putting a badge to an actual arbitrary threshold, here. 200 is a nice round number, and is representative of a decently large sample, but it's more about how the guys played - guys who scored lots of goals, settled many scores with their own fists, and earned the respect of everyone on both benches for being able to fill that kind of role and being that productive. The guys who play(ed) that way have naturally ended up beyond the 100 PIM mark, so hitting 200 isn't necessarily everything. You can get close and still qualify for "the badge". Gordie Howe was one of these guys MUCH before '79/80, and it would be interesting to go back through stock footage and "retroactively assess" penalties to him as we watch the film, lol. Possibly breaks 200 on occasion depending on the officiating standards, and that would be in ~70 game seasons.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 10:42 PM
  #34
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,514
vCash: 500
Not at Lindros level but Tkachuk is one of the most underrated players on these boards...People think he is nowhere close to HHOF due to his playoff resume...The guy is just criminally underrated...IMO he should be in the HHOF since he is one of the greatest PF of all time...And was one of the best at camping in front of the net and wreaking havic in the history of the game...However about 90% of this board is going to say he is not close to HHOF level...The guys is close to 550 goals 1100 points along with 2200 PIM.

5 times he was top 10 in goals leading the league once, 5 times in the top 10 of game winning goals, 7 times in the top 10 in PP goals, 7 times in the top 10 of goals per game. Ranks 29th overall in offensive point shares.

Another thing amazing about his 96-97 dominant season is that out of his league leading 52 goals 41 where at even strength.

Granted he is one of my favorite players of all time so obviously I am higher on him then most but that does not change the fact that while he was not on Lindros level he was still one of the best players in the 90's and one of the best pure PF's ever...He was alot better as a PF then leclair who most people think is better then Tkachuk.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 10:50 PM
  #35
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,153
vCash: 500
A 100% healthy Lindros versus a 100% in-shape Tkachuk ... that I would have paid to see!

Two potential top-100 all-time greats... what a waste.




VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 11:25 PM
  #36
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
No, he didn't do enough. If he's in the HOF then a lot of players are, like LeClair, Fleury, Mogilny. I don't think he's much better than Bondra.
Take away Keith 18 game rookie season and he ranks 4th in goals and 12th in points for his career.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=goals

add in his 18 game rookie season he is still 5th and 14th

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=goals


I doubt there is any player who is top 5 goals in his career against his peers that isn't in the HHOF and Keith added grit and toughness too, he wasn't some one trick pony.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 11:25 PM
  #37
untouchable21
You've been TROUBA'D
 
untouchable21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Outer Limits.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I don't need an explanation; I was actually alive then and remember these days.

From 1917-18 to 1979-80, there was not one single skater who had 50 goals and 200 PIMs. Heck, there wasn't one who had 40 goals and 200 PIMs, or 50 goals and 150 PIMs. The only guy to hit 40 goals and 150 PIMs was Brian Sutter in 1978-79, with 41 goals and 165 PIMs.

From 1980-81 to 1989-90, there were no skaters who had 50 goals and 200 PIMs. There were three who had 40 goals and 200 PIMs; Brian Sutter (once), Pat Verbeek (twice), and Al Secord (twice). Two had 50 goals and 150 PIMs, those being Secord and Rick Vaive. A handful of others have 40 goals and 150 PIMs (Kevin Dineen, Rick Tocchet, Mark Hunter, Cam Neely, Warren Young, Mike Foligno, Paul MacLean).

From 1995-96 to 2012-13, there was one player who had 50 goals and 200 PIMs. That was Keith Tkachuk, who did it once. That season is the only one in that time span with 40 goals and 200 PIMs, and one of two (he has the other) with 50 goals and 150 PIMs. Eric Lindros (one time) is the only other one who had 40 goals and 150 PIMs in a season.

And that means that we're basically looking at the time span of 1990-91 to 1993-94 where this "badge of honor" existed. Three players had 50 goals and 200 PIMs (Stevens, Roberts, Shanahan). Tocchet, Verbeek, and Tkachuk all had 40 goals and 200 PIMs, and Shanahan and Stevens had 50 goals and 150 PIMs. 40 goals and 150 PIMs also included Tocchet, Stevens (both different season from the previous ones), Fleury, Owen Nolan, and John MacLean.

1994-95 had two prorated seasons of 40 goals and 150 PIMs (23 goals and 88 PIMs), which were Theo Fleury and Joe Murphy. Whether that could have been sustained is unknown, so it's tough to even list them.

So in all of NHL history, here's what we have.
50 goals and 200 PIMs - 4 players, 4 total seasons
40-49 goals and 200 PIMs - 5 players, 8 total seasons
50 goals and 150 PIMs - 5 players, 5 total seasons
40 goals and 150 PIMs- 13 players, 14 total seasons

But here's the important thing. Look at that list of names. How many HOFers are on there? How many marginal HOFers? How many All-Stars? How many marginal All-Stars? How many were ever regarded as the best in the game, the best of the second tier, or anything else?

It was a short-lived phenomenon. I stand by my original opinion, which is that it was something that was hyped by THN in order to fill an issue with their "Intensity Quotient" and, like many other random groupings, is interesting but not meaningful. Plenty of players have intimidated others to an extreme extent, but you don't see them anywhere on this list. Why is that?
It was actually called "Intimidation Quotient".

untouchable21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 12:28 AM
  #38
MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
 
MarkusNaslund19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country:
Posts: 1,274
vCash: 500
I always thought that Tkachuk was overrated in the same way that Roenick was. They got more hype and exposure because they were Americans playing in a time when the NHL was really trying to grow the game south of the border.

Tkachuk was never a great player. He was a guy who would do some great things, but you sometimes felt like he did what he did and if that helped his team win, great.

Lindros was on another level. I hated Lindros, but have to admit that, at his peak (for me that's arguably the first 3 rounds of the 97 playoffs) he was an unstoppable force. He was one of the most dominant players I have ever seen. In his own way, he was more dominant than prime Ovechkin.

MarkusNaslund19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 07:39 AM
  #40
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
A 100% healthy Lindros versus a 100% in-shape Tkachuk ... that I would have paid to see!

Two potential top-100 all-time greats... what a waste.
Tkachuk was nowhere close to being a top 100 all-time player.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 08:03 AM
  #41
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Tkachuk was nowhere close to being a top 100 all-time player.
So being 4th(or 5th if we count his 18 game rookie season) in goals, and 2nd behind 1 Canadian, for his career makes him nowhere near being close to the 100 of all time?

Even with his poor playoff record, this is the hill modern players must climb when being compared to past greats in less competitive times.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 08:21 AM
  #42
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
So being 4th(or 5th if we count his 18 game rookie season) in goals, and 2nd behind 1 Canadian, for his career makes him nowhere near being close to the 100 of all time?

Even with his poor playoff record, this is the hill modern players must climb when being compared to past greats in less competitive times.
Here's a list of players better than Keith Tkachuk who played a significant chunk of their careers between the 94 and 05 lockouts (and I'm not saying this is all-inclusive either, plus I'm leaving out Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, and several others):

Mario Lemieux
Jaromir Jagr
Dominik Hasek
Patrick Roy
Joe Sakic
Nicklas Lidstom
Ray Bourque
Steve Yzerman
Teemu Selanne
Sergei Fedorov
Martin Brodeur
Chris Chelios
Brian Leetch
Al MacInnis
Peter Forsberg
Pavel Bure
Chris Pronger
Eric Lindros
Mike Modano
Mats Sundin
Doug Gilmour
Scott Niedermayer
Mark Recchi
Ed Belfour
Brendan Shanahan

How many of these guys do you want on a Top 100 players list before modern players aren't "underrepresented"?


Last edited by Epsilon: 03-14-2013 at 08:32 AM.
Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 08:31 AM
  #43
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,082
vCash: 500
Tkachuk was a 2nd team all-star twice and a 3rd team all-star twice, at a position that was the weakest/shallowest in the NHL during the meat of his career. Among his contemporaries at left-wing:

Paul Kariya was a 1st team all-star 3 times and a 2nd team all-star twice.

John Leclair was a 1st team all-star twice, a 2nd team all-star 3 times, and a 3rd team all-star once.

Brendan Shanahan was a 1st team all-star 3 teams, a 2nd team all-star once, and a 3rd team all-star twice, in addition to being a monster in the playoffs.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 09:49 AM
  #44
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by untouchable21 View Post
It was actually called "Intimidation Quotient".

Nice word, I like.

But don't bother trying to explain, some people will never understand the impact of a 50 goal 200 PIM guy or a high PIM player. Some fans see PIMs as a liability, never understanding sometimes you have to do what you have to do. PFs create space for themselves, sometimes you beat other players down for the long term effect, not just for that game. It's an intangible, some people can't grasp the abstract. Anyhow, nice word once again.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 09:58 AM
  #45
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Nice word, I like.

But don't bother trying to explain, some people will never understand the impact of a 50 goal 200 PIM guy or a high PIM player. Some fans see PIMs as a liability, never understanding sometimes you have to do what you have to do. PFs create space for themselves, sometimes you beat other players down for the long term effect, not just for that game. It's an intangible, some people can't grasp the abstract. Anyhow, nice word once again.
Lovely.

Now, do you care to address anything I said?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 10:05 AM
  #46
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Lovely.

Now, do you care to address anything I said?
Those two guys already did, maybe you didn't notice. I won't get into a HFBoard cyclical argument. I have the crappy Bruins board for that.


You don't get it, that's cool by me. It's a bygone era anyhow as you did point out. I appreciate the time you put in but you are missing the value of players like that, I can't explain it to you nor will I.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 10:24 AM
  #47
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Take away Keith 18 game rookie season and he ranks 4th in goals and 12th in points for his career.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=goals

add in his 18 game rookie season he is still 5th and 14th

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=goals


I doubt there is any player who is top 5 goals in his career against his peers that isn't in the HHOF and Keith added grit and toughness too, he wasn't some one trick pony.
Yeah, but that's a compilers argument. I'm not necessarily saying Tkachuk was a compiler, but that's a compilers argument. We're talking about a player here who, much like Bondra, never was a top 10 scorer in the league. His best years he was 13th, 15th, 11th, 12th, 19th. That's nothing to scoff at, but it's a tier below the best.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 10:36 AM
  #48
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
Yeah, but that's a compilers argument. I'm not necessarily saying Tkachuk was a compiler, but that's a compilers argument. We're talking about a player here who, much like Bondra, never was a top 10 scorer in the league. His best years he was 13th, 15th, 11th, 12th, 19th. That's nothing to scoff at, but it's a tier below the best.
He is a tier below but he does have several top 10 goals scored including what would have been a Rocket Richard trophy. 7,1,6,7,10 finishes good for 30th all time. Power Forwards generally lack in the assist side of the point totals and end up about even goals to assists.

To me is is not HoF material but he shouldn't be written off either nor ridiculed for his PIMs. It was a big part of his game and it worked.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 10:38 AM
  #49
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
Tkachuk was a very good complementary player though on the '96 US World Cup team behind All Star teammates. You'll have to give him credit for that.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2013, 06:40 PM
  #50
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Tkachuk was a 2nd team all-star twice and a 3rd team all-star twice, at a position that was the weakest/shallowest in the NHL during the meat of his career. Among his contemporaries at left-wing:

Paul Kariya was a 1st team all-star 3 times and a 2nd team all-star twice.

John Leclair was a 1st team all-star twice, a 2nd team all-star 3 times, and a 3rd team all-star once.

Brendan Shanahan was a 1st team all-star 3 teams, a 2nd team all-star once, and a 3rd team all-star twice, in addition to being a monster in the playoffs.
Kariya and Shanahan were both great players so being behind them is not a horrible thing...And seeing how bad you hate Tkachuk and have always been one of his biggest haters on these boards its not shock that you would think LeClair is better.

Tkachuk is the only 500 goal scorer with 1000+ points that gets crapped on and is looked at as being an OK player...Clearly the most underappreciated goal scorer of the era.

jarmoismyhero 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 10:17 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.