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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top 60 Centers of All-Time: Round 1 Preliminary Discussion Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2013, 02:32 PM
  #226
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
But if you looked at age 33, you'd see that Gretzky had nearly double of the points that Datsyuk did (and adjusting the numbers to account for the respective league scoring rates doesn't come close to making up the difference).
Really? Only guys strictly looking at stats would take Wayne at age 33 over Dats, over a full season. Wayne had a great season statistically but his offense first style racked up points but not much value in terms of team performance at that point.


Quote:
Nobody's denying that. I'd see him as maybe putting up offensive numbers not far behind those of Hawerchuk, Savard or Stastny, but playing better defence. He'd be one of the best two-way centres in the game, but behind Trottier and Messier in that regard. A definite Hall of Famer.
His defensive and overall game is every bit as good as Trotts or Moose IMO and putting up 120-130 points in the 80's with his overall play would be simply all time great.


Quote:
But by the same standard, put Gretzky in today's game (assuming he has the same training and conditioning advantages available to him that today's players do) and I think he wins every post-lockout scoring title. Not as many points as he had in the 80s, but more than anyone else. If anything, his game would benefit from the allowing of two-line passes.
The transport game is a tough one to gauge, basically impossible, but the 2 line pass thing is really over hyped.

Anyone Wayne is passing to today still has to deal with the same defenses and extremely difficult to score on goalies.

the only real limit on Dats in this project is his career still in progress and some injuries.

A later start might hurt him as well but it sure didn't hurt other players, especially in the top 60 Dman project.

He went 38th in the ATD (different parameters than here) and it's really difficult to see him outside of anyone's top 40 for this project.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 02:35 PM
  #227
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
He went 38th in the ATD (different parameters than here) and it's really difficult to see him outside of anyone's top 40 for this project.
A selection that was highly controversial. Some GMs thought it was a good pick, some thought it was way too early for Datsyuk. All it takes for a player to be picked in the ATD is for 1 of 32 GMs to select him.

(This was also before the 2012-13 had really got off the ground)

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 02:43 PM
  #228
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman View Post
Agreed. I've seen posts here at HF saying Gretzky and Lemieux couldn't compete in the post-2006 NHL. I doubt players who played against them and retired after Lemieux would agree with this theory. If someone has quotes from guys such as Hasek, Lidstrom, Jagr, Sakic, Brodeur, Chelios, Forsberg, etc. proving me wrong I'd love to see them.
With all due respect that's one of the largest straw men I have ever seen on here.

Anyone can post anything here, no one has seriously ever posted that Wayne or Mario couldn't make a post 06 NHL.

Wayne is a lock for 1 overall but Mario doesn't have a lock on 2nd if one values, 2 way play, career, and being a winner (he was after a huge infusion of talent and pedigree) higher than pure offensive eopak and skill sets.

That being said I would be surprised if more than a hand full of people don't have Mario 2nd.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 02:55 PM
  #229
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I think we'll be in a position where every single person has the same top 3, but 4-7 will flop around.

I know I'm going to have Joe Malone far higher on my list than most.



On the topic of where Datsyuk is, I have him 4th of post-lockout centres behind Crosby, Malkin and Thornton. He is one of five post-lockout guys I have (the other being Henrik Sedin).

For all the talk about how great Datsyuk is we have to realize that his offensive finishes are quite weak. If we compare Crosby, Malkin, Thornton, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and H. Sedin we see that.

Crosby: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Malkin: 1, 1, 2
Thornton: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8
Datsyuk: 4, 4, 10
Zetterberg: 6, 9
Sedin: 1, 4, 9

This list ignores Stamkos for no other reason than I feel he's too young to really jump onto this list.

Interesting to note that for Malkin's 7 seasons, he has his rookie season, 3 injured seasons, and 3 seasons in the top 2. A healthy Malkin has so far been a lock for top two in scoring.


While Datsyuk is absolutely elite defensively, his offensive numbers leave a lot to be desired. He is realistically 5th (or 7th if you really like Staal and Stamkos) offensively for centres post-lockout. Even in his best defensive years he has never made up that gap.
your list is a reflection of the top end talent distribution in the league right now. Including Dats you listed 2 Canadians and 4 guys from Europe.

Also the huge drop off in defensive play after Dats and Zetts should count for something here right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 03:10 PM
  #230
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
Without going back to far -- the best two-way centers I've ever seen are:
1) Sergei Fedorov
2) Pavel Datsyuk
3) Peter Forsberg

You take Gretzky, Lemieux and whoever, I'll take those three guys. I'm pretty sure we'll own the puck.

I guess U never saw Bobby Clarke play.


Last edited by Killion: 09-02-2013 at 03:57 PM. Reason: not reqd...
ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 03:12 PM
  #231
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Really can't wait for all the debating to start.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 03:18 PM
  #232
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
your list is a reflection of the top end talent distribution in the league right now. Including Dats you listed 2 Canadians and 4 guys from Europe.

Also the huge drop off in defensive play after Dats and Zetts should count for something here right?
I'd say the talent distribution is more a reflection of the all-time weak of Canadian forward talent drafted in the late 90s. Early lockout, it still had a major effect.

I've always found Dats to be quite overrated defensively. He peaked while playing in front of all-time great Lidstrom and in his peak year (07-08) I would have taken Zetterberg over him. Not only did he have a higher PPG, but he easily outplayed him in the playoffs. While Datsyuk outplayed Zetterberg in the 08-09 season, he was injured in the playoffs as Zetterberg carried the offense of that team.

On the two season peak of Datsyuk, he's arguably behind Zetterberg.

jigglysquishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 03:27 PM
  #233
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I'd say the talent distribution is more a reflection of the all-time weak of Canadian forward talent drafted in the late 90s. Early lockout, it still had a major effect.

I've always found Dats to be quite overrated defensively. He peaked while playing in front of all-time great Lidstrom and in his peak year (07-08) I would have taken Zetterberg over him. Not only did he have a higher PPG, but he easily outplayed him in the playoffs. While Datsyuk outplayed Zetterberg in the 08-09 season, he was injured in the playoffs as Zetterberg carried the offense of that team.

On the two season peak of Datsyuk, he's arguably behind Zetterberg.
I tend to agree with the idea of Datsyuk being overrated "defensively." For instance, he was never a traditional shadow in the way that Zetterberg was. In fact, in the defensive zone in general, between winning defensive board battles and positionally, I found Zetterberg better.

Having said that, Datsyuk was SUCH a force in the neutral zone that I think overall Datsyuk was better defensively. But I think in the overall, general scheme of NHL history, Datsyuk probably isn't a super elite defender like the Carbonneaus, Clarkes, and Pecas of history. Outside of Clarke though, he obviously brought more to the table than those guys so that's why he's someone that's going to be in the top 50 and the others are borderline guys that may or may not make it.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 03:47 PM
  #234
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I know the post you're quoting is about the NHA/NHL, but keep in mind that in the PCHA, the large majority of talent will be considered a center for the purposes of this project. It seems that in leagues that included rovers, the best talent tended to play at that position. Makes sense I guess, a "rover" was able to influence play over more of the ice surface than other players.

So we could very well have a high number of PCHA players on the centers list, and none of them on the wingers list - I believe that Jack Walker is the only PCHA HHOFer we classified as a winger first, and even he spent half his career as a rover. We also had only 2 PCHA defenseman (Moose Johnson and Lester Patrick) on the defenseman list.
that's one balance option as there also seem to be alot of top end wingers from Europe once they came over from eorope.

I just wonder how to fairly balance and rate guys from pre NHL after the obvious ones to guys like Kent Nilsson and Nedomansky for instance.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 03:50 PM
  #235
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
A selection that was highly controversial. Some GMs thought it was a good pick, some thought it was way too early for Datsyuk. All it takes for a player to be picked in the ATD is for 1 of 32 GMs to select him.

(This was also before the 2012-13 had really got off the ground)
I didn't participate in that draft, just thought it a relatively accurate spot for him and 13 actually helps his cause further IMO as it was an elite type of year (for a 2 way forward).

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 04:48 PM
  #236
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I think we'll be in a position where every single person has the same top 3, but 4-7 will flop around.

I know I'm going to have Joe Malone far higher on my list than most.



On the topic of where Datsyuk is, I have him 4th of post-lockout centres behind Crosby, Malkin and Thornton. He is one of five post-lockout guys I have (the other being Henrik Sedin).

For all the talk about how great Datsyuk is we have to realize that his offensive finishes are quite weak. If we compare Crosby, Malkin, Thornton, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and H. Sedin we see that.

Crosby: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Malkin: 1, 1, 2
Thornton: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8
Datsyuk: 4, 4, 10
Zetterberg: 6, 9
Sedin: 1, 4, 9

This list ignores Stamkos for no other reason than I feel he's too young to really jump onto this list.

Interesting to note that for Malkin's 7 seasons, he has his rookie season, 3 injured seasons, and 3 seasons in the top 2. A healthy Malkin has so far been a lock for top two in scoring.


While Datsyuk is absolutely elite defensively, his offensive numbers leave a lot to be desired. He is realistically 5th (or 7th if you really like Staal and Stamkos) offensively for centres post-lockout. Even in his best defensive years he has never made up that gap.
Except Crosby, I can't put any center ahead of Datsyuk, post lockout.


Last edited by Killion: 09-02-2013 at 05:01 PM. Reason: not reqd...
RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 05:31 PM
  #237
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
With all due respect that's one of the largest straw men I have ever seen on here.

Anyone can post anything here, no one has seriously ever posted that Wayne or Mario couldn't make a post 06 NHL.

Wayne is a lock for 1 overall but Mario doesn't have a lock on 2nd if one values, 2 way play, career, and being a winner (he was after a huge infusion of talent and pedigree) higher than pure offensive eopak and skill sets.

That being said I would be surprised if more than a hand full of people don't have Mario 2nd.
I'm a little puzzled as to why Mario's lack of 2 way play is such a detriment but Gretzky's isn't.

Also, considering how long they were able to play and the teams they played on, how is Gretzky so much more of winner?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 05:36 PM
  #238
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
Except Crosby, I can't put any center ahead of Datsyuk, post lockout.
Post lockout, Malkin has 2 scoring titles, a Conn Smythe trophy, a Hart trophy and 3 first team all-star selections.

How about him?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:07 PM
  #239
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Larionov is list-material.
Of your list, IMO, Turgeon and Roenick aren't.
Pretend for a moment that turgeon didn't miss 30 games in 2000 and won the scoring title. Then what would would you say?

We're talking about a top-60 here.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:09 PM
  #240
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Post lockout, Malkin has 2 scoring titles, a Conn Smythe trophy, a Hart trophy and 3 first team all-star selections.

How about him?
Sounds like trophy counting as opposed to actually considering them as overall players.

Malkin is far from a lock to be ahead of datsyuk just because he's about 10% better offensively.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:32 PM
  #241
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Pretend for a moment that turgeon didn't miss 30 games in 2000 and won the scoring title. Then what would would you say?

We're talking about a top-60 here.
Suppose Malkin doesn't miss 15 games in 2010 and adds a 5th place to his scoring finishes? What does that mean for his ranking here?

Too many examples throughout history to play the what-if game in an all-time list. I think a draft is a little bit different in that regard. A list should simply be by accomplishments.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:39 PM
  #242
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I'm a little puzzled as to why Mario's lack of 2 way play is such a detriment but Gretzky's isn't.

Also, considering how long they were able to play and the teams they played on, how is Gretzky so much more of winner?
Well Wayne went to another team and LA was temporarily transformed.

Maybe I can't definitively prove it but Wayne has more the reputation of being a winner and making players around him better.

Mario was the big fish on a poor team and that Pitt team only won the SC 2 times after a huge influx of talent and experience.

The biggest difference between Wayne and Mario is health, who knows what either guy does in the other players situation though.

Mario just doesn't have the ES domination that one would expect from an all time elite player, it's enough of a difference to drop him down from 2nd and maybe put Mikita and Jean ahead of him (and perhaps others over time in the future).

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:34 PM
  #243
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Suppose Malkin doesn't miss 15 games in 2010 and adds a 5th place to his scoring finishes? What does that mean for his ranking here?
It means he played at this level for about 3% more games. To "top 10 finish counters" it might make a big difference. In reality, it makes almost no difference in determining how good a player he is.

Quote:
Too many examples throughout history to play the what-if game in an all-time list. I think a draft is a little bit different in that regard. A list should simply be by accomplishments.
It disappoints me to say, but I see you've missed this point, and by a rather wide margin. the correct answer to the question is, no, of course he could not be dismissed if he was an Art Ross winner. But with 30 more career games played (about 2% more) is he really any better a player? Not really. He'd be the same player he is now.

I'm not saying this is your position, but to anyone who would say "well sure, if he actually finished the 2000 season an Art Ross winner he'd be up on my top-50 but since he didn't, and wasn't a top-10 scorer that season, nuts to him, and I think I'll leave him out of my top-80" - really? 30 games can produce a swing of as many as 30 spots in an all-time list?

This certainly doesn't apply only to Turgeon, and he's not my pet player, but he is the first example of a player where a couple poorly-timed injuries have a catastrophic effect on his resume when it's looked at through the rather narrow lenses of top-10 finishes or even VsX/adjusted points. basically, I'm trying to encourage some deeper thought here.

No one would claim that 52 games = 80, and don't think I would. But the polar opposite view is "too bad, he got injured, it's not a top-10 finish and it's not one of his best percentage scores either, so it has zero impact on what I think of him". But what that's saying is that 52 = 0 and that's an even bigger load of crap than pretending 52 is 80. To state the obvious, 52 = 52.

How we handle cases like this is going to be quite important to Crosby, Forsberg, Malkin, and Lafontaine, in addition to others.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:41 PM
  #244
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted1971 View Post
I guess U never saw Bobby Clarke play.
Sure I did. but not in his prime. And even then, I didn't get to see a ton of him even in the late 70s and early 80s on Hockey Night in Canada.

You also have to remember that in Clark's best year (76) there were 10 guys with 99 points or more.
In 11-12, there was one guy with 99 points.

I'd say that Clark played in the "juiced puck" era, phase 1.

But still he may have been the best center of the 70s, right? Clark, Trottier, Perreault, Dionne, Sittler

Was Esposito really a center?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:42 PM
  #245
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 55,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It means he played at this level for about 3% more games. To "top 10 finish counters" it might make a big difference. In reality, it makes almost no difference in determining how good a player he is.



It disappoints me to say, but I see you've missed this point, and by a rather wide margin. the correct answer to the question is, no, of course he could not be dismissed if he was an Art Ross winner. But with 30 more career games played (about 2% more) is he really any better a player? Not really. He'd be the same player he is now.

I'm not saying this is your position, but to anyone who would say "well sure, if he actually finished the 2000 season an Art Ross winner he'd be up on my top-50 but since he didn't, and wasn't a top-10 scorer that season, nuts to him, and I think I'll leave him out of my top-80" - really? 30 games can produce a swing of as many as 30 spots in an all-time list?

This certainly doesn't apply only to Turgeon, and he's not my pet player, but he is the first example of a player where a couple poorly-timed injuries have a catastrophic effect on his resume when it's looked at through the rather narrow lenses of top-10 finishes or even VsX/adjusted points. basically, I'm trying to encourage some deeper thought here.

No one would claim that 52 games = 80, and don't think I would. But the polar opposite view is "too bad, he got injured, it's not a top-10 finish and it's not one of his best percentage scores either, so it has zero impact on what I think of him". But what that's saying is that 52 = 0 and that's an even bigger load of crap than pretending 52 is 80. To state the obvious, 52 = 52.

How we handle cases like this is going to be quite important to Crosby, Forsberg, Malkin, and Lafontaine, in addition to others.
This is a really good point. I think it would be quite hypocritical for anyone to rank Crosby ahead of Malkin (just as an example) unless they are also willing to give other players similar credit for seasons where they were obviously playing at an elite level before getting injured.

I also suspect I'll have Turgeon higher than many, partly because I don't care in the slightest that he didn't take part in a junior hockey brawl.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:45 PM
  #246
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well Wayne went to another team and LA was temporarily transformed.

Maybe I can't definitively prove it but Wayne has more the reputation of being a winner and making players around him better.

Mario was the big fish on a poor team and that Pitt team only won the SC 2 times after a huge influx of talent and experience.

The biggest difference between Wayne and Mario is health, who knows what either guy does in the other players situation though.

Mario just doesn't have the ES domination that one would expect from an all time elite player, it's enough of a difference to drop him down from 2nd and maybe put Mikita and Jean ahead of him (and perhaps others over time in the future).
Reputation? OK, lets all rank the players by their alleged reps.

Though Mario's team only won 2 Cups, Gretzky's team was so good they could win the Cup without him.

Are you saying Mario is not an all time elite player?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:48 PM
  #247
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Pretend for a moment that turgeon didn't miss 30 games in 2000 and won the scoring title.
Are we also pretending that Marc Savard doesn't miss 37 games in 03-04? Because if he plays those games and produces at the same rate, he beats St. Louis for the scoring title.

Is anybody even remotely considering Marc Savard for their list?

Going by the idea of prorating only one players points and nobody elses, Sidney Crosby has four scoring titles instead of one. Eric Lindros has three instead of zero. Thornton and Forsberg each have two instead of one. And Joe Sakic also gets one; for the same season that Turgeon does. Are all those guys getting bumped up accordingly on the lists because of these phantom scoring titles?

I agree that GP should be considered, but that system doesn't have much validity to me.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:49 PM
  #248
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Sounds like trophy counting as opposed to actually considering them as overall players.

Malkin is far from a lock to be ahead of datsyuk just because he's about 10% better offensively.
So now Trophy counting is out? Since when?

If being overall players is the end all here, most of us should drop our top two centers down the rankings.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 08:52 PM
  #249
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 55,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Are we also pretending that Marc Savard doesn't miss 37 games in 03-04? Because if he plays those games and produces at the same rate, he beats St. Louis for the scoring title.

Is anybody even remotely considering Marc Savard for their list?

Going by the idea of prorating only one players points and nobody elses, Sidney Crosby has four scoring titles instead of one. Eric Lindros has three instead of zero. Thornton and Forsberg each have two instead of one. And Joe Sakic also gets one; for the same season that Turgeon does. Are all those guys getting bumped up accordingly on the lists because of these phantom scoring titles?

I agree that GP should be considered, but that system doesn't have much validity to me.
I don't think the idea is to award Turgeon phantom Art Ross trophies, it's more to recognize "this is a player who accumulated 1300+ career points AND had some great individual seasons, he wasn't just a long-term compiler".

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:06 PM
  #250
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It means he played at this level for about 3% more games. To "top 10 finish counters" it might make a big difference. In reality, it makes almost no difference in determining how good a player he is.



It disappoints me to say, but I see you've missed this point, and by a rather wide margin. the correct answer to the question is, no, of course he could not be dismissed if he was an Art Ross winner. But with 30 more career games played (about 2% more) is he really any better a player? Not really. He'd be the same player he is now.

I'm not saying this is your position, but to anyone who would say "well sure, if he actually finished the 2000 season an Art Ross winner he'd be up on my top-50 but since he didn't, and wasn't a top-10 scorer that season, nuts to him, and I think I'll leave him out of my top-80" - really? 30 games can produce a swing of as many as 30 spots in an all-time list?

This certainly doesn't apply only to Turgeon, and he's not my pet player, but he is the first example of a player where a couple poorly-timed injuries have a catastrophic effect on his resume when it's looked at through the rather narrow lenses of top-10 finishes or even VsX/adjusted points. basically, I'm trying to encourage some deeper thought here.

No one would claim that 52 games = 80, and don't think I would. But the polar opposite view is "too bad, he got injured, it's not a top-10 finish and it's not one of his best percentage scores either, so it has zero impact on what I think of him". But what that's saying is that 52 = 0 and that's an even bigger load of crap than pretending 52 is 80. To state the obvious, 52 = 52.

How we handle cases like this is going to be quite important to Crosby, Forsberg, Malkin, and Lafontaine, in addition to others.
I just don't understand why you speak of Turgeon in particular as a hypothetical Art Ross winner when he only finished 4th in points per game.

I mean, you have a point that a single poorly timed injury shouldn't detract too much from a player and that we should look at more than just year-end finishes. But I don't think Turgeon in 2000 is really the best example, not when the top 2 finishers in ACTUAL points (Jagr and Bure) both finished ahead of Turgeon in points-per-game, as well


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-02-2013 at 09:21 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe 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 04:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.