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.

Mike Modano vs Mark Recchi for Hall of Fame

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2013, 10:52 AM
  #51
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,706
vCash: 500
Usually it is kinda pointless to just compare stats straight up, however Recchi and Modano played in EXACTLY the same seasons, and were essentially the same age. Granted that Modano is a centre, was better defensively and likely played an extra 2 or 3 minutes per game. Both were excellent playoff performers with similar success there as well. They are very, very close in stats... but really was Modano's peak a lot better then Recchi's as is suggested by many posters here? In almost every measure Recchi's peak trumps Modano's. You could argue for Recchi's stats being inflated by being on offensive teams or playing with all-time greats, but really Recchi played his best hockey taking the Flyers and Pens on his back when Lindros and Mario were injured. When he went to Montreal and was asked to play a true 2-way game, he produced typical Modano like offensive numbers, they just look like down seasons compared to Recchi's peak offence.

Also you can look at Modano's getting the Captaincy taken away from him, while Recchi seemingly was a fiesty, competitive leader where he went, certainly he added to the presence and success of the Canes and Bruins Cup teams later in his career. Recchi likely trumps Modano in "leadership". Though that is an unmeasurable intangiable really. My point is that the fact Modano stayed with one franchise for so long and Recchi moved around a great deal for a star player creates an extremely negative bias against Recchi historically from even knowledgeable hockey people.

I am trying to think of comparables to Recchi. I came up with peak Theo Fleury with a 20 year career and none of the headcase shenanigans from late in his career. Or Doug Gilmour, but without the fact he was a great defensive centre. Marty St. Louis could be the best analogy. Small but fiesty playmaking winger that just keeps producing all the time. Like Recchi, St. Louis got to have a great player with him in Stamkos for part of his career. He also kept playing at a high level for a long time. Recchi got an early start, while St. Louis didn't break in or break out until he was 25. St. Louis had a bit of a bonus in his Hart and Ross year that many other top superstars of the previous generation and next generation were not in top form. St. Louis is so associated with one team though, and with some actual serious hardware he is destined to a higher recognition then Recchi. Recchi in a similiar situation may have had a similar type of career though.

What smaller playmaking wingers, that also scored, with long consistent careers are there? Ones that clearly were not made by a great linemate? Alfredsson? Different kind of player, but he gets a lot more credit for being a face of a franchise then Recchi does, and Recchi obviously has the better career. Bill Barber? I don't know. The fact that many have talked over the last 5 years about how Recchi is NOT a HHOF caliber player is ridiculous. Even if you have a more exclusive HHOF then currently, I can't see a player that was that good for that long, with playoff success and Cups and all time stats and peak stats not getting in the Hall. I do think his success as a Bruin added to his legacy a lot. He clearly wasn't just an accumulator there padding stats in meaningless games. Plus if you know much about hockey history, you know that while Recchi did put up some great numbers before the dead puck era started, he played more of his career in a low scoring era. Comparing the HUGE numbers he got for his career versus the guys 5,10,15,20 years older then him... Recchi had a tougher career to score in. I am not big on adjusted numbers, but unlike most of the slightly older all-time scoring leaders, Recchi's numbers actually adjust UP on the all-time list. He is freaking 8th ALL-TIME in the adjusted points leaders at Hockey-Reference. Tied with Selanne right now. Above him are: Gretzky, Howe, Jagr, Messier, Francis, Yzerman. Just behind him are: Mario, Esposito, Dionne, Mikita, Delvecchio, Bourque, Sundin, Modano, Oates, Bucyk, Brett Hull, Beliveau, Shanahan, Robitaille, Coffey, Gilmour. That is the top 25 in adjusted points on their website. You can debate how to adjust points, or whether it has merit really. It is not the be all and end all. But we are only talking about admission to the HHOF, not that he is better then any one of those players. The company he keeps in his all-time offensive contributions are ridiculous. Plus I argue that he has no "garbage time", when he wasn't an effective player. He wasn't always a star at the end of his career, but he was a very effective player on a very good team.

Not saying that Recchi should be inducted this year, after all Oates and Gilmour waited and they got in, like Recchi will soon enough.

Modano

Assists (Most 60)
Top 10 once
60 assists once
50 assists 4 times

Points (Most 93)
Top 10 3 times
90 points twice
80 points 8 times

Goals (Most 50)
Top 10 twice
50 goals once
40 goals once
30 goals 9 times
20 goals 16 times

Also 7 All Star games
1 2nd team All star

Recchi

Assists (Most 73)
Top 10 4 times
70 assists twice
60 assists 4 times
50 assists 7 times

Points (Most 123)
top 10 4 times
100 points 3 times
90 points 5 times
80 points 6 times

Goals (Most 53)
top 10 1 time
50 goals once
40 goals 4 times
30 goals 7 times
20 goals 16 times

Also 7 All Star games
1 2nd team All star

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 11:54 AM
  #52
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,569
vCash: 500
one thing that jumps out at me with recchi's legacy is that he's probably a top 20 playmaking winger of all time. which seems like not that big of a deal, because there haven't been that many great playmaking wingers in hockey history. but another way of thinking about it is maybe that rarity makes him all the more valuable. having a second playmaker from the wing opens up so much space offensively.

i don't have a list, but off the top of my head who's above him? definitely lindsay, howe, bathgate, lafleur, bossy, makarov, jagr, MSL. i think morenz would belong up there too, and there are probably others that i'm forgetting. but i'd put recchi somewhere in the next tier with toe blake, dickie moore, olmstead, kurri, kariya, elias, daniel sedin.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:18 PM
  #53
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Modano from 1996-2003 was about as good as anyone. Could easily go head-to-head with the likes of Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov, etc. He was a premier center at a time when a premier center was key - probably more-so than ever.

It's the years prior (though he was still darn good) and after (still had a couple good twilight seasons incl. 77 points and +23 rating at age 35) that don't particularly help. Doesn't mean he isn't deserving because he is, but had he done something special like put up a 100 point season or two then that would change his perception to the media dramatically. It wouldn't necessarily make him a better player, as I stated earlier there were two seasons when he easily could have ht 100 (93-94 and 97-98) if not for missing games - but perception is reality to the voters.

To summarize, if he doesn't get in I'm burning the HOF down to the ground so if you haven't visited yet, I recommend you do so now. Just in case.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 03:21 PM
  #54
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Modano from 1996-2003 was about as good as anyone. Could easily go head-to-head with the likes of Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov, etc. He was a premier center at a time when a premier center was key - probably more-so than ever.

It's the years prior (though he was still darn good) and after (still had a couple good twilight seasons incl. 77 points and +23 rating at age 35) that don't particularly help. Doesn't mean he isn't deserving because he is, but had he done something special like put up a 100 point season or two then that would change his perception to the media dramatically. It wouldn't necessarily make him a better player, as I stated earlier there were two seasons when he easily could have ht 100 (93-94 and 97-98) if not for missing games - but perception is reality to the voters.

To summarize, if he doesn't get in I'm burning the HOF down to the ground so if you haven't visited yet, I recommend you do so now. Just in case.
He will certainly get in though, so keep your incindiaries at home! Either this year or soon. Gilmour had to wait a couple of years, and he had the better peak, better offence, better defence and better playoff performances... as well as higher career numbers and he was a Toronto darling too. If Modano doesn't get in the first year it is not the end of the world for his candidacy or legacy!

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 04:28 PM
  #55
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,569
vCash: 500
not to worry, teej; there is no universe in which the highest scoring american player of all time doesn't get into the hall of fame.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:27 PM
  #56
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sometime Housley will get in, he does after all have almost 400 more points than the next highest scoring dman on the lsit that isn't in the HHOF.

People can harp all they want on his weaknesses on the back end but simply put Phil scored enough to deserve to be in the HHOF one day.

At the end of the day it's the stats that will have a more lasting impact on his legacy IMO.

There are plenty of Dmen in the HHOF who have questionable "star power" attached to their names already, surely a guy with Phil's resume will make it in after the logjam settles, maybe in 15 kinda like how it did for Oates finally?

That being said it will likely be in a dual player/coach role but at least then the debate and harping on what he wasn't, instead of what he was, will be over.

But then again probably not eh?
It bothers me a lot that he was nothing special in the postseason and when push came to shove the very people who saw him in those seasons never gave him a lot of love for the Norris. Yes, that era was pretty tough to penetrate (1985-1995) when Housley hit his peak, but for a guy who doesn't have a high peak when it comes to the Norris voting he sure doesn't have a lot of other things to off set this. Not defensively strong, not good in the post season and even when the Americans won the World Cup in 1996 he was on the bench as a healthy scratch.

There were a lot of great defensemen during Housley's era, but they all managed to get noticed at a higher rate. They did things that were more memorable, that had more value.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 07:34 PM
  #57
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
not to worry, teej; there is no universe in which the highest scoring american player of all time doesn't get into the hall of fame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
He will certainly get in though, so keep your incindiaries at home! Either this year or soon. Gilmour had to wait a couple of years, and he had the better peak, better offence, better defence and better playoff performances... as well as higher career numbers and he was a Toronto darling too. If Modano doesn't get in the first year it is not the end of the world for his candidacy or legacy!
Fellas, if he's not a 1st ballot I'm gonna hear about it to no end. I need this like Kathy Lee needed Regis.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 09:12 PM
  #58
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 47,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
I wonder if the whole "never had a 100 point season" thing will hurt him. He missed 8 games in 1993-94 and still popped 50 goals and 93 points so it's safe to say he likely hits that 100 and maybe even ends up with 55 goals. Is he all of a sudden looked at differently? Would that have made him a better player?

His 1997-98 season will always pain me too. He was without question the best player (skater anyways) for the first two months of the season - leading the league in scoring and off to his best start ever. It was one of those seasons where everything just came together and he was unstoppable - I compare it to Joe Sakic's Hart season. Then the Bryan Marchment hit and that was that. He only managed 52 games that year but finished with 59 points - obviously returning from knee injury and not being able to pick up exactly where he left off.

To me, he finishes top 3 in points and has a great shot at the Art Ross since Jagr won it with just 102. Possibly wins the Hart too. That would have been his "Sakic season". Then all of a sudden he's a slam dunk.

I think he's good enough to be a slam dunk, I just worry they look at his career as missing that one season. Of course, Sundin was a first ballot - but Modano never played for the Leafs.
Yeah right, against Hasek's 1997-98 season?

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 09:26 PM
  #59
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It bothers me a lot that he was nothing special in the postseason and when push came to shove the very people who saw him in those seasons never gave him a lot of love for the Norris. Yes, that era was pretty tough to penetrate (1985-1995) when Housley hit his peak, but for a guy who doesn't have a high peak when it comes to the Norris voting he sure doesn't have a lot of other things to off set this. Not defensively strong, not good in the post season and even when the Americans won the World Cup in 1996 he was on the bench as a healthy scratch.

There were a lot of great defensemen during Housley's era, but they all managed to get noticed at a higher rate. They did things that were more memorable, that had more value.
Housley getting in would be like Turgeon getting in, as far as I'm concerned. I really hope it doesn't happen, but the HOF seems to have much less strict standards than I do, so who knows.

mrhockey193195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 09:32 PM
  #60
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Yeah right, against Hasek's 1997-98 season?
He at least comes close. Jagr won the Art Ross with just 102 points and didnt come far off.

If Modano has about that or even a few more points and wins the Art Ross, plus has a much better +- rating (Jagr was +17 while Modano was +25 in just 52 games), plus looks nice and shiny as the big dog #1 center on the league's 1st place team, he at least comes very close. And you just don't know how guys would have voted. So yeah, possibly.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 12:08 AM
  #61
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It bothers me a lot that he was nothing special in the postseason and when push came to shove the very people who saw him in those seasons never gave him a lot of love for the Norris. Yes, that era was pretty tough to penetrate (1985-1995) when Housley hit his peak, but for a guy who doesn't have a high peak when it comes to the Norris voting he sure doesn't have a lot of other things to off set this. Not defensively strong, not good in the post season and even when the Americans won the World Cup in 1996 he was on the bench as a healthy scratch.

There were a lot of great defensemen during Housley's era, but they all managed to get noticed at a higher rate. They did things that were more memorable, that had more value.
See Phil your post is exactly the kind I was talking about. Instead of focusing on what Phil did, 11 seasons of more than 62 points in each of his first 11 seasons, people here tend to harp on what he wasn't.

Just to put his 1st 11 seasons in perspective he was 3rd among all Dmen in the NHL over that time period

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Then he goes on to have another offensively productive 9 more seasons. heck in those last 9 seasons he was 8th among all other NHL Dmen in scoring

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

So he wasn't the best Dman in his era, arguably the most competitive era for great Dmen.

Playoffs he played on some pretty lousy teams and had some bad luck as well (95 playoffs with Calgary).

Internationally, Phil played on 4 US teams in best on best criteria spanning the ages of 20-37.


Sure he played half of his career in the 80's but he is freaking 37th in points ever in the NHL.

As a career guy Phil deserves serious consideration for the HHOF IMO and I think at a certain point he will get in as well..


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 11-13-2013 at 12:13 AM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 06:35 AM
  #62
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 47,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
He at least comes close. Jagr won the Art Ross with just 102 points and didnt come far off.

If Modano has about that or even a few more points and wins the Art Ross, plus has a much better +- rating (Jagr was +17 while Modano was +25 in just 52 games), plus looks nice and shiny as the big dog #1 center on the league's 1st place team, he at least comes very close. And you just don't know how guys would have voted. So yeah, possibly.
43 1st-place votes for Hasek (no votes lower than 3rd), no more than 5 for anyone else. Even when constructing a huge sequence of what-ifs (for instance, pro-rating Modano's stats to a full season, then adding extra points on top of that, while not doing the same with Jagr, not pro-rating Selanne's goals and points, and so on), at least operate somewhat close to reality when it comes to the final conclusion.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 08:18 AM
  #63
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
See Phil your post is exactly the kind I was talking about. Instead of focusing on what Phil did, 11 seasons of more than 62 points in each of his first 11 seasons, people here tend to harp on what he wasn't.

Just to put his 1st 11 seasons in perspective he was 3rd among all Dmen in the NHL over that time period

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Then he goes on to have another offensively productive 9 more seasons. heck in those last 9 seasons he was 8th among all other NHL Dmen in scoring

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

So he wasn't the best Dman in his era, arguably the most competitive era for great Dmen.

Playoffs he played on some pretty lousy teams and had some bad luck as well (95 playoffs with Calgary).

Internationally, Phil played on 4 US teams in best on best criteria spanning the ages of 20-37.


Sure he played half of his career in the 80's but he is freaking 37th in points ever in the NHL.

As a career guy Phil deserves serious consideration for the HHOF IMO and I think at a certain point he will get in as well..
I went and looked at Housley's stats. This is the biggest reason he SHOULD be inducted some day:

Total Goals On-Ice For Career NHL 2403 (11th all-time)
Total Goals On-Ice Against Career NHL 1527 (27th all-time)

I certainly was not expecting that kind of gulf between the numbers. I actually went to look at his stats wondering if he was among the leaders in career goals against. While he was a slight minus player his whole career, and he clearly was sheltered of defensive situations and was on PPs all the time and rarely played shorthanded. To be on the ice for almost 900 more goals for your team over a career is stupendous, regardless of circumstances.

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 09:48 AM
  #64
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It bothers me a lot that he was nothing special in the postseason and when push came to shove the very people who saw him in those seasons never gave him a lot of love for the Norris. Yes, that era was pretty tough to penetrate (1985-1995) when Housley hit his peak, but for a guy who doesn't have a high peak when it comes to the Norris voting he sure doesn't have a lot of other things to off set this. Not defensively strong, not good in the post season and even when the Americans won the World Cup in 1996 he was on the bench as a healthy scratch.

There were a lot of great defensemen during Housley's era, but they all managed to get noticed at a higher rate. They did things that were more memorable, that had more value.
Good point with the 1996 World Cup - forgot about that one. Really drives the point home that despite all Housley's nice regular season stats, if you wanted to win big hockey games, you didn't want him on the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
I went and looked at Housley's stats. This is the biggest reason he SHOULD be inducted some day:

Total Goals On-Ice For Career NHL 2403 (11th all-time)
Total Goals On-Ice Against Career NHL 1527 (27th all-time)

I certainly was not expecting that kind of gulf between the numbers. I actually went to look at his stats wondering if he was among the leaders in career goals against. While he was a slight minus player his whole career, and he clearly was sheltered of defensive situations and was on PPs all the time and rarely played shorthanded. To be on the ice for almost 900 more goals for your team over a career is stupendous, regardless of circumstances.
The fact that Housley saw massive PP time, yet saw almost no PK time is the biggest reason why he had more goals on-ice-for than goals on-ice-against.

Housley killed penalties far less often than any other defenseman who played anywhere close to the number of games that he did (overpass has posted the numbers here before). He's so much lower than anyone else, he's basically in his own category.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 10:19 AM
  #65
ManofSteel55
Registered User
 
ManofSteel55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 13,482
vCash: 500
Modano over Recchi, although Recchi might get in in the future in a weak year, his numbers are much more impressive than people remember. Modano was a leader though, and arguably the best player his country has produced up until this point. No close.

ManofSteel55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 10:23 AM
  #66
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,820
vCash: 500
What's impressive about Modano is he racked up those stats playing on Reunion Arena slush for Hitchcock whose dream was to win a game zero to negative one.

Hasbro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 10:28 AM
  #67
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
I went and looked at Housley's stats. This is the biggest reason he SHOULD be inducted some day:

Total Goals On-Ice For Career NHL 2403 (11th all-time)
Total Goals On-Ice Against Career NHL 1527 (27th all-time)

I certainly was not expecting that kind of gulf between the numbers. I actually went to look at his stats wondering if he was among the leaders in career goals against. While he was a slight minus player his whole career, and he clearly was sheltered of defensive situations and was on PPs all the time and rarely played shorthanded. To be on the ice for almost 900 more goals for your team over a career is stupendous, regardless of circumstances.
Terrible argument.

For the reason highlighted.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 11:31 AM
  #68
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
43 1st-place votes for Hasek (no votes lower than 3rd), no more than 5 for anyone else. Even when constructing a huge sequence of what-ifs (for instance, pro-rating Modano's stats to a full season, then adding extra points on top of that, while not doing the same with Jagr, not pro-rating Selanne's goals and points, and so on), at least operate somewhat close to reality when it comes to the final conclusion.
Yes sir.

First pal, I'm taking in to account that when Modano was injured he was leading the league in scoring with 38 points in 30 games. Puts him on pace for 104. Guarantee he keeps that up? No. Out there to think he would have? No. Crazy to think he could have had a couple more? No.

Pro rating Selanne's points he's at 96.

Pro rating Forsberg's he's at 104

Pro rating Jagr's he's at 109

So we have

Jagr 109
Modano 104
Forsberg 104

Forsberg was a +6
Jagr was a +17
Modano was a +25 in just 52 games.

He suffered a major knee injury and missed the next 30 games at a point when he was playing the best hockey of his career.

The fact that Dallas finished 1st overall too would have looked well upon him. And we all know how vital those 2-way centers were to their teams in the Western Conference back then. That to me helps his cause.

He would have at least come close and I'll stand by that. You don't have to. It never happened so it doesn't matter, but it's worth pointing out when talking about his career. I'm willing to admit that it takes a fan to do the pro-rating and ifs and buts. It's pretty legit though to project his season like that given how he was playing and the type of player he was, and it's a lot closer to reality than you're making it out to be.


Last edited by tjcurrie: 11-13-2013 at 11:49 AM.
tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 11:40 AM
  #69
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Terrible argument.

For the reason highlighted.
Exactly. It's actually stunning how high he is in goals against when he rarely killed penalties.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 06:11 PM
  #70
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Yes sir.

First pal, I'm taking in to account that when Modano was injured he was leading the league in scoring with 38 points in 30 games. Puts him on pace for 104. Guarantee he keeps that up? No. Out there to think he would have? No. Crazy to think he could have had a couple more? No.

Pro rating Selanne's points he's at 96.

Pro rating Forsberg's he's at 104

Pro rating Jagr's he's at 109

So we have

Jagr 109
Modano 104
Forsberg 104

Forsberg was a +6
Jagr was a +17
Modano was a +25 in just 52 games.

He suffered a major knee injury and missed the next 30 games at a point when he was playing the best hockey of his career.

The fact that Dallas finished 1st overall too would have looked well upon him. And we all know how vital those 2-way centers were to their teams in the Western Conference back then. That to me helps his cause.

He would have at least come close and I'll stand by that. You don't have to. It never happened so it doesn't matter, but it's worth pointing out when talking about his career. I'm willing to admit that it takes a fan to do the pro-rating and ifs and buts. It's pretty legit though to project his season like that given how he was playing and the type of player he was, and it's a lot closer to reality than you're making it out to be.
i think all he's saying is modano even keeping that pace, even improving on it, would have been very hard pressed to put much of a dent in hasek's first place votes that year.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 07:20 PM
  #71
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 39,779
vCash: 500
Poor Mark Recchi.

I'm not really a fan of his at all, but you do have to feel kinda sorry for his legacy for how overlooked he's always been. He's known as a classic compiler, but man, he did compile a pretty compelling storyline even though ultimately he was this small little guy who wasn't very glamorous at all.

On paper, the guy had a pretty remarkable career.

Won three cups with three different organizations.

His first and last cup came 20 years apart.

Three 100 point campaigns.

Second leading point scorer in the playoffs on the first Penguins cup in 1991.

Led his team in scoring ten separate seasons in Pittsburgh, Montreal and Philadelphia.

Played with Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Patrick Roy, Eric Lindros, Sidney Crosby, Malkin, Chara, etc.

Outscored Mike Modano in career playoff scoring.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 09:44 PM
  #72
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Good point with the 1996 World Cup - forgot about that one. Really drives the point home that despite all Housley's nice regular season stats, if you wanted to win big hockey games, you didn't want him on the ice.
Nothing wrong with that USA defense either. Chelios, Leetch, Suter, both Hatchers, but only two of them are in the HHOF, and likely ever will be. For all Housley did you would think he'd be a lock cinch for that team, but he wasn't and this is after leading his team in scoring in 1996. So really, it does tell you something about him, or in that case, Mike Green if anyone wants a modern day comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
See Phil your post is exactly the kind I was talking about. Instead of focusing on what Phil did, 11 seasons of more than 62 points in each of his first 11 seasons, people here tend to harp on what he wasn't.

Just to put his 1st 11 seasons in perspective he was 3rd among all Dmen in the NHL over that time period

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Then he goes on to have another offensively productive 9 more seasons. heck in those last 9 seasons he was 8th among all other NHL Dmen in scoring

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

So he wasn't the best Dman in his era, arguably the most competitive era for great Dmen.

Playoffs he played on some pretty lousy teams and had some bad luck as well (95 playoffs with Calgary).

Internationally, Phil played on 4 US teams in best on best criteria spanning the ages of 20-37.

Sure he played half of his career in the 80's but he is freaking 37th in points ever in the NHL.

As a career guy Phil deserves serious consideration for the HHOF IMO and I think at a certain point he will get in as well..
Can you remember a single important goal Housley got in his career? I can't. That's a lot of points on the ice and we can't remember his contributions.

Look, if you wanted a guy that could run a power play for 20 years he was your guy. Nothing wrong with that at all, but he was a liability when he was on the ice without the puck. He is one of those guys that falls into the category of having little substance to his game. Someone mentioned Pierre Turgeon. Fair points. I often think there is a trifecta of names (maybe more) of players from each position that will get in someday only on the basis that we forgot just how much they DIDN'T dominate despite what their stats say. Turgeon, Housley and Chris Osgood come to mind right away. Bernie Nicholls is another name. They all put up pretty good numbers but would you ever consider them great?

To me the HHOF has to be about greatness. With Housley would he be trustworthy on the ice in the final minute with a lead? Would a coach even put him out there? Could he shut down Mario Lemieux? Or Messier? Or Lindros? Or Sakic or Forsberg? Would he throw a check if he had to? Did he ever? And even in the postseason was he important? His team makes it to the final once in 1998 and he isn't a factor at all. This is a guy with little else but offense on the table and he had 4 assists in the 1998 playoffs.

You just want more out of the guy, that's all.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2013, 11:23 PM
  #73
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Nothing wrong with that USA defense either. Chelios, Leetch, Suter, both Hatchers, but only two of them are in the HHOF, and likely ever will be. For all Housley did you would think he'd be a lock cinch for that team, but he wasn't and this is after leading his team in scoring in 1996. So really, it does tell you something about him, or in that case, Mike Green if anyone wants a modern day comparison.



Can you remember a single important goal Housley got in his career? I can't. That's a lot of points on the ice and we can't remember his contributions.

Look, if you wanted a guy that could run a power play for 20 years he was your guy. Nothing wrong with that at all, but he was a liability when he was on the ice without the puck. He is one of those guys that falls into the category of having little substance to his game. Someone mentioned Pierre Turgeon. Fair points. I often think there is a trifecta of names (maybe more) of players from each position that will get in someday only on the basis that we forgot just how much they DIDN'T dominate despite what their stats say. Turgeon, Housley and Chris Osgood come to mind right away. Bernie Nicholls is another name. They all put up pretty good numbers but would you ever consider them great?

To me the HHOF has to be about greatness. With Housley would he be trustworthy on the ice in the final minute with a lead? Would a coach even put him out there? Could he shut down Mario Lemieux? Or Messier? Or Lindros? Or Sakic or Forsberg? Would he throw a check if he had to? Did he ever? And even in the postseason was he important? His team makes it to the final once in 1998 and he isn't a factor at all. This is a guy with little else but offense on the table and he had 4 assists in the 1998 playoffs.

You just want more out of the guy, that's all.
i get your point, and i totally agree: housley and turgeon belong in the same sentence as paper tigers. but i think if you're going to throw a goalie into there, it's mighty unfair to chris osgood to say he's the one. and i'm no osgood fan, or detroit fan, and you'll never hear me say that osgood was robbed of a conn smythe, and certainly i'll never argue that he should be a hall of famer. but there have been times when osgood was the difference between winning and losing. and he wasn't always clutch, and was sometimes the opposite of that, but he was also a guy who went toe to toe with the much bigger patrick roy. would housley or turgeon ever stick up for their teams? and osgood did backstop two stanley cup winners.

now evgeni nabokov, there's your paper tiger goalie. someday someone on a message board will look back and say: first team all-star? back-to-back-to-back 40 win seasons? top 15 in GAA and SV% among the goalies in the top 100 of games played? retired (probably) in the top 15 in career wins? where's his plaque? truly a guy where you look back and can't remember a single good thing he ever did in the playoffs. (also, mike gartner; what the hell did that guy ever do?)

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2013, 02:43 PM
  #74
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i think all he's saying is modano even keeping that pace, even improving on it, would have been very hard pressed to put much of a dent in hasek's first place votes that year.
And that's a fair argument. To say that Hasek would have been the best player that season regardless is fine. But saying "at least operate close to reality" is a ridiculous statement. I realize I went off the speculation that Modano would have kept his pace, but it's not as if he came out of the blue. Finishing with 104 (maybe a couple less, maybe a couple more) isn't unrealistic at all when you look at his usual numbers, also when you take a look at many players who have one season or two that sticks out just a little bit more from the rest. Maybe 10 more points than their average, maybe 20. It's not a rarity.

So I wasn't inflating or operating out of touch with reality as he was suggesting. Now would a 104 point season (maybe 2nd in scoring, maybe Art Ross) a +25 and likely better rating, and being the #1 center on the 1st place team beat out Hasek for the Hart? It comes close. He likely does better in the voting than what 2nd place Jagr did. And even with just that, it bolsters the way people look at his career big time which was my point. It's unfortunate.


Last edited by tjcurrie: 11-14-2013 at 03:12 PM.
tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2013, 04:50 PM
  #75
11MilesPerJohan
@BeingAHumanBean
 
11MilesPerJohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: McLean Hospital
Country: United States
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
I think Recchi was the better player.

He certainly had the longevity, and I'm not seeing the numbers to support the fact that Modano had a higher peak. They played in the same era, and Recchi put up more impressive numbers and ended up with more championships. No, he was never the best player on his team, and he played with some other greats, but that isn't his fault.

In addition to the fact that Recchi was never "the man" on his team, I think what hurts him in this comparison is just a difference of aesthetics/style in play. It's kind of like the difference between a show horse and a work horse.

Modano was the type of player that would awe you with his skills. He was breathtaking to watch. He was this long, lean 6' 3'' thoroughbred flying down the ice, and ripping one-timers from the top of the circle. Modano's game tended to be a bit more flashy. The way Recchi played the game was a little less spectacular but as effective, if not more so. He was a great passer, had an underrated shot, but he did his damage in the dirty areas: in the corners, in front of the net, etc. It wasn't as easy to see the "skills" that he possessed. With Modano, it was more apparent, and I think people remember that about him.

11MilesPerJohan 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 05:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.