HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Centers)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2013, 08:51 AM
  #26
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom View Post
I'm curious to see what made Stastny drop from above Forsberg in the 2008 top 100 to him appearing at least two rounds later. Probably more time digesting Forsberg's work because he played 2 games since then.
Stastny was an offense only player whose offense doesn't set him apart in any significant way from the likes of Denis Savard. He's been historically overrated and this project should hopefully correct that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Based on the criteria that people are using to prop up Forsberg, Crosby has even more of a case. (ie. all those PPG arguments)

The only con is he did it in even fewer actual games.

Crosby is the same case as Forsberg amplified even more both on the pro and con side.
Good point.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 09:15 AM
  #27
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Based on the criteria that people are using to prop up Forsberg, Crosby has even more of a case. (ie. all those PPG arguments)

The only con is he did it in even fewer actual games.

Crosby is the same case as Forsberg amplified even more both on the pro and con side.
Yeah Crosby has better PPG... should that matter at all when he hasn't played even measly 500 games?

Both have same amount of points top-10s, but Forsberg actually has at least some longevity to go with those.

Both have a sole Hart.

Forsberg's three 1st ASTs pretty much double Crosby's 1st & 2nd.

Forsberg's twice the playoff performer than Crosby.

Forsberg's notably ahead defensively and with better intangibles.

I don't think Crosby is an amplified Forsberg, more like another Lindros in the making (yeah yeah, heresy, whatever).

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 10:05 AM
  #28
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Yeah Crosby has better PPG... should that matter at all when he hasn't played even measly 500 games?
My point was that it will be interesting to see if the people backing Forsberg also back Crosby who has a better PPG argument but 500 games instead of 700. I'm not usually that much of a fan of giving players the benefit of the doubt for games they didn't play over extended stretches like these two.

I much prefer trying to rank players with more meat on their careers, too. Mostly because it makes it easier and there are less what-ifs.

Quote:
Both have same amount of points top-10s, but Forsberg actually has at least some longevity to go with those.
Longevity in years compared to Crosby but not an awful lot in games. We're talking 2.5 seasons worth and Crosby is still playing and only 26.

Quote:
Both have a sole Hart.

Forsberg's three 1st ASTs pretty much double Crosby's 1st & 2nd.

Forsberg's twice the playoff performer than Crosby.

Forsberg's notably ahead defensively and with better intangibles.

I don't see Forsberg as being twice Crosby in anything up to this point to be honest.

Possibly better on the defensive side (frankly I think they both get overstated in this area) but then Crosby is a better goal scorer so..

Quote:
I don't think Crosby is an amplified Forsberg, more like another Lindros in the making (yeah yeah, heresy, whatever).
Crosby will almost certainly finish his career as better than either unless his career is ended by injury.

I'm with you on being skeptical about both of them because of their relatively short careers in terms of GP but these are two very talented hockey players when they did play.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 10:11 AM
  #29
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Guess I'll have to sully my hands with a vote for Forsberg then, as Crosby being up for the vote is an absolute joke.
I don't totally get this, to be honest. Strictly offensively, how is Forsberg & Crosby more peak than Fedorov? Now I'm a Fedorov fan and couldn't care less about a guy like Crosby, but one can't deny that Fedorov's regular season peak as a top guy when it comes to offense was very very brief, basically only two seasons. Yeah, Fedorov brought it in the playoffs, but Forsberg did too. I don't think Fedorov's 4 last years in the NHL with Columbus & Washington really adds anything to his case. So Fedorov could hang with NHLers in his mid to late 30s? Well of course he could he's Sergei Fedorov. All players of that calibre could hang with NHLers at that age if only healthy. If he had to carry his team alone in the regular season like Bure or Lindros for example perhaps he wouldn't have been as healthy in the end? I think his international play adds more than those four seasons. How many games a player suits up in the NHL shouldn't be the be all and end all of a players case.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 10:55 AM
  #30
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Crosby is still playing and only 26.
Not relevant.


I would have Forsberg narrowly ahead of Crosby. Here's a comparison from the thread TDMM posted of Crosby's 2008 and 2009 playoffs against Forsberg's 1999 and 2002 playoffs.

Quote:
1999
Average Opponent GA: 187
1.26 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
13 ESP, 9 PPP, 1 SHP, 1 ENP; 2:30 penalty kill ice-time
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (24 points on 56 goals) 43%
Team Goal Differential: +2

2002
Average Opponent GA: 192
1.35 points-per-game (1.35 without ENG)
20 ESP, 7 PPP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 54 goals) 50%
Team Goal Differential: -2

2008
Average Opponent GA: 216
1.35 points-per-game (1.20 without ENG)
10 ESP, 14 PPP, 3 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 61 goals) 44%
Team Goal Differential: +18

2009
Average Opponent GA: 238
1.29 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
19 ESP, 10 PPP, 2 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (31 points on 79 goals) 39%
Team Goal Differential: +15

Forsberg appeared to provide higher value to his team under worse conditions in their two best runs.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 10:56 AM
  #31
Rob Scuderi
Moderator
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I look forward to a comprehensive comparison of Kennedy and Schmidt. Two more similar players are rarely seen, yet, canon has Schmidt solidly ahead. Why?
Here's what I came up with.

Point Finishes
Kennedy: 4 (1951), 5 (1945), 5 (1947), 9 (1952), 11 (1955), 13 (1948), 15 (1949), 17 (1950), 18 (1953), 20 (1944), 20 (1954)

Schmidt: 1 (1940), 4 (1947), 4 (1951), 10 (1941), 10 (1952), 18 (1942)

I don't know how much the 10-20 finishes matter, but I figured I'd list them.

Point Per Game Finishes
Kennedy: 4 (1951), 6 (1947), 7 (1945), 7 (1950), 10 (1952)

Schmidt: 2 (1940), 3 (1951), 4 (1947), 8 (1942), 10 (1941)

Schmidt is listed as C/D on hockey-reference.com, do we know anything about the seasons he may have played some defense? He is listed as C/D in 1940 from the Hart Trophy voting from the award voting thread and managed an Art Ross.

Playoff scoring
Kennedy: 1 (1948), 2 (1945), 2 (1947), 2 (1949), 4 (1951)
Lead Team in 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1954 (2 points), 1955 (4 points)

Schmidt: 1 (1941), 4 (1946), 6 (1948), 8 (1939)
Led team in 1941, 1946, 1947 (4 points), 1948

All-Star Teams
Kennedy
2nd Team: 3 (1950, 1951, 1954)
3rd Team: 3 (1945, 1947, 1954)

Schmidt
1st Team: 3 (1940, 1947, 1951)
2nd Team: 1 (1952)
3rd Team: 2 (1939, 1946)

Schmidt's 1939 was a 21 point finish placement, but he was less than 10 points away from a top 5 finish. He actually finished ahead of Marty Barry in the voting who finished 4th in scoring.

Hart Trophy Voting
Kennedy: 1 (1955), 2 (1950), 5 (1948), 5 (1951), 5 (1953)

Schmidt: 1 (1951), 2 (1947), 4 (1940), 5 (1950)

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 11:01 AM
  #32
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Crosby has an even smaller amount of GP but even better PPG rates compared to his peers. And more traditional Top 10s as well.
Five seasons each... unless you're counting 2013-14. Forsberg was also top-10 in assists seven times (seven seasons), while Crosby was top-10 in goals or assists six times (five seasons).

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 11:04 AM
  #33
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Forsberg appeared to provide higher value to his team under worse conditions in their two best runs.
The claim was that Forsberg was twice the playoff performer Crosby has been.

Not to mention I am going to immediately question the "under worse conditions" because personally I would take the Avs teams over the Pens teams from those two runs any day.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 11:26 AM
  #34
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
 
bigbuffalo313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,319
vCash: 500
Crosby has been a big what if since 2010. The people that think he will keep up those insane ppg numbers should look at his full seasons for comparison. In his 4 full seasons he had 1 season over 110 points. Each short season has him projecting for more and so far this season he is on pace for 104 points and has proven that he goes through slumps. He has one Art Ross and one Hart. He would only have 1 guareenteed extra for both if it wasn't for injuries (last season). His claim for the best player in the world has been for his Art Ross season and his three shorten ones after 2010. From 08-10 it was Ovechkin and his rookie season it was between Jagr and Thornton. Of his shorten seasons only one has him guareenteed to have been the best if he played the full season (last year). He lost the Calder in his rookie year and lost the Conn Smythe in his one Cup run.

Also when and how do we vote for if we want to include 4 or 5 players in each round after this one?

bigbuffalo313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 11:36 AM
  #35
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
I'm far from a Crosby supporter, but He might have a case in being in My top 5 for this list. His adjusted stats are off the charts and the differential between the TGF and TGA are astounding for a player entering His 9th season in the league. I have to really look at things in this round.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 11:43 AM
  #36
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
Do we have to vote for 8 guys? Guess I'll have to sully my hands with a vote for Forsberg then, as Crosby being up for the vote is an absolute joke.[/QUOTE]

This is how I feel about Fedorov. WAY too early for Him in My eyes.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 11:48 AM
  #37
ChiTownPhilly
Registered User
 
ChiTownPhilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S Jersey near Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 339
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ChiTownPhilly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
May I humbly suggest that the phrase "a joke" is at least as loaded as the word "wrong?"

Now, with that out of the way- I've got Schmidt #1, and am looking forward to taking good, long looks at Teeder Kennedy and Sergei Fedorov. Now, Kennedy has the same kind of post-season résumé that made me breathless over Bryan Trottier, leavened-up with retroactive Conn Smythes and all. Noticed that 'Rob' started a side-by-side between Schmidt and Kennedy- but to this we should add a couple of basics-

1) Schmidt started his NHL-career six years earlier than Kennedy.
2) Schmidt finished two years earlier than Kennedy.

3)
"The Best Years of Our Lives":
Schmidt had three of the young-prime years of his career ripped out by World War II. I hope that we can make a relevant distinction between time lost to tragic-death v. time lost to injury v. time lost to languishing in lesser leagues v. time lost due to World War. That latter one, in particular (and the latter two, in general) should be held on a higher plane. We are not giving credit for what might have been, but instead for what was, absent extraordinary conditions not at all in control of the player. Milt Schmidt did not stop being a good hockey player in 1943. He had other business to which to attend. So did Apps. Apps was more offensively consistent, so we judged the time-loss in that light (I think). If so- that's fair... but Apps lost ages 29 & 30. Schmidt lost ages 24-25-26. Based on what we know of career-arcs, the latter is the more significant loss.

ChiTownPhilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 12:10 PM
  #38
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
The claim was that Forsberg was twice the playoff performer Crosby has been.
That was just a rough accomplishment reference off the fact that Forsberg has almost twice the number of games, has twice as many Cups, twice as many Rnd3 runs & twice as many playoff point leads.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 12:17 PM
  #39
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
I don't totally get this, to be honest. Strictly offensively, how is Forsberg & Crosby more peak than Fedorov? Now I'm a Fedorov fan and couldn't care less about a guy like Crosby, but one can't deny that Fedorov's regular season peak as a top guy when it comes to offense was very very brief, basically only two seasons. Yeah, Fedorov brought it in the playoffs, but Forsberg did too. I don't think Fedorov's 4 last years in the NHL with Columbus & Washington really adds anything to his case. So Fedorov could hang with NHLers in his mid to late 30s? Well of course he could he's Sergei Fedorov. All players of that calibre could hang with NHLers at that age if only healthy. If he had to carry his team alone in the regular season like Bure or Lindros for example perhaps he wouldn't have been as healthy in the end? I think his international play adds more than those four seasons. How many games a player suits up in the NHL shouldn't be the be all and end all of a players case.
You said it yourself, strictly offensively. But there's much more to it than just points. I don't have the file where I compared the 90s generation in award voting here at home (obviously did that at work ), but when I counted top-5 placements in AST, Hart & Selke votings, Fedorov came just a hair ahead of Forsberg (it basically came to two Selkes vs. two 1st ASTs with not-so-stunning competition, IIRC).

Overall, I have Fedorov very slightly over Forsberg. Crosby? He should be good 10+ spots behind both.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 12:35 PM
  #40
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbuffalo313 View Post
.

Also when and how do we vote for if we want to include 4 or 5 players in each round after this one?
Same time you vote on the players this round - just send the vote for player to Hawkey Town and the vote on procedure to me.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 12:45 PM
  #41
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,996
vCash: 500
NHL All-Star Teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) 1930-31 to 2012-13

3rd Teams are unofficial, but derived from the same voting that gave the 1st and 2nd Teams.

PlayerFirstSecondThirdTotal
Wayne Gretzky 8 7 1 16
Jean Beliveau 6 4 1 11
Mario Lemieux 5 4 0 9
Stan Mikita 6 2 0 8
Phil Esposito 6 2 0 8
Bobby Clarke 2 2 3 7
Bill Cowley 4 1 1 6
Syl Apps 2 3 1 6
Milt Schmidt 3 1 2 6
Henri Richard 1 3 2 6
Norm Ullman 1 1 4 6
Ted Kennedy 0 3 3 6
Elmer Lach 3 2 0 5
Joe Sakic 3 0 2 5
Marcel Dionne 2 2 1 5
Bryan Trottier 2 2 1 5
Sidney Crosby 2 1 2 5
Joe Thornton 1 2 2 5
Gilbert Perreault 0 2 3 5
Peter Forsberg 3 0 1 4
Frank Boucher* 3 1 0 4
Hooley Smith* 1 1 2 4
Max Bentley 1 1 2 4
Dave Keon 0 2 2 4
Steven Stamkos 0 2 2 4
...    
Sergei Fedorov 1 0 0 1

Note on Henri Richard:

The writers who vote on Post-Season All Star Teams do not like voting for 2 centers from the same team. In fact, since the All-Star Teams were created at the end of the 1931 season, the two official center spots have been taken by teammates only 3 times - all of them by Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard (in 1958, 1959, and 1961). For a modern example, neither Forsberg or Sakic could make it onto the 2nd Team when the other was on the 1st Team. Neither could Crosby and Malkin.

Richard's record is awfully impressive considering he was competing with Jean Beliveau from his own team.

Note on Sergei Fedorov:

The only time Fedorov finished top 3 in All-Star voting was when he won the Hart in 1993-94. 1995-96 did have insane competition for center, however, and Fedorov was 5th in Hart voting that year. I believe that Fedorov spent part of 1995-96 as RW on the Russian Five unit.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 01:08 PM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Yeah Crosby has better PPG... should that matter at all when he hasn't played even measly 500 games?

Both have same amount of points top-10s, but Forsberg actually has at least some longevity to go with those.

Both have a sole Hart.

Forsberg's three 1st ASTs pretty much double Crosby's 1st & 2nd.

Forsberg's twice the playoff performer than Crosby.

Forsberg's notably ahead defensively and with better intangibles.

I don't think Crosby is an amplified Forsberg, more like another Lindros in the making (yeah yeah, heresy, whatever).
Maybe that's why you're so down on Crosby - your information is out of date. He has 2 First Team ASs after 2012-13 to go along with 1 2nd Team. And there's a very good chance he would have gotten another 2nd Team in 2008-09 when he finished 3rd in scoring, if he wasn't on the same team as Art Ross winner Evgeni Malkin. Instead that 2nd Team went to Datsyuk and Crosby finished 3rd.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 01:24 PM
  #43
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,028
vCash: 500
Schmidt vs Kennedy

The attractive debate this round but also very important in the overall discussion of centers. Too bad it did not arise earlier.

The center position generates 60 minutes of ice time per game. Key is determining how the minutes are distributed and amongst how many centers. This allows for a snapshot of how effective the individual centers were, offensively and defensively. Illustrating with the 1950-51 regular season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1951.html

Leafs distributed the time amongst four centers, Ted Kennedy, Max Bentley - both HHOF quality and two vg-excellent centers - Cal Gardner,
Fleming Mackell. Perhaps the earliest example of a four center rotation.

The 1950-51 Boston Bruins:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1951.html

used three centers - HHOF Milt Schmidt, Paul Ronty and a young Dave Creighton and some filler.

The Leafs were significantly more productive offensively from the center position, yet Schmidt, Kennedy, Bentley are a wash offensively from a first glance examination.

The four center rotation allows a team to optimize the attributes of each center, yet it reduces the offensive numbers of the top centers - see Boston the last few seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/2014.html

Will develop this the next few days.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 01:31 PM
  #44
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 500
Missed out on the last round (busy), but it turned out pretty much how I expected. We have a few recent big names (Sid, Fed, Forsberg) coming out, should be exciting.

jigglysquishy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 01:31 PM
  #45
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,996
vCash: 500
Career spans after the top 16

This is a rough guide as to how we are representing eras. It includes the entire career span of a player, including non-prime years and years when they were temporarily retired or injured. Exception: I end Frank Boucher's span at his first retirement due to the exceptional circumstances of his brief comeback during World War 2.

pre-1904: none
1904: one
1905-1911: two
1912-1920: three
1921-1922: four
1923: five
1924-1927: four

1928-1930: three
1931-1935: two
1936-1937: three
1938: two
1939-1948: one
1949: zero
1950-1958: one

1959-1963: two
1964-1968: three
1969-1971: four
1972-1974: three
1975-1977: four
1978-1980: six
1981: five
1982: four
1983: five
1984: six
1984-1987: five
1988-1994: six
1995-1999: five
2000-2004: four

2005-2006: three
2007-2008: one
2008-present: none

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 01:34 PM
  #46
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPhilly View Post
May I humbly suggest that the phrase "a joke" is at least as loaded as the word "wrong?"

Now, with that out of the way- I've got Schmidt #1, and am looking forward to taking good, long looks at Teeder Kennedy and Sergei Fedorov. Now, Kennedy has the same kind of post-season résumé that made me breathless over Bryan Trottier, leavened-up with retroactive Conn Smythes and all. Noticed that 'Rob' started a side-by-side between Schmidt and Kennedy- but to this we should add a couple of basics-

1) Schmidt started his NHL-career six years earlier than Kennedy.
2) Schmidt finished two years earlier than Kennedy.

3)
"The Best Years of Our Lives":
Schmidt had three of the young-prime years of his career ripped out by World War II. I hope that we can make a relevant distinction between time lost to tragic-death v. time lost to injury v. time lost to languishing in lesser leagues v. time lost due to World War. That latter one, in particular (and the latter two, in general) should be held on a higher plane. We are not giving credit for what might have been, but instead for what was, absent extraordinary conditions not at all in control of the player. Milt Schmidt did not stop being a good hockey player in 1943. He had other business to which to attend. So did Apps. Apps was more offensively consistent, so we judged the time-loss in that light (I think). If so- that's fair... but Apps lost ages 29 & 30. Schmidt lost ages 24-25-26. Based on what we know of career-arcs, the latter is the more significant lossv[/B].

Schmidt wasn't exactly stellar beofre and after the lost war years though, so we can't really do much more than average what he might have lost.

Sid and Forsberg both lost time to lockouts as well.

As for Ssid not being in the mix as the best layer in the world for very long, people should note that he was 6th in NHL scoring in his rookie year and the list of guys ahead of him isn't a whose who of defensive type of players either.

Sid was in the mix as the best player in the NHL from day 1 till the end of last season which is the cutoff line for his consideration.

My fear is that people will hold back a guy still playing becasue he might do alot in the rest of his career and then challange for a really high spot all time and kinda upset the applecart in this section.

Sid was the 3rd highest scoring NA player in his rookie year to give one a context apples to apples look at how high he started his career.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 01:47 PM
  #47
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Maybe that's why you're so down on Crosby - your information is out of date. He has 2 First Team ASs after 2012-13 to go along with 1 2nd Team. And there's a very good chance he would have gotten another 2nd Team in 2008-09 when he finished 3rd in scoring, if he wasn't on the same team as Art Ross winner Evgeni Malkin. Instead that 2nd Team went to Datsyuk and Crosby finished 3rd.
Not my fault that HR lacks that.

Doesn't change too much however - we're talking about players we've all seen throughout their whole careers anyway. Say, is there some way to check primary/secondary assist breakdown for players?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 02:02 PM
  #48
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Not my fault that HR lacks that.

Doesn't change too much however - we're talking about players we've all seen throughout their whole careers anyway. Say, is there some way to check primary/secondary assist breakdown for players?
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=821020

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 02:14 PM
  #49
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sid was in the mix as the best player in the NHL from day 1 till the end of last season which is the cutoff line for his consideration.
The cutoff is Wednesday night.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2013, 02:15 PM
  #50
ChiTownPhilly
Registered User
 
ChiTownPhilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S Jersey near Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 339
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ChiTownPhilly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sid and Forsberg both lost time to lockouts as well.
True- that's worth considering... but can we at least conclude that those two had more opportunities to stay in "hockey-shape" than Apps & Schmidt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Schmidt wasn't exactly stellar before and after the lost war years though, so we can't really do much more than average what he might have lost.
I'm glad you brought this up- because it gives us a chance to look at this a little more in-depth. 'Spose it depends on how broadly (or narrowly) you define "before and after the lost War Years," and how high a level you have to achieve to be called "stellar."

Two years before Schmidt's service began, he won his one Art Ross trophy. The year before, his regular season numbers dipped-- but once again achieved Professional Hockey's EveryGoal, and has been credited with a retroactive Conn Smythe in the process.

Upon his return, his regular-season output looks very pedestrian... but perhaps we can consider that maybe it took him a while to get his "ice-legs" back under him, considering where he'd been? The season after, he was back in the top-5 in scoring, finishing behind Max Bentley (who's less defensively responsible, by acclamation), Maurice Richard (no shame in that), and (barely) Billy Taylor's annus mirabilis.

Is all of the above "less than stellar?" Comes down to semantics, I guess- but if I were a Bs fan of the time, I think I woulda been happy with what he brought...


Last edited by ChiTownPhilly: 11-30-2013 at 01:12 AM. Reason: it was the SECOND time he won the Stanley Cup
ChiTownPhilly 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 04:22 PM.

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

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