HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 7 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2009, 06:52 AM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
And not that it's my business or anything, but is certain Gilbert Perreault gonna show up as a candidate soon? I would take him over Mikhailov and have him on the same level as/slightly below Makarov.
....then you shouldn't have Makarov or Mikhailov in your Top-100.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:09 AM
  #27
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
....then you shouldn't have Makarov or Mikhailov in your Top-100.
I think that is what we call 'an opinion'... well, like mine.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:19 AM
  #28
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Makarov = Kent Nilsson?????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
As far as Mikhailov vs. Makarov goes...
Firstly, IMO Firsov should be ahead of both (and ahead any Russian whose name is not Fetisov).

Now, I don't see any great differences in Mikhailov's and Makarov's careers; Makarov has more awards, Mikhailov has a slightly better numbers, I think. Mikhailov aged better (probably at his best as a 34-year old in 1978-79), but on the other hand, Makarov made it way earlier to a national team player, so that evens it out. Against top - and actually BETTER - NHL competition, Makarov was more impressive IMO, but it might be a bit unfair, since Mikhailov was denied of the chance to play in the 1976 Canada Cup.

What it comes down to me is skills. Anyone who has seen them both couldn't possibly claim that Mikhailov had better skills - skating, stickhandling, shooting, playmaking, you name it, Makarov was superior. I think the only areas where Mikhailov gave Makarov fits, were goal-scoring (in the slot), and leadership (as the team captain and all), and maybe defensive play (and even that only in the latter stage of his career), and those are just not enough for me. If you were a defenseman, Makarov skating at full speed towards you just gave altogether bigger fright than Mikhailov, I'm sure.
Basically your comparison of Mikhailov to Makarov reduces Makarov to a slightly better Kent Nilsson.Perimeter player, no leadership, minimalist defense.

How many times in a game would a defenseman face a Makarov type player one on one at full speed? How many times in a game would a defenseman have to confront a Mikhailov type player in the slot - virtually every power play and shift. How many times would a defenseman have to physically battle a Makarov vs a Mikhailov during a game, in front of the net, behind the net, in the corners?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:38 AM
  #29
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Question of perspective. When Makarov and Mikhailov were playing the Swedes and Finns, were they facing the BEST Swedes and Finns from the seventies and eighties? Of course not. Rarely did they face - Borje Salming, Anders Hedberg, Neilson and a approx ten others who were playing in the NHL/WHA. Likewise Finland - Kurri, Ketola, Riihiranta and approx. 10 others were playing in the NHL/WHA. Did you mention this above? No, yet you definitely knew about it based on your previous posts - example quoting Ketola to support Kharlamov.
What on earth is this talk about Finland? Did I say that Finland was ever a tough opposition for USSR? Finland was what it was. They were hopelessly outgunned vs. the Soviets BEFORE their players started to go to WHA and NHL (around '73-74, like Swedish players), and they remained hopelessly outgunned AFTER that. Just look how 'well' they did in the first 4 Canada Cups (actually they didn't even play in the 1984 CC). I did not make any case for Finland, no sirry bob.

And yes, I did mention that until 1973-74, Sweden had all the best players playing in the World Championships; which a person with a decent mind should be able to interpret = after 1973-74 they DIDN'T have all the best players playing in the WC, eh?

But like I said, outside the best of Canada (who they did not play against in the WCs) and Czechoslovakia (who they did play against), there were no true Gold medal candidates anyway. Yes, Sweden got the fluke win in '87, big deal.

BTW, didn't Overpass just yesterday say that for the '80s Edmonton Oilers, only Calgary offered any serious challenge during the regular season and the earlier stages of the playoffs? What does that tell about the quality of the NHL in the '80s? (no, I'm NOT suggesting that the Soviet league was as good - or better, ha!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You cite the number of games Makarov and Mikhailov played against Sweden - Lite, Finland- Lite, Czechs without the Stastny's, Canada during their careers BUT you neglect the length of their international careers - 10 to 15 seasons. So when you do the basic math they may have played Canada ( not an elite Canada) 3-5 times a year, the European teams 5-6 times a year yet never under NHL circumstances such as an eighty game schedule with stretches of 3 games in 4 nights or a seven game playoff series with constant adjustments and changing defensive strategies.
So when you look at international players how do you compare a Vasiliev who looked good and promising for a few games a year against Canada to a Borje Salming who produced game after game at a very high level, in the NHL for over ten seasons?
Czechs without Stasnys, oh please!

Peter Stastny was about the only Stastny who mattered, and if the Czechoslovak team without him was somehow a much lesser team... well, I guess Team Canada's win over USSR at the 1984 Canada Cup was worthless, since the Soviets didn't have their best player, namely Vyacheslav Fetisov.

We just have a different view on the matter; I say that there is nothing that suggests to me that the best Soviet, no, the best Eastern bloc players wouldn't have made it big in the NHL - NOTHING. Take a look at the aforementioned Peter Stastny; never won the scoring title in the Czechoslovak league or in the WCs... he goes to NHL, and is a +100 scorer right away. And he is the ONLY great player from the Eastern bloc who went to NHL when he was still young. The only one. I'm not saying that every single one of them would have succeeded (maybe Maltsev, for example, would have been uncomfortable with the North American style of play), but yes, the vast majority of them would have - that is of course my opinion, but hell, I don't think you can prove me wrong (and I know I can't prove me right, but there you go).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Basically the vast majority of the stats generated by the better Soviet players came from Soviet league games.Then you look at the joke that was the Soviet league - not exactly competitive - CSKA(stacked), Spartak, and Dynamo and the remaining teams????????? that were the hockey equivalent of the Washington Generals. How many players on the bottom four Soviet teams could have played above the ECHL level? Yet this is what was happening when peristroyka and the break-up of the Soviet Union allowed Soviet players to come to North America. A number of the Soviet League players who were playing regularly against Makarov,Fetisov, Larionov etc wound up in the ECHL yet these were from the bottom 150 of the top 200 Soviet players. Guaranteed that none of the top 500 North American players from the 1990-92 era were playing in the ECHL at that time. (Not interested in reading about those North Americans with major sobriety / substance issues or other self destructive behavior as counter examples).
Since I don't think I've ever used the Soviet league numbers as proof of someone's greatness (unless I've compared some Soviet players vs. each other), I don't feel a great urge to answer this one.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:48 AM
  #30
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Ugh...Frank Nighbor still not on the list for the top-70 while contemporaries Taylor and Lalonde both make the top-30 and Malone the top-50?! Considering how strong the argument is that Frank Nighbor was the best skater of his generation, this is becoming a rather extreme injustice.

The fact that MacInnis comes up for a vote before Gadsby is also rather galling.

As far as the available players are concerned...how I'd rate them:

1) Aurele Joliat
2) Tim Horton
3) Sergei Makarov
4) Sprague Cleghorn
5) Jari Kurri
6) Boris Mikhailov
7) Richard "Dickie" Moore
8) Ted Kennedy
9) Frank Brimsek
10) Peter Stastny
------------------------------------------
11) Nels Stewart
12) Cy Denneny
13) Brett Hull
14) Peter Forsberg
15) Al MacInnis

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:53 AM
  #31
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Basically your comparison of Mikhailov to Makarov reduces Makarov to a slightly better Kent Nilsson.Perimeter player, no leadership, minimalist defense.
I think that is what we call 'putting words in someone's mouth'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
How many times in a game would a defenseman face a Makarov type player one on one at full speed? How many times in a game would a defenseman have to confront a Mikhailov type player in the slot - virtually every power play and shift. How many times would a defenseman have to physically battle a Makarov vs a Mikhailov during a game, in front of the net, behind the net, in the corners?
Hey man, I don't know. In this case, I believe my eyes, and they tell me that, yes, Makarov was giving defensemen more trouble with his playmaking and 1-on-1 skills than Mikhailov ever did. And I have to say that I do prefer 'Guy Lafleur to Phil Esposito', if you know what I mean (well, Espo was far bigger & stronger than Mikhailov, but that's the best NHL equivalent I could come up with now).

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:00 AM
  #32
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
But then................

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Ugh...Frank Nighbor still not on the list for the top-70 while contemporaries Taylor and Lalonde both make the top-30 and Malone the top-50?! Considering how strong the argument is that Frank Nighbor was the best skater of his generation, this is becoming a rather extreme injustice.

The fact that MacInnis comes up for a vote before Gadsby is also rather galling.

As far as the available players are concerned...how I'd rate them:

1) Aurele Joliat
2) Tim Horton
3) Sergei Makarov
4) Sprague Cleghorn
5) Jari Kurri
6) Boris Mikhailov
7) Richard "Dickie" Moore
8) Ted Kennedy
9) Frank Brimsek
10) Peter Stastny
------------------------------------------
11) Nels Stewart
12) Cy Denneny
13) Brett Hull
14) Peter Forsberg
15) Al MacInnis
But then you go and rank Makarov, Brett Hull, Peter Stastny ahead of Forsberg which really makes sense and only goes to show the major flaws in your perspective.

Granted the Nighbour and Gadsby omissions are onerous as are some of the other rankings to date - Hasek, Hall, Bathgate especially, but that is what you get with the process in place.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:15 AM
  #33
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
I think that is what we call 'putting words in someone's mouth'.



Hey man, I don't know. In this case, I believe my eyes, and they tell me that, yes, Makarov was giving defensemen more trouble with his playmaking and 1-on-1 skills than Mikhailov ever did. And I have to say that I do prefer 'Guy Lafleur to Phil Esposito', if you know what I mean (well, Espo was far bigger & stronger than Mikhailov, but that's the best NHL equivalent I could come up with now).
Actually it is called introducing a third or multiple comparables, in this instance Kent Nilsson. The point where arguments are tested. Anyone could be viewed as a close second best if the comparison is limited to two.

Which defensemen? NHL defensemen or Russian, International defensemen on a larger surface?

Makarov certainly did not give the early 1990's defensemen in the NHL any more trouble than an Alex Kovalev gave NHL defensemen with his playmaking and 1 on 1 skills with the Canadiens the last few seasons yet we are talking roughly the same age for each player with app the same unadjusted stats / team results. Nice to watch for a few seconds a game but at the end the results are not there.

Again Makarov and Kovalev in their thirties in the NHL do you have evidence of a top 100 player?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:40 AM
  #34
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Actually it is called introducing a third or multiple comparables, in this instance Kent Nilsson. The point where arguments are tested. Anyone could be viewed as a close second best if the comparison is limited to two.

Which defensemen? NHL defensemen or Russian, International defensemen on a larger surface?

Makarov certainly did not give the early 1990's defensemen in the NHL any more trouble than an Alex Kovalev gave NHL defensemen with his playmaking and 1 on 1 skills with the Canadiens the last few seasons yet we are talking roughly the same age for each player with app the same unadjusted stats / team results. Nice to watch for a few seconds a game but at the end the results are not there.
Any defensemen... on the earth... moon... milky way. Does that maybe cover it?

Yes, of course he should have as a 31-year old player coming from totally different system set the NHL on fire, but he couldn't. Poor Makarov. Still, better numbers than Jari Kurri, for example, at the same age. You know, a guy who played in the NHL from his early 20s.

We had John 'Mad Dog' Madden playing in the Finnish league during the 2004-2005 lockout, and he was a total failure. I'm sure there are other examples, but that is the one that came to mind. It would have been interesting to see, how well, say, a >30-year old Frank Mahovlich, for example, would have done in the Soviet league. Or even Wayne Gretzky.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:26 AM
  #35
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
So basically, their careers are worthless

I just can't understand that some people here act like all they were facing was a Poland, East or West Germany, Netherlands or even Finland.

http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=m003

http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=m018

As seen there (scroll down), Makarov faced Czechoslovakia 64 times, Mikhailov 57 times. Sweden 63 and 61 and various Team Canadas 54 and 46 times, respectively. Of the weaker teams, Finland was the only one they faced regularly.

I mean, do you even realize that they faced the same Czechoslovakia in WC and other international tournaments as in the Canada Cup? And that until 1973-74, it was the best possible Sweden that played in the WCs too? And besides, do you think that any other team outside Canada would have given them major problems (regularly) even with their best possible lineup? USA? Nope. Finland? Nope. Sweden (after '73-'74). No, not even them. Hockey is/was ridiculously small sport, and when you got the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, you got 2 out of 3 best teams in the World (maybe the only ones that REALLY mattered).

It was like...

Canada, Soviet Union


Czechoslovakia




Sweden

+ rest...

Now, if you noticed some weaknesses in Mikhailov and/or Makarov, when they faced Canada, that's fine, but if you didn't, I really don't see the problem. Or why don't you just simply take the stand that those guys never proved themselves (a la Ogopogo), so you don't care about them... rather than give them, for want of a better word, backhanded compliments?
The World Championships and the Olympics are not best-on-bests. Period. How many players on the Czechoslovakia team were good enough to play in the show? How many Swedes were good enough to play in the show?

And these tournaments are/were played on big ice, which results in a hockey that simply isn't as good as when it's played on the NHL/North American-sized ice surfaces.

I put far more stock into Mikhailov's MVP at the 1979 Challenge Cup than I do any award he picked up at the World Championships or the Olympics. I look at what he did in the most significant hockey event of all-time - the 72 Summit Series. And while the numbers weren't great, he was still the guy who did the mucking and grinding. Yes, it was a dirty play when he kicked Gary Bergman (an act which, if he committed it in the NHL, would like get a three or four-game suspension), but reality for a guy like Mikhailov is that he's still a very valuable guy even when he isn't scoring.

And I put far more stock in Makarov's 84 Canada Cup than anything he did at the World Championships or the Olympics.

As I've said countless times before: hockey's World Championships is the least relevant World Championships in sports. That's not to say it's irrelevant. It's just not as significant as that of other sports. At least the Olympics now has the very best players in the sport involved. Couldn't say that in 88.

Incidentally, I have Perreault ninth on my list for the best players not up for consideration yet. And he's ahead of six guys who are eligible for voting this round.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:30 AM
  #36
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
But then you go and rank Makarov, Brett Hull, Peter Stastny ahead of Forsberg which really makes sense and only goes to show the major flaws in your perspective.
It shows only that I value consistency and longevity (and, by extension, health), though to be honest, I don't think anyone on my list below Kennedy deserves to make it this time around. I also believe that among all scoring forwards, Forsberg benefited most from the clutch-and-grab-but-no-fighting hockey that characterised the dead puck era, and that in another setting his style of play would either be more heavily penalized by the refs or more heavily punished by opponents.

The fact that Forsberg was a hypocritical crybaby doesn't help him in my eyes, either. Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that Forsberg had a better career than Stastny? Hull and Makarov are hard to compare to a playmaking center like Forsberg (and I realize you have a special dislike for Makarov), but Peter Stastny obviously is not. Make your case then.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 10:10 AM
  #37
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
The World Championships and the Olympics are not best-on-bests. Period. How many players on the Czechoslovakia team were good enough to play in the show? How many Swedes were good enough to play in the show?

And these tournaments are/were played on big ice, which results in a hockey that simply isn't as good as when it's played on the NHL/North American-sized ice surfaces.

I put far more stock into Mikhailov's MVP at the 1979 Challenge Cup than I do any award he picked up at the World Championships or the Olympics. I look at what he did in the most significant hockey event of all-time - the 72 Summit Series. And while the numbers weren't great, he was still the guy who did the mucking and grinding. Yes, it was a dirty play when he kicked Gary Bergman (an act which, if he committed it in the NHL, would like get a three or four-game suspension), but reality for a guy like Mikhailov is that he's still a very valuable guy even when he isn't scoring.

And I put far more stock in Makarov's 84 Canada Cup than anything he did at the World Championships or the Olympics.

As I've said countless times before: hockey's World Championships is the least relevant World Championships in sports. That's not to say it's irrelevant. It's just not as significant as that of other sports. At least the Olympics now has the very best players in the sport involved. Couldn't say that in 88.
I can understand what you're saying, but boy, it surely sounds so stubbornly tunnelvisioned (to me).

How many Czechoslovak players were good enough to play in the, er, 'show'? let me see now: Holecek, Dzurilla, Pospisil, Bubla, Machac, Martinec, Hlinka, Novy, Jiri Holik, Peter Stastny, Nedomansky... of course, some of them did play in the NHL, but as it has been mentioned, only P. Stastny did so when still young & in his prime. I'm sure you disagree with that list, but IMO that is at least partly due to the fact that you don't basically care (like Ogelipogeli).

In the '70s, Czechoslovakia won 3 world championships and won over 30 % of their games against USSR. If someone wants to count them (I'm sure you care that much ), well ---->:
http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_co...sp?country=czk (especially look at the years 1974-77)

And Team Canada didn't actually prove their superiority over the Czechs in the 1970s either. In 1972, a lucky draw (they equalled the score with about 5 seconds left), in the 1976 CC a loss, one blowout win and an OT win.

CSSR was hardly a pushover, though a little inconsistent from time to time.

Yeah, and the Canada Cup was probably the least relevant Canada Cup in sports.

I can only say and more or less repeat myself: hockey in the '70s and '80s had only 2 super powers: Canada and Soviet Union. Below them lurking somewhere was Czechoslovakia and below them Sweden *... the rest of them don't really even count - not even with their best possible teams. So the difference between the Canada Cups and the World Championships wasn't as huge as you make it out to be. Especially in the case of the 1st CC, where the Soviets had that 'alternative' team.

I just can't accept that a goal, say, Makarov, scores against the Czechs in the Canada Cup is much more valuable than a goal he scores against them in the World Championships; it's exactly the same ******* opponent! And this especially when considering that the Soviets for certain, and maybe the Czechs too valued the World Championships and the Olympics more than the Canada Cup (however silly that may be).

Edit:
* Okay, USA was beginning to emerge as a hockey power in the '80s


Last edited by VMBM: 09-11-2009 at 10:21 AM. Reason: OHYEAHTHATSRIGHT!
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 10:43 AM
  #38
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Forsberg vs Stastny

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
It shows only that I value consistency and longevity (and, by extension, health), though to be honest, I don't think anyone on my list below Kennedy deserves to make it this time around. I also believe that among all scoring forwards, Forsberg benefited most from the clutch-and-grab-but-no-fighting hockey that characterised the dead puck era, and that in another setting his style of play would either be more heavily penalized by the refs or more heavily punished by opponents.

The fact that Forsberg was a hypocritical crybaby doesn't help him in my eyes, either. Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that Forsberg had a better career than Stastny? Hull and Makarov are hard to compare to a playmaking center like Forsberg (and I realize you have a special dislike for Makarov), but Peter Stastny obviously is not. Make your case then.
Forsberg career +242 vs Stastny career -12 would be a good starting point. Adjust all you want but a top 100 player with a minus 12 is hard to accept. Forsberg actually played defense instead of going thru the motions like Stastny. Watched Stastny play regularly with the Nordiques and was always amazed by the momentary lapses, especially defensively, even when he was having a good game.

Statsny looked great with very good players around him but Forsberg would make ordinary or above average players look better - Milan Hejduk, Alex Tanguay, etc. Also a couple of Stanley Cups favour Forsberg.

Brett Hull was a complimentary specialist better than the vast majority of such players. Similarities to a Luc Robitaille, Steve Shutt,etc but he was never a player that you could build a team around. Sure he could lead the league in goal scoring at times but never within the context of team success and team championships.

Sergei Makarov. Product of a 5-unit system. Yet when the players came to the NHL it became rather obvious who the key players were - Fetisov and Larionov, two players who could adapt to various team systems, aging and contribute to championships while actually playing defense. Makarov who had the advantage of joining a Stanley Cup Champion - Calgary did not possess these qualities and other than some flashes of individual brilliance like Kovalev with the Canadiens the results were not there. Like Kovalev the defense often was overlooked.

Basically the Sergei Makarov backers have to satisfy two criteria - show that he was truly above excellent not just very good to excellent. Overcome the data bank that we now have on Soviet / Russian hockey players. Looking at Makarov from a North American perspective you see more Fedorov, Mogilny, Bure, Kovalev,Sundin, Stastny type qualities which are not top 100 qualities. From the standpoint of being a complete forward - Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Forsberg simply are way ahead.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 10:45 AM
  #39
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
But then you go and rank Makarov, Brett Hull, Peter Stastny ahead of Forsberg which really makes sense and only goes to show the major flaws in your perspective.

Granted the Nighbour and Gadsby omissions are onerous as are some of the other rankings to date - Hasek, Hall, Bathgate especially, but that is what you get with the process in place.
You know, I've warned you several time about this passive-aggressive BS and you simply choose not to listen. Consider yourself banned from the rest of the project.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 11:03 AM
  #40
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Here are the top five players in power play points in NHL history. This stat is obviously biased to post-1980, as there were fewer games played and a lower scoring level on the power play before that time. Still, MacInnis's place here is impressive.

Player PPG PPA PPP
Wayne Gretzky 204 682 886
Ray Bourque 173 586 759
Ron Francis 188 543 731
Al MacInnis 166 557 723
Mario Lemieux 236 463 699

Bourque and MacInnis both placed among the top five overall as defensemen. Here are the next five defensemen, for perspective.

Player PPG PPA PPP
Paul Coffey 135 523 658
Phil Housley 129 480 609
Larry Murphy 114 428 542
Brian Leetch 111 431 542
Niklas Lidstrom 116 398 514

Finally, I'll include the next 10 forwards that didn't make the top 5, so we include Brett Hull.

Player PPG PPA PPP
Marcel Dionne 234 417 651
Joe Sakic 205 426 631
Steve Yzerman 202 390 592
Mark Messier 179 403 582
Dave Andreychuk 274 294 568
Dale Hawerchuk 182 382 564
Phil Esposito 249 306 555
Brett Hull 265 271 536
Jaromir Jagr 181 345 526
Adam Oates 103 409 512

I don't have stats from before 1954-55. Gordie Howe had 417 power play points from 1954-55 on, and almost certainly would have 550-600 in his career.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 11:12 AM
  #41
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Your Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
I can understand what you're saying, but boy, it surely sounds so stubbornly tunnelvisioned (to me).

How many Czechoslovak players were good enough to play in the, er, 'show'? let me see now: Holecek, Dzurilla, Pospisil, Bubla, Machac, Martinec, Hlinka, Novy, Jiri Holik, Peter Stastny, Nedomansky... of course, some of them did play in the NHL, but as it has been mentioned, only P. Stastny did so when still young & in his prime. I'm sure you disagree with that list, but IMO that is at least partly due to the fact that you don't basically care (like Ogelipogeli).

In the '70s, Czechoslovakia won 3 world championships and won over 30 % of their games against USSR. If someone wants to count them (I'm sure you care that much ), well ---->:
http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_co...sp?country=czk (especially look at the years 1974-77)

And Team Canada didn't actually prove their superiority over the Czechs in the 1970s either. In 1972, a lucky draw (they equalled the score with about 5 seconds left), in the 1976 CC a loss, one blowout win and an OT win.

CSSR was hardly a pushover, though a little inconsistent from time to time.

Yeah, and the Canada Cup was probably the least relevant Canada Cup in sports.

I can only say and more or less repeat myself: hockey in the '70s and '80s had only 2 super powers: Canada and Soviet Union. Below them lurking somewhere was Czechoslovakia and below them Sweden *... the rest of them don't really even count - not even with their best possible teams. So the difference between the Canada Cups and the World Championships wasn't as huge as you make it out to be. Especially in the case of the 1st CC, where the Soviets had that 'alternative' team.

I just can't accept that a goal, say, Makarov, scores against the Czechs in the Canada Cup is much more valuable than a goal he scores against them in the World Championships; it's exactly the same ******* opponent! And this especially when considering that the Soviets for certain, and maybe the Czechs too valued the World Championships and the Olympics more than the Canada Cup (however silly that may be).

Edit:
* Okay, USA was beginning to emerge as a hockey power in the '80s
Taking your points one by one Czech's won over 30% of their games against the Soviets. So in a point based league this would translate to a 30 point team vs a 70 point team over a fifty game schedule.Does not matter how many other teams you throw into the mix. Basically you have defined "basement dwellers" by NHL standards. Basement dwellers will have a few serviceable players but that does not make them all time greats.

The list of Czech's that could have played in the NHL - I'll grant you fifteen over app a twenty year span of Czech hockey history. Yet an organization like the Montreal Junior Canadiens produced more in a ten year span - 1962 to 1971 including HHOF like Jacques Laperriere, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Gilbert Perreault, Jacques Lemaire,Yvan Cournoyer solid players like Carol Vadnais, Richard Martin, Rogatien Vachon and enough players to stock two competitive NHL teams. So yes, if you cherry pick the nations twenty best players, keep them together for the lebgth of their career playing maybe 10 - 12 games a year that really matter internationally while training in a house league for select events then you will surprise and impress a few people short term. But what has happened to Czech or Slovak hockey now - down in the dumps, no foundation or staying power. The Soviets are bouncing back somewhat simply because their population base is such that developmental mistakes are easily covered.

Your Makarov goal example overlooks the goals he scored in the Soviet league or in International play against opponents that were not even ECHL caliber. Yet these get counted in his resumme thereby inflating his stats. Yet the goals NHLers scored in exhibtion games against minor leaguers or during their pre NHL careers are not counted. Present filtered data for Makarov against elite competition and we'll give it a fair evaluation. Until then .............

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 11:22 AM
  #42
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
After my last post, I thought to compare Coffey and MacInnis after seeing Coffey on the list of top power play scorers.

I think MacInnis was better than Coffey on special teams - both on the power play and on the penalty kill. I'm pretty sure of that.

I also think he was better at even strength. Yes, Coffey was very dangerous offensively there, but he gave up a lot the other way, and MacInnis was consistently better in plus-minus.

If you voted for Coffey, will you vote for MacInnis also? If not, why?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 11:51 AM
  #43
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Taking your points one by one Czech's won over 30% of their games against the Soviets. So in a point based league this would translate to a 30 point team vs a 70 point team over a fifty game schedule.Does not matter how many other teams you throw into the mix. Basically you have defined "basement dwellers" by NHL standards. Basement dwellers will have a few serviceable players but that does not make them all time greats.
Your logic and interpretations just... amaze me. And I said OVER 30 %

And where do you get that 70 %? I think the Soviets won about 57 % of the games; the rest were draws... it's been a long time ago, since I counted them and I don't have the figures anymore, but somewhere in that area...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The list of Czech's that could have played in the NHL - I'll grant you fifteen over app a twenty year span of Czech hockey history. Yet an organization like the Montreal Junior Canadiens produced more in a ten year span - 1962 to 1971 including HHOF like Jacques Laperriere, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Gilbert Perreault, Jacques Lemaire,Yvan Cournoyer solid players like Carol Vadnais, Richard Martin, Rogatien Vachon and enough players to stock two competitive NHL teams. So yes, if you cherry pick the nations twenty best players, keep them together for the lebgth of their career playing maybe 10 - 12 games a year that really matter internationally while training in a house league for select events then you will surprise and impress a few people short term. But what has happened to Czech or Slovak hockey now - down in the dumps, no foundation or staying power. The Soviets are bouncing back somewhat simply because their population base is such that developmental mistakes are easily covered.
Don't take everything so, er, literally! I could have come up with far more names (I listed only the players from the '70s). And what does this all have to do with anything?; all I'm basically saying is that the Czechoslovak national team was a good team (far better than you give them credit for), and that it was a very worthy opponent to the Soviets.. and according to the proof that we have, to Team Canada as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your Makarov goal example overlooks the goals he scored in the Soviet league or in International play against opponents that were not even ECHL caliber. Yet these get counted in his resumme thereby inflating his stats. Yet the goals NHLers scored in exhibtion games against minor leaguers or during their pre NHL careers are not counted. Present filtered data for Makarov against elite competition and we'll give it a fair evaluation. Until then .............
My so called Makarov goal example was just to point out that IMO it's not fair that the points scored in the Canada Cup(s) are a big deal and the points scored in the WC don't mean anything.

Did they count the points that, say, 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens' players scored against 'great teams' like Washington Capitals, Detroit Red Wings (well, they really sucked then, right?!) and Cleveland Barons? Where would you place those opponents? As good as Czechoslovakia? Better than Czechoslovakia? Or way worse than Czechoslovakia (like I would!).

PS. Have to go now... All have a nice day, okay?

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 11:55 AM
  #44
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
I think that is what we call 'an opinion'... well, like mine.
The thing with Perreault is that, well, he isn't really far from Jean Ratelle as far as accomplishements are concerned. It's nice to be flashy. It's even nicer to get results.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 12:04 PM
  #45
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
It's important to consider the impact of Makarov's age when he joined the NHL. He joined the NHL at age 31; it's generally accepted that most forwards reach their offensive peak in their 20s and decline in their 30s. It's not reasonable to expect Makarov to score as much as other players did in their youth.

Let's try to examine how Makarov performed in the NHL, relative to his peer group. Makarov played from 1990 to 1997, so I'm using that as my timeframe. I'm comparing Makarov (who played from ages 31-37) to all players 31+, which ensure that we have a fair, peer-to-peer comparison. Finally, I've restricted this to players who appeared in >299 games during the span.

Data is available here: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...oints_per_game

Analysis of Makarov's performance. Only five players score more points per game given this timeframe. Those players are Gretzky, Bourque, Messier and Coffey (four of the top fifty players) and Ciccarelli.

Makarov outperformed seven Hall of Fame forwards (Larionov, Stastny, Mullen, Gartner, Kurri, Anderson, Savard) and a few other "Hall of Very Good" forwards (Nicholls, Hunter).

Based on this we can conclude that Makarov was extremely productive, offensively, when he entered the NHL, taking his age into account. He outscored nine excellent forwards in his peer group (including two who are up for debate now) and, aside from Ciccarelli, who was unusually productive late in his career (and even then barely finished ahead), Makarov was only beaten by consensus top fifty players (which can't possibly be used as an argument against him now given that we're out of the top sixty).

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 01:00 PM
  #46
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
1. Dickie Moore: How in the hell is this guy still an option. This one is evidence that we were too permissive in allowing guys into this project. Just think this through: pivotal player on a dynasty (probably the greatest team ever assembled), tremendous playoff performer, two Art Ross Trophies, and a tough gritty game. That's a portfolio for a top 50 player who should have been voted in a long time ago.
Like Nalyd, I think this is about right for Moore. He didn't do a lot outside of his few outstanding years, and Hart voters always, always favoured other Habs over him (he was 5th once and 8th once)


Quote:
15. Brett Hull: If you believe the player who was the best at one thing should be No. 1, then you should have Hull at No. 1 for this round. Nobody on this list did anything better than what Hull did best, and that's score goals. He was an absolutely incredible goal-scorer. Hull's problem is he didn't do anything else besides score goals. Wasn't an impressive skater or playmaker. Didn't backcheck. Didn't play physical. (Although he would take a hit to score a goal). He just scored goals. He was one-dimensional. Granted, it was a tremendous dimension, but he'll be the most one-dimensional player we'll consider this round.
Hull should probably be 15th either way. He was not as good a goalscorer as Stewart, and merely as good as Denneny, and they brought toughness (and some playmaking) that he didn't bring.

Goalscoring: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart: 3-8-13-14-14
Hull: 4-4-8-12-13
Denneny: 3-5-8-9-11

Playmaking:
Stewart: 0-0-1-6-8
Hull: 0-0-0-1-2
Denneny: 2-3-5-6-6

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 01:05 PM
  #47
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
....then you shouldn't have Makarov or Mikhailov in your Top-100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
I think that is what we call 'an opinion'... well, like mine.
He's right, though. Perreault had so much flash and dash but a brutal two-way game and when you look at his award voting and top-10 finishes in scoring his resume is really not all that special. I'm really hoping he doesn't get a chance to be voted in.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 01:07 PM
  #48
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Actually it is called introducing a third or multiple comparables, in this instance Kent Nilsson. The point where arguments are tested. Anyone could be viewed as a close second best if the comparison is limited to two.

Which defensemen? NHL defensemen or Russian, International defensemen on a larger surface?

Makarov certainly did not give the early 1990's defensemen in the NHL any more trouble than an Alex Kovalev gave NHL defensemen with his playmaking and 1 on 1 skills with the Canadiens the last few seasons yet we are talking roughly the same age for each player with app the same unadjusted stats / team results. Nice to watch for a few seconds a game but at the end the results are not there.

Again Makarov and Kovalev in their thirties in the NHL do you have evidence of a top 100 player?
You're talking about NHLs nearly two decades apart. It was common for players to be burned out by age 31 in the early 1990s. Almost nobody was hanging around longer. Nowadays, if you are a star forward and don't play until at least 36, people wonder what's wrong with you.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 01:09 PM
  #49
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
I can understand what you're saying, but boy, it surely sounds so stubbornly tunnelvisioned (to me).

How many Czechoslovak players were good enough to play in the, er, 'show'? let me see now: Holecek, Dzurilla, Pospisil, Bubla, Machac, Martinec, Hlinka, Novy, Jiri Holik, Peter Stastny, Nedomansky... of course, some of them did play in the NHL, but as it has been mentioned, only P. Stastny did so when still young & in his prime. I'm sure you disagree with that list, but IMO that is at least partly due to the fact that you don't basically care (like Ogelipogeli).

In the '70s, Czechoslovakia won 3 world championships and won over 30 % of their games against USSR. If someone wants to count them (I'm sure you care that much ), well ---->:
http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_co...sp?country=czk (especially look at the years 1974-77)

And Team Canada didn't actually prove their superiority over the Czechs in the 1970s either. In 1972, a lucky draw (they equalled the score with about 5 seconds left), in the 1976 CC a loss, one blowout win and an OT win.

CSSR was hardly a pushover, though a little inconsistent from time to time.

Yeah, and the Canada Cup was probably the least relevant Canada Cup in sports.

I can only say and more or less repeat myself: hockey in the '70s and '80s had only 2 super powers: Canada and Soviet Union. Below them lurking somewhere was Czechoslovakia and below them Sweden *... the rest of them don't really even count - not even with their best possible teams. So the difference between the Canada Cups and the World Championships wasn't as huge as you make it out to be. Especially in the case of the 1st CC, where the Soviets had that 'alternative' team.

I just can't accept that a goal, say, Makarov, scores against the Czechs in the Canada Cup is much more valuable than a goal he scores against them in the World Championships; it's exactly the same ******* opponent! And this especially when considering that the Soviets for certain, and maybe the Czechs too valued the World Championships and the Olympics more than the Canada Cup (however silly that may be).

Edit:
* Okay, USA was beginning to emerge as a hockey power in the '80s
It's not tunnel-visioned at all. It's reality.

The World Championships is a lesser tournament. Always has been. Always will be. It is not, has never been, and never will be a best-on-best. And therefore accomplishments in that tournament have to be taken with a grain of salt.

The Czechs of the 70s were a good team, but not a great team. Don't care about the draw in 72. That was an exhibition game. You know you're reaching in an argument when you bring exhibition games results into the equation. (The round-robin victory in 76 absolutely means something, but Canada was better when it mattered the most).

You also diminish your argument when you make a comment like this: "Yeah, and the Canada Cup was probably the least relevant Canada Cup in sports. " Clearly, you don't have a credible argument. There aren't many sports with a Canada Cup. There is one in curling, but that one doesn't carry the significance that the Canada Cup had from 76 to 91, and that the World Cup had in 96. But that's because the Canada/World Cup in hockey was the only real best-on-best that existed in international hockey from 1973 to 1997.

World Championships tend to be best-on-best tournaments. They are in basketball. They are in curling. And they're big deals in individual sports. But in hockey, it has nowhere near as much significance.

If you truly believe that hockey had only two superpowers in the 70s and 80s, then we shouldn't put any stock into what Mikhailov and Makarov did unless they were playing in the Canada Cup, or special events like Summit (which was a really, really special event), the Challenge Cup or Rendez-Vous 87. Canada's entries at the World Championships (when we sent teams) were far from our best possible teams. And the Soviets were beating vastly inferior teams. (Except for the Czechs, who won less than 40 per cent of the time, which is pretty lopsided in hockey).

The goal that Makarov scores against the Czechs probably is the same. (Unless Hasek is injured). But instead of facing Canada's best players not in the Stanley Cup playoffs (which, in the 80s, didn't have much talent to choose from, since five teams missed the playoffs), Makarov was facing Canada's best. (Or Canada's best according to Mike Keenan, if you will). And that changes the entire complexion of the tournament.

For the record, I do have Nedomansky and Holocek in my top 120. Both are in the 101-120 range, but they cracked the rankings. And I'm probably one of the few with Petrov in his rankings, although, again, Petrov is in the 101-120 range.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 01:22 PM
  #50
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
After my last post, I thought to compare Coffey and MacInnis after seeing Coffey on the list of top power play scorers.

I think MacInnis was better than Coffey on special teams - both on the power play and on the penalty kill. I'm pretty sure of that.

I also think he was better at even strength. Yes, Coffey was very dangerous offensively there, but he gave up a lot the other way, and MacInnis was consistently better in plus-minus.

If you voted for Coffey, will you vote for MacInnis also? If not, why?
You make good points.

However, I think these points support Coffey being a point suck who hurt his team at the other end of the ice, more than they support MacInnis being a shoo-in for this round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The thing with Perreault is that, well, he isn't really far from Jean Ratelle as far as accomplishements are concerned. It's nice to be flashy. It's even nicer to get results.


Ratelle might even be better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
It's important to consider the impact of Makarov's age when he joined the NHL. He joined the NHL at age 31; it's generally accepted that most forwards reach their offensive peak in their 20s and decline in their 30s. It's not reasonable to expect Makarov to score as much as other players did in their youth.

Let's try to examine how Makarov performed in the NHL, relative to his peer group. Makarov played from 1990 to 1997, so I'm using that as my timeframe. I'm comparing Makarov (who played from ages 31-37) to all players 31+, which ensure that we have a fair, peer-to-peer comparison. Finally, I've restricted this to players who appeared in >299 games during the span.

Data is available here: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...oints_per_game

Analysis of Makarov's performance. Only five players score more points per game given this timeframe. Those players are Gretzky, Bourque, Messier and Coffey (four of the top fifty players) and Ciccarelli.

Makarov outperformed seven Hall of Fame forwards (Larionov, Stastny, Mullen, Gartner, Kurri, Anderson, Savard) and a few other "Hall of Very Good" forwards (Nicholls, Hunter).

Based on this we can conclude that Makarov was extremely productive, offensively, when he entered the NHL, taking his age into account. He outscored nine excellent forwards in his peer group (including two who are up for debate now) and, aside from Ciccarelli, who was unusually productive late in his career (and even then barely finished ahead), Makarov was only beaten by consensus top fifty players (which can't possibly be used as an argument against him now given that we're out of the top sixty).
Good points. I've tried to point this out in the past too.

It does kinda leave us in a tough spot, though - Better than Larionov, Mullen, Gartner, Anderson, Savard, not as good as Lemieux, Gretzky, Bourque.... that's a wide range he could tall into.

seventieslord 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 06:33 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.