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 7 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2009, 04:09 PM
  #51
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
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).
If it can help just a bit...

Tweak in the games played, and Makarov is superior to another HHOF'er -- Michel Goulet. And we have to remember that Goulet would have played the necessary games if his career wouldn't have ended in such a brutal way.

Tweak the age just a bit (30 instead of 31...) and Makarov is outperformed by a guy who should be in the HHOF, but will probably not make the top-100 : Adam Oates.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 04:13 PM
  #52
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post

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?
The bad NHL teams were, comparatively, better than the bad national teams...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 04:18 PM
  #53
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
C-1958 has a point in regards to the Makarov-Kovalev comparison.
Though Sturm (or 70ies?) has another one when they say the standard for the decline is further than it was in the early 90ies.
However, the problem I have with HO's comparison is that the guys that faded in the 90ies are worthy of an HM (at best...) in the Top-120, with the notable exception of Kurri (which I consider overrated...). Dunno, maybe the game became faster than tougher than conditionning programs did at that time?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 04:48 PM
  #54
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Simplifying

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
C-1958 has a point in regards to the Makarov-Kovalev comparison.
Though Sturm (or 70ies?) has another one when they say the standard for the decline is further than it was in the early 90ies.
However, the problem I have with HO's comparison is that the guys that faded in the 90ies are worthy of an HM (at best...) in the Top-120, with the notable exception of Kurri (which I consider overrated...). Dunno, maybe the game became faster than tougher than conditionning programs did at that time?
Eighties, early nineties saw the results of the WHA contraction so players left the game early since cheaper replacements were available.

The fall of the Iron Curtain brought more Europeans into the NHL and allowed for expansion so you have players hanging on well into their thirties/early forties, same as the post 67 era.

Regardless of the spin or the approach all that has been shown to date is that Makarov is in the 90 - 150 range. The minor differential between him and Larionov or Fetisov does not compensate for the gap in their net results - team contributions and winning.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 05:19 PM
  #55
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,598
vCash: 500
Ted "Teeder" Kennedy

Never the the fastest or smoothest of skaters, "Teeder" became a remarkable leader with an infectious combination of determination and confidence. He was an exceptional playmaker, and always seemed to know where and when to set up his man. Known as one of the game's great face-off men and an antagonistic forechecker, he had the ability to score the important goal, to make the right check at the right time - to do all the little things that win big games and championships, which his Leafs did on a regular basis. One of the gutsiest captains in NHL history, “Come o-n-n-n-n Teeder!" was the rallying cry when the Leafs needed to engineer a comeback with a timely goal or face-off win.

Quote:
Universally known as Teeder (a nickname that stuck since childhood because some people had trouble pronouncing the name Theodore), Kennedy was the ultimate Leaf. While he was a horrendous skater, he made up for it with his competitive zeal that would make him arguably the greatest leader in franchise history, and maybe in hockey history. He led by example, fearlessly battling some of hockey's all time greats. He could shoot and pass and stickhandle with the best of them, yet was a proud defensive player and a superior faceoff specialist.

It was in the playoffs that Kennedy was at his best. Although he put up impressive scoring totals throughout his career, he was hockey's version of Mr. October. In 1947 the Leafs captured another Stanley Cup, thanks Kennedy's cup winning goal against Montreal. The Leafs would repeat as champions in 1948, as Kennedy scored a playoff high 8 goals and 14 points. The following season Syl Apps - to that point probably the most revered Leaf in team history - retired and Kennedy, just 22, became the youngest captain in club history. Even without Apps, Kennedy would lead the Leafs to the first ever Stanley Cup "three-peat".
- Toronto Maple Leafs Legends

Footprints - History by the Minute

"I don't think I ran into anyone in my lifetime, [who] put more effort into a game than Kennedy" - Red Story

"Kennedy is the greatest competitor in hockey." - Conn Smythe

"If World War III broke out tomorrow, and I was going over the top again, there'd only be one Leaf I'd want at my side. Teeder. Only Teeder. When it came to laying guts on the line to win, Teeder Kennedy laid on the most." - Conn Smythe

"Ted Kennedy was not a superbly gifted athlete the way some players were, but he accomplished more than most of them by never playing a shift where he did not give everything he had." - Conn Smythe

Remembering Ted Kennedy:

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Hockey/article/681607

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1253314/

BM67 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 06:48 PM
  #56
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Ted "Teeder" Kennedy

Never the the fastest or smoothest of skaters, "Teeder" became a remarkable leader with an infectious combination of determination and confidence. He was an exceptional playmaker, and always seemed to know where and when to set up his man. Known as one of the game's great face-off men and an antagonistic forechecker, he had the ability to score the important goal, to make the right check at the right time - to do all the little things that win big games and championships, which his Leafs did on a regular basis. One of the gutsiest captains in NHL history, “Come o-n-n-n-n Teeder!" was the rallying cry when the Leafs needed to engineer a comeback with a timely goal or face-off win.

- Toronto Maple Leafs Legends

Footprints - History by the Minute

"I don't think I ran into anyone in my lifetime, [who] put more effort into a game than Kennedy" - Red Story

"Kennedy is the greatest competitor in hockey." - Conn Smythe

"If World War III broke out tomorrow, and I was going over the top again, there'd only be one Leaf I'd want at my side. Teeder. Only Teeder. When it came to laying guts on the line to win, Teeder Kennedy laid on the most." - Conn Smythe

"Ted Kennedy was not a superbly gifted athlete the way some players were, but he accomplished more than most of them by never playing a shift where he did not give everything he had." - Conn Smythe

Remembering Ted Kennedy:

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Hockey/article/681607

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1253314/
Teeder is #1 for me this round.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 06:52 PM
  #57
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
C-1958 has a point in regards to the Makarov-Kovalev comparison.
Though Sturm (or 70ies?) has another one when they say the standard for the decline is further than it was in the early 90ies.
However, the problem I have with HO's comparison is that the guys that faded in the 90ies are worthy of an HM (at best...) in the Top-120, with the notable exception of Kurri (which I consider overrated...). Dunno, maybe the game became faster than tougher than conditionning programs did at that time?
Then how about Trottier? The only players on the list born '56-'60 are Trottier, Bossy, and Fetisov. Players up for voting this round are Kurri and Stastny.

The available points of reference are week.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:17 PM
  #58
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,971
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.

9. Peter Forsberg: Time to vote in Peter the Great. At his peak, the only thing that could stop Forsberg was an injury. He was a bull of a centre with great strength, speed, skill and flair. He was an excellent back-checker who could put up a goal and two assists while logging big minutes against the opponent's top line. He was physical. And he understood the importance of saving his best hockey for the playoffs.
You've described two very similar players here, so why the descrepancy in their placement? (Not singling you out, just raising a point)

It seems to me there's very little to choose between. In his favour, Forsberg has a better Hart record. Conversely, he was also a notorious diver, and would take liberties with other players while crying bloody murder if he was harassed himself. I've heard no such things about Moore, so call it a wash. I will probably vote these two side-by-side in this round.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:26 PM
  #59
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,017
vCash: 500
If someone could do a comparison between Joliat, Denneny, and Stewart, it would probably be helpful to all.

I've seen a few posts in the "no Denneny and Stewart until Nighbor!" vain, and I hope that the two of them aren't rated too low just because Nighbor might be too low himself.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:45 PM
  #60
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
You've described two very similar players here, so why the descrepancy in their placement? (Not singling you out, just raising a point)

It seems to me there's very little to choose between. In his favour, Forsberg has a better Hart record. Conversely, he was also a notorious diver, and would take liberties with other players while crying bloody murder if he was harassed himself. I've heard no such things about Moore, so call it a wash. I will probably vote these two side-by-side in this round.
I have them neck and neck as well, but there's one possible reason I can think of to put Moore over Forsberg: Can he be blamed at all for his injuries? I'm interested mainly in people who actually watched him live have to say about this.

With Forsberg, even his biggest fans have to admit that his style of play led to a lot of his injuries. We credit him for playing physical hockey (as we should), but we also need to recognize that if it wasn't for the fact that he was always taking shots at guys (and getting them right back), he would have been able to be on the ice more often, able to use his other abilities. Yes, his deformed foot led to some of his problems, especially later in his career. But at least some of his issues were because of his style of play.

It's a really minor point, but I'm looking for something.

I haven't see a single Moore supporter even try to explain why he should be above Forsberg. I really am open to an explanation as to why he should be a lot higher, but I haven't been given one yet.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-11-2009 at 07:51 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 07:47 PM
  #61
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Positional Differences

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
You've described two very similar players here, so why the descrepancy in their placement? (Not singling you out, just raising a point)

It seems to me there's very little to choose between. In his favour, Forsberg has a better Hart record. Conversely, he was also a notorious diver, and would take liberties with other players while crying bloody murder if he was harassed himself. I've heard no such things about Moore, so call it a wash. I will probably vote these two side-by-side in this round.
The lack of quality left wingers vs the plentiful number of quality centers spanning the history of hockey would be one factor why Moore should be ranked higher.

We are after all comparing Forsberg to Dickie Moore not Bev Boys or other famous Canadian divers.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:15 PM
  #62
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,044
vCash: 500
From my "consistency in goalscoring" thread and its sister thread, "consistency in playmaking" -

(I'll throw in Nighbor too, just for fun)

Goalscoring: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 3-8-13-14-14
Denneny 3-5-8-9-11
Joliat 1-3-4-9-12
Nighbor 1-4-6-7-8

Playmaking: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 0-0-1-6-8
Denneny 2-3-5-6-6
Joliat 0-4-6-7-8
Nighbor 2-5-7-8-11

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:16 PM
  #63
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Stewart / Joliat / Denneny

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If someone could do a comparison between Joliat, Denneny, and Stewart, it would probably be helpful to all.

I've seen a few posts in the "no Denneny and Stewart until Nighbor!" vain, and I hope that the two of them aren't rated too low just because Nighbor might be too low himself.
Listed alphabetically:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...stewane01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...joliaau01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...dennecy01.html

Nels Stewart. Center but never a playmaker, career spanned two eras pre and post forward pass. If you look at his stats you will notice that even after the forward pass was allowed the goals still surpassed the assists, the last two seasons when he was hanging on with the Americans and one other season. Above average playoff performer contributing to an unexpected Stanley Cup.

Aurel Joliat. Left wing, scorer, career spanned two eras pre and post forward pass. Smallish but gritty contributed to Stanley Cups during both eras.

Cy Denneny. Left winger played during the pre forward pass era. Pure scorer. Had 5 NHL seasons and 1 NHA season where he scored at a 1 or better GPG clip but he played on the powerhouse Ottawa Senators with roughly 7-9 HHOF teammates, two that have been voted in and one or two who are probably considered as better or equal.Contributed to Stanley Cups.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-11-2009 at 08:18 PM. Reason: addition.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:22 PM
  #64
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,736
vCash: 500
My first take on this round:

Jari Kurri
Peter Stastny
Dickie Moore
Tim Horton
Ted Kennedy
Cy Denneny
Nels Stewart
Aurel Joliat
Sprague Cleghorn
Peter Forsberg
Boris Mikhailov
Frank Brimsek
Al MacInnis
Sergei Makarov
Brett Hull

....and now I need to read this thread

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:24 PM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,044
vCash: 500
Based on this, Nels Stewart was certainly the best goalscorer of the bunch; he has the most seasons in all columns. Denneny is next-best, with a pretty significant edge on Joliat in top-2 and top-20 seasons. Joliat and Nighbor are about even, with Nighbor's top-10 edge (6 to 4) being smoothed out by Joliat's goalscoring longevity (12 top-20 seasons to 8)

In playmaking, it is almost the exact opposite. Nighbor has a sizeable edge on all the rest, leading by whatever measure you look at. Denneny and Joliat are pretty close, with Denneny having the higher peak (two top-2 seasons to 0) and Joliat more longevity (8 top-20 seasons to 6). Stewart brings up the rear with quite meagre totals.

Defensively, there are significant gaps between them all as well. Nighbor was easily the best defensive forward of his generation, and a case could be made that he is the best ever. Then you have Joliat, who was a ferocious backchecker and by all aaccounts a solid all-around player. Well above average, but well behind Nighbor. Then you have Denneny, who was not a great skater or backchecker. He was average at best, most likely below average. Then you have Nels Stewart, who was likely the worst defensive forward of his time. Everywhere you look, you read about his aversion to backchecking, his camping in the opponent's crease, his slow skating.

Nighbor should clearly be the best of the three, and as for the others - take your pick. Stewart is the best goalscorer, worst playmaker, and worst defensive player. Joliat is the worst goalscorer, best defensive player, and about even with Denneny in goalscoring, who is 2nd in playmaking and defense.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:25 PM
  #66
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lextune View Post
My first take on this round:

Jari Kurri
Peter Stastny
Dickie Moore
Tim Horton
Ted Kennedy
Cy Denneny
Nels Stewart
Aurel Joliat

Sprague Cleghorn
Peter Forsberg
Boris Mikhailov
Frank Brimsek
Al MacInnis
Sergei Makarov
Brett Hull

....and now I need to read this thread
Ha. nice.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:51 PM
  #67
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If someone could do a comparison between Joliat, Denneny, and Stewart, it would probably be helpful to all.

I've seen a few posts in the "no Denneny and Stewart until Nighbor!" vain, and I hope that the two of them aren't rated too low just because Nighbor might be too low himself.
Well... A really, really short way to compare them is to say that one of them was a complete player (Joliat) while the other two were pretty good in some departments while lacking in others.

Seems simple, but that is pretty much how I feel with those three guys, and will be reflected in my rankings.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:53 PM
  #68
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
You've described two very similar players here, so why the descrepancy in their placement? (Not singling you out, just raising a point)

It seems to me there's very little to choose between. In his favour, Forsberg has a better Hart record. Conversely, he was also a notorious diver, and would take liberties with other players while crying bloody murder if he was harassed himself. I've heard no such things about Moore, so call it a wash. I will probably vote these two side-by-side in this round.
The thing is.... The Hart award was a bit different by then.
For me, everything that was said in regards to Ted Lindsay vs. Hart awards really apply to Dickie Moore. I've said it many, many times, but Moore is pretty much Lindsay with a better peak and worse knees.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 08:58 PM
  #69
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Nighbor should clearly be the best of the three, and as for the others - take your pick. Stewart is the best goalscorer, worst playmaker, and worst defensive player. Joliat is the worst goalscorer, best defensive player, and about even with Denneny in goalscoring, who is 2nd in playmaking and defense.
Sounds reasonable -- let's look at a few more dimensions, too. Players are ranked best to worst in each category.

PLAYOFFS

Note that I'm using the stats from hockey-reference.com, I don't think it takes into account non-NHL playoff series.

Nighbor: Tough to analyze. I'm excluding Nighbor's 1927 and 1928 playoffs -- he was old for the era (34/35), clearly past his offensive prime, and this just drags down his points per game. Nighbor was first in points per game during the rest of his PO career (1919-1926; min 10 gp). Per hockey-reference, he scored 20 pts in 19 non-NHL Stanley Cup final games (with ultra-dominant performances in '15 and '20 and disappointing showings in '21 and '23).

Denneny. I'm excluding 1928 and 1929 when Denneny completely fell off the map offensively. From 1918 to 1927 he's first in playoff PPG (min 10 gp). He may be one-dimensional but he kept on scoring in the NHL playoffs! Somewhat impressive in the non-NHL Stanley Cup finals (9 pts in 16 games) though.

Joliat: I'm excluding 1935 and 1937, when he was past his offensive prime. He's 4th in points per game during the span (behind only Boucher, Morenz and Cook). A good ranking and the three players ahead of him have all already been voted in. A solid 6 pts in 8 non-NHL Stanley Cup final games.

Stewart: although he played in an era with low-scoring playoffs, 9 goals in 50 playoff games is shockingly bad for a player of Stewart's caliber. From 1926 to 1939 (I'm excluding his injury-plagued 1940 season), Stewart was just 19th in playoff points-per-game (min 30 GP) and was 16th in scoring (while being 14th in games played). Very disappointing and a distant 4th. (In fairness to Stewart, he had one ridiculously dominant playoff year, 1926, where he was awarded the retro Smythe, for whatever it's worth).

AWARDS

Stewart: won two Hart trophies and finished 5th on time. Was particularly impressive in 1926, beating Cleghorn and Nighbor. Very impressive.

Nighbor: most of his prime was before the Hart (in NHL, NHA and PCHA). Won the NHL's first ever Hart in 1924 and finished 3rd in 1926. Impressive based on this limited sample. Ranked above Joliat (and may even deserve to be above Stewart) based on my speculiation that Nighbor likely would have had several more Hart calibre season pre-1924. Not that it's perfect, but what does "Ultimate Hockey" say? Was Nighbor a retro Hart winner pre-1924?

Joliat: won the Hart in 1934, finished 5th in 1935. It's possible that Joliat never got his fare share due to being stuck in Morenz's shadow. A good Hart voting record overall.

Denneny: never was a Hart finalist, though most of his prime was before the Hart was awarded. I wouldn't call this a poor voting record; just "incomplete".


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 09-11-2009 at 09:03 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:05 PM
  #70
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
From my "consistency in goalscoring" thread and its sister thread, "consistency in playmaking" -

(I'll throw in Nighbor too, just for fun)

Goalscoring: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 3-8-13-14-14
Denneny 3-5-8-9-11
Joliat 1-3-4-9-12
Nighbor 1-4-6-7-8

Playmaking: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 0-0-1-6-8
Denneny 2-3-5-6-6
Joliat 0-4-6-7-8
Nighbor 2-5-7-8-11
Is it just me, or does Joliat lack an "eliteness" to his game?

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:09 PM
  #71
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Dickei Moore

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I have them neck and neck as well, but there's one possible reason I can think of to put Moore over Forsberg: Can he be blamed at all for his injuries? I'm interested mainly in people who actually watched him live have to say about this.

With Forsberg, even his biggest fans have to admit that his style of play led to a lot of his injuries. We credit him for playing physical hockey (as we should), but we also need to recognize that if it wasn't for the fact that he was always taking shots at guys (and getting them right back), he would have been able to be on the ice more often, able to use his other abilities. Yes, his deformed foot led to some of his problems, especially later in his career. But at least some of his issues were because of his style of play.

It's a really minor point, but I'm looking for something.

I haven't see a single Moore supporter even try to explain why he should be above Forsberg. I really am open to an explanation as to why he should be a lot higher, but I haven't been given one yet.
Dickie Moore:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=404558

as you can appreciate from the Red Fisher article above Dickie Moore played most of his career with bothersome knees,also winning a scoring championship with his wrist in a cast for about half a season. Unfortunately the story did not come out until after the Hart Trophy voting so he did not get appropriate Hart consideration.

Dickie Moore also came out of retirement twice - Leafs and Blues leading them to the 1968 finals.

Compared to Peter Forsberg the injuries that Moore played thru given the two - three generation difference in sports medicine should be viewed favourably.

Also in a low scoring era Dickie Moore did set a single season points record (96 points) during the 1958-59 season that stood for
7 seasons and would have tied Jagr and Iginla in 2000, 2002, beaten St.louis in 2004 on simple raw numbers. Adjusted for length of season Moore's 96 points not only beats the aforementioned but also beats Forsberg Art Ross total so Moore has it all over Forsberg in terms of Art Ross numbers to say nothing of the difference in Stanley Cups where Moore was a valuable member of 6 Stanley Cup teams.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-11-2009 at 09:40 PM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:19 PM
  #72
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Is it just me, or does Joliat lack an "eliteness" to his game?
..Kindof. The same way Denneny and Stewart are both lacking something

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:26 PM
  #73
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Is it just me, or does Joliat lack an "eliteness" to his game?
Well, now that ATD11 is over, yes, yes he does.

Seriously though, I wouldn't say he does. Only when compared to players like this he does. three times top-5 in goals and four times top-5 in assists isn't something that's all that common.

For example, four top-5s in assists is an achievement shared by 39 players in total. Three top-5s in goals is an achievement shared by only 65 players.

The list of players to have done both (or better) is as follows:

Gretzky (1), Howe (3), Lemieux (4), Beliveau (7), Morenz (11), Mikita (15), Lafleur (19), Esposito (20), Jagr (23), Taylor (27), Lindsay (30), Dionne (50), Bathgate (56), Bentley (57), Nighbor (likely 71), MacKay (won't come up but should), Fredrickson (won't come up), Morris (won't come up), and Joliat. 19 players in total.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:30 PM
  #74
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Sounds reasonable -- let's look at a few more dimensions, too. Players are ranked best to worst in each category.

PLAYOFFS

Note that I'm using the stats from hockey-reference.com, I don't think it takes into account non-NHL playoff series.

Nighbor: Tough to analyze. I'm excluding Nighbor's 1927 and 1928 playoffs -- he was old for the era (34/35), clearly past his offensive prime, and this just drags down his points per game. Nighbor was first in points per game during the rest of his PO career (1919-1926; min 10 gp). Per hockey-reference, he scored 20 pts in 19 non-NHL Stanley Cup final games (with ultra-dominant performances in '15 and '20 and disappointing showings in '21 and '23).

Denneny. I'm excluding 1928 and 1929 when Denneny completely fell off the map offensively. From 1918 to 1927 he's first in playoff PPG (min 10 gp). He may be one-dimensional but he kept on scoring in the NHL playoffs! Somewhat impressive in the non-NHL Stanley Cup finals (9 pts in 16 games) though.

Joliat: I'm excluding 1935 and 1937, when he was past his offensive prime. He's 4th in points per game during the span (behind only Boucher, Morenz and Cook). A good ranking and the three players ahead of him have all already been voted in. A solid 6 pts in 8 non-NHL Stanley Cup final games.

Stewart: although he played in an era with low-scoring playoffs, 9 goals in 50 playoff games is shockingly bad for a player of Stewart's caliber. From 1926 to 1939 (I'm excluding his injury-plagued 1940 season), Stewart was just 19th in playoff points-per-game (min 30 GP) and was 16th in scoring (while being 14th in games played). Very disappointing and a distant 4th. (In fairness to Stewart, he had one ridiculously dominant playoff year, 1926, where he was awarded the retro Smythe, for whatever it's worth).

AWARDS

Stewart: won two Hart trophies and finished 5th on time. Was particularly impressive in 1926, beating Cleghorn and Nighbor. Very impressive.

Nighbor: most of his prime was before the Hart (in NHL, NHA and PCHA). Won the NHL's first ever Hart in 1924 and finished 3rd in 1926. Impressive based on this limited sample. Ranked above Joliat (and may even deserve to be above Stewart) based on my speculiation that Nighbor likely would have had several more Hart calibre season pre-1924. Not that it's perfect, but what does "Ultimate Hockey" say? Was Nighbor a retro Hart winner pre-1924?

Joliat: won the Hart in 1934, finished 5th in 1935. It's possible that Joliat never got his fare share due to being stuck in Morenz's shadow. A good Hart voting record overall.

Denneny: never was a Hart finalist, though most of his prime was before the Hart was awarded. I wouldn't call this a poor voting record; just "incomplete".
The playoff performances for Joliat and Stewart have to be asterisked or explained since they played in an era, 1929 onwards where the two first place teams played each other in the first round with the winner advancing to the cup final so the degree of difficulty has to be considered.

Cy Denneny did not completely fall of the map in 1929 as you state but he was the player coach playing app 1/2 the season, of the Stanley Cup winning Bruins as per hockey-reference.com .

http://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/dennecy01c.html

Match it against his player stats.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2009, 09:31 PM
  #75
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,362
vCash: 500
But that is specifically oriented to Joliat's abilities. What about the amount of players with 7 total top 5 finishes in goals and or assists?

Nalyd Psycho 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 04:41 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.