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
09-13-2009, 02:36 PM
  #151
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
In terms of his propensity to place high in goals compared to assists, the only center I can think of who outdoes him is Garry unger.
Given Stewart's era, it isn't so out of line as many centers were the key finisher before the passing rule changes. It's just, everything I read says Stewart was nothing more than a finisher.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 02:42 PM
  #152
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,730
vCash: 500
I don't have Hull making the top ten this round, but still I think he is a bit underrated by some here.

Calling him one dimensional is certainly understandable, but I think his peak was so outstanding that many fail to notice his longevity. Eight times in top ten goals spread out over a 13 year stretch is no small feat.

Also his clutch play. Twice leading the playoffs in goals scored. Those who watched him play will remember that the man scored many many very big goals. Overtime goals. Game tying goals. Game winning goals. Goals late in playoff games to give his team a two goal lead, etc. etc.

He was just one hell of a goal scoring machine.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 04:58 PM
  #153
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Just thought I'd add in to the discussion here. Nels Stewart is probably the most one dimensional player to ever play the game. Could he score? Yes. Was he a playmaker? No. Did he win battles in the corners? No. Could he skate with the puck in transition? No. Did he have any defensive game at all? No, Nels Stewart is arguably the worst defensive player to ever have a regular job at the NHL level. Was he a physical force? No, his high PIM totals are from being lazy and dirty. He hurt his team taking stupid penalties.

Honestly, at least Bure could move the puck in transition...
And yet he retired as the NHL's leading goalscorer, a mark he held for 15 years until Rocket Richard broke it.

One dimensional, but what a dimension. How does he compare to Brett Hull?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 05:22 PM
  #154
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And yet he retired as the NHL's leading goalscorer, a mark he held for 15 years until Rocket Richard broke it.

One dimensional, but what a dimension. How does he compare to Brett Hull?
Hull led the NHL 3 times, Stewart did it twice. Stewart was top-10 13 times to Hull's 8. As lacklustre as Stewart's playmaking was, it was worlds ahead of Hull's.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 07:11 PM
  #155
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,730
vCash: 500
Hull was definitely not a playmaker. But he was actually a far better stickhandler than most who didn't see his prime might realize.

I think that during his prime, (the five seasons from 89 to 94), he earned himself a little more space and consequently had a lot more chances to use one-on-one type of plays/skills than we would see from him later on in his career.

Not only do I remember it quite clearly, but the NHL network recently had a special on about all the 70+ goal seasons in history and they had a fair amount of clips of him beating people one on one. It was a fun trip down memory lane.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 08:13 PM
  #156
Spitfire11
Registered User
 
Spitfire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
You'd really shake your head if you ever saw where I would rank him.
Quite simply one of the most dominant hockey players I have ever seen. I don't much care about stats and career length or injuries so any list I made would look significantly different than most here. Very very few who could take over a game when on the ice. He could.
Well put, I actually see this the same way and probably have Forsberg a lot higher than most as well.

Spitfire11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 08:16 PM
  #157
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,898
vCash: 500
Forsberg is one of those players where his ranking really seems to depend on what value a person places on peak versus career.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 08:18 PM
  #158
Spitfire11
Registered User
 
Spitfire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,626
vCash: 500
One thing about Hull's 3 seasons of leading the league is goals is that they were all won by good margins (10, 16, and 35!) and with the likes of Yzerman, Gretzky, Lemieux (shortened seasons) and Messier all in the league. Hull beat them all in GPG as well.

Spitfire11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 09:11 PM
  #159
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,730
vCash: 500
Yes. 35 is the record (seems like a record that may never be broken).

If one values peak highly, Brett is going to do very well with you.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:31 PM
  #160
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lextune View Post
Yes. 35 is the record (seems like a record that may never be broken).

If one values peak highly, Brett is going to do very well with you.
But it's not the record in terms of percentage difference, which matters more!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:33 PM
  #161
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,730
vCash: 500
But that record holder is already on our list at number 5


lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:37 PM
  #162
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,692
vCash: 500
Havent been on much due to ongoing health issues, looks like I've missed some interesting debate which I'll have to read back on another day, and lots of drama

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

Looks like my original ranking was way off, but it's a learning process. I actually had Cleghorn embarassingly low but I havent seen much to see why he would be so high in this round. Was his place debated more in vote 6?

Brett Hull and Nels Stewart may have been extremely one dimensional, but I think that goal scoring ability had way too much of an impact to overlook despite them not doing anything else well.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:37 PM
  #163
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,878
vCash: 500
There's a good argument that Cleghorn was the game's greatest defenseman of the pre-Shore era. He was excellent both offensively and defensively, sometimes averaging close to a goal per game in his best years. His puck rushing was considered top notch. He was a vicous defender and received plenty of fines and suspensions throughout his career. The biggest knock on him is his extreme dirtiness, which caused even his own teammates to dislike him in some cases. The closest modern comparable is probably Chris Chelios, who is #41 on the list. Cleghorn should at very least be within 30 spots of him IMO.

The Trail names him to the all-time 1st AST on defense for the 1893-1926 period (Moose Johnson is the other d-man). Not sure what Ultimate Hockey says about him, but he is probably credited with at least a couple retro Norris trophies I'd imagine.

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said about Nels Stewart regarding his extreme one-dimensional play. It is also true that his 9 goals in 50 playoff games appears to be a terribly low number.

In Stewart's defense, I went back a while ago and analysed his playoff performances as compared to his teammates, and it paints him in a much better light. While Nels often saw his production fall in the playoffs, he still led his team in either goals or points in almost every single playoff year he participated in. In other words, those around him underachieved to a greater degree in the post season. That doesn't let him off the hook completely, but the fact that he could never really be cited as the goat is one point in his favour.

Also, as lazy as he may have been, he still managed to win not one, but two Hart Trophies. In fact, he was only fourth in goals and sixth in points in 1930, his second MVP season. Howie Morenz, by all accounts a strong two-way player, had a similar stat line that year, and the Canadiens and Maroons were of equal strength in the standings, but Howie wasn't even top-five in Hart voting. Another well-rounded center, Frank Boucher, was fifth in Hart voting despite being second in points. It seems odd that Stewart would have won the award then if he were merely a floater, since there were other seemingly worthy alternatives.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:04 AM
  #164
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,723
vCash: 500
Stewart has 15 goals in 54 playoff games, if you include the 1926 finals, which i think you should.

Still.... not that great.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:07 AM
  #165
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Also, as lazy as he may have been, he still managed to win not one, but two Hart Trophies. In fact, he was only fourth in goals and sixth in points in 1930, his second MVP season. Howie Morenz, by all accounts a strong two-way player, had a similar stat line that year, and the Canadiens and Maroons were of equal strength in the standings, but Howie wasn't even top-five in Hart voting. Another well-rounded center, Frank Boucher, was fifth in Hart voting despite being second in points. It seems odd that Stewart would have won the award then if he were merely a floater, since there were other seemingly worthy alternatives.
The Globe and Mail said this in the article that announced the NHL awards for 1930 (April 7, p. 10): "Voting for the awards was done in the closing stages of the race. At that point Stewart was leading the point-makers and goal-scorers in the Canadian section."

It sounds as if they wanted to pick the Hart winner from the tight 3-way race in the Canadian division, rather than the American division where Boston was dominant, and Stewart was the top scorer when they voted.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:24 AM
  #166
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And yet he retired as the NHL's leading goalscorer, a mark he held for 15 years until Rocket Richard broke it.

One dimensional, but what a dimension. How does he compare to Brett Hull?
I agree that he did dominate at goal scoring. But, I think it is important when voting that there is little else on his resume beyond being a dominant scorer. I'm just not sure he should be leaps and bounds above similarly advantaged and disadvantaged players like Pavel Bure and Gord Drillon.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 04:00 AM
  #167
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Stewart has 15 goals in 54 playoff games, if you include the 1926 finals, which i think you should.

Still.... not that great.
It is a bit strange that he has 0 goals in 4 playoff games against the NHL team that finals, but 6 in 4 games against the non-NHL team in that finals.

But if you count those 6 goals and put him at 15, then he is 5th in playoff goals in his career timeframe, the leader being at 3 way tie at 17 goals.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 05:39 AM
  #168
thefifthsedin*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: here and there
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire11 View Post
One thing about Hull's 3 seasons of leading the league is goals is that they were all won by good margins (10, 16, and 35!) and with the likes of Yzerman, Gretzky, Lemieux (shortened seasons) and Messier all in the league. Hull beat them all in GPG as well.
except that his only 50 goals season came in 1982, and hull's official rookie season was in 1987-88 ...

thefifthsedin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:06 PM
  #169
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
If Peter Stastny wasn't stuck behind Gretzky (and later Lemieux), this is what his trophy case would look like:

1 Art Ross
2 Assist Titles
1 First Team All Star
1 Second Team All Star

(Based on HO's post: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=608582)

He would have likely gotten more Hart consideration as argubly the best offensive player in the league in the mid 80s, as opposed to a distant second.

That's fewer awards than either Forsberg or Moore, despite the fact that they suffered from such injury problems.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:30 PM
  #170
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
Why Makarov is the best player available this round.

I'm borrowing heavily from the research of others, but it's helpful to have it all in one post.

I. Makarov absolutely dominated the Soviet League (at a time when the Soviets could hang with Canada).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
- Makarov's accomplishments in the Soviet elite league are stunning: he was a three-time Soviet MVP playing in the same era as Fetisov and Tretiak, earned 10 all-star spots and was a 9-time scoring champion. Makarov's resume is practically Gretkzy/Howe calibre...
A. Makarov led the Soviet league in scoring every year from 80-89, except for 83 when he was injured for a quarter of the season. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=624953

B. Makarov has the second best Soviet Player of the Year (Soviet MVP) record of all time, behind only Tretiak, ahead of his contemporary Fetisov, and well ahead of Kharlamov.

True, the change in Soviet style between the 70s and 80s made it easier for individuals to dominate (which is why I ranked Kharlamov over Makarov), but it's also true that Makarov, and nobody else, is the forward who did the dominating.

1. He won the Soviet Player of the Year award 3 times and was in the Top Four 10 times. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=592565
2. When Soviet MVP shares were calculated, Makarov was well ahead of everyone but Tretiak: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=672152

C. Makarov was the best member of the KLM line by far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Just to elaborate on Hockey Outsider's great post on Makarov, a little look at his dominance over his linemates Larionov and Krutov(Both who were stellar players) in the Russian league.

It should be noted that Makarov and Larionov did not start out on the Red Army CSKA Moskva team, but posted similar numbers the year before they joined the red Army team on their respective teams(Khimik Voskresensk and Traktor Chelyabinsk). Larionov did not join the CSKA team until 81-82

Since I never know how to do columns and I have to imput this manually, so this might be messy.

PlayerSeasonGPPoints 
Makarov 79-80 44 68  
Larionov 79-80 42 18
Krutov 79-80 40 42  
Makarov 80-81 49 79  
Larionov 80-81 43 45
Krutov 80-81 47 40  
Makarov 81-82 46 75  
Larionov 81-82 46 53  
Krutov 81-82 46 66  
Makarov 82-83 30 42  
Larionov 82-83 44 39  
Krutov 82-83 44 53  
Makarov 83-84 44 73  
Larionov 83-84 43 41  
Krutov 83-84 44 57  
Makarov 84-85 40 65  
Larionov 84-85 40 46  
Krutov 84-85 40 53  
Makarov 85-86 40 62  
Larionov 85-86 40 52  
Krutov 85-86 40 48  
Makarov 86-87 40 53  
Larionov 86-87 39 46  
Krutov 86-87 39 50  
Makarov 87-88 51 68  
Larionov 87-88 51 57  
Krutov 87-88 38 42  
Makarov 88-89 44 54  
Larionov 88-89 31 27  
Krutov 88-89 35 41  

His performance was consistently excellent, despite if either of his teammates missed time/had a lower scoring year and he was for 9 years the RSL scoring champion. Even in a year he played 14 less games, he beat Larionov in scoring and was right behind Krutov
III. High end Soviet talent had already proven they could skate with NHLers, and Makarov was the best of that talent

People who are detracting from Makarov are making a logical fallacy in my opinion. The Soviet Union proved in several best-on-best tournaments that they weren't that far behind Canada, and that they could certainly beat the best Canada had to offer if they cards fell right for them for whatever reason (insert allegations about Soviet cheating here, but the fact is, that it wouldn't matter if they weren't close). And the fact is that Makarov was (by a good margin), the best forward the Soviets had to offer for an entire decade. No, that doesn't make him close to Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr. No, he wasn't better than Bossy or Clarke. But the best of Canada is already on the list. Isn't it about time that the best offensive player for a decade of the next best hockey nation (and the USSR was closer to Canada at the time than they were to #3) go up too?

If you want a larger sample size than a few international tournaments, Makarov proved himself to be the best forward in the Soviet League over a ten year period. The Soviet Union had proven they could at least hang with Canada. Therefore, Makarov should not be discredited for lack of competition, since he had proven to be the best of the nation that gave Canada trouble.

IV. Makarov was fantastic in the Canada Cups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
...but let's see what he did against stronger competition. Makarov scored 31 pts in 22 games during the three Canada Cup tournaments he participated in. During the 1987 tournament, Makarov scored more points than any player except 99 and 66; he was 6th in scoring in the 1981 tournament and 2nd in goals in 1984.
There is no need to extrapolate what Makarov might do against the NHL's best by looking at his Soviet League stats. The fact is, he was fantastic against the best Canada had to offer. So we have a guy who is proven over a large sample size in his home league, who was also able to maintain that level against Canada's best. This despite the fact that he was undoubtedly the top focus of Canada's defensemen.

V. Makarov DID prove himself in the NHL, despite numerous disadvantages.

Makarov joined the NHL past his prime at the age of 31. He was at a disadvantage, compared to other 31 year olds:

A. Soviet greats tended to peak early and flame out early, much like NHL dynasty players of certain era. This is assumed to be largely due to the military-style 11 months-per-year training they were forced to undergo, but for whatever reason, it happened.

B. After spending the majority of his playing years in the Soviet system, he had to adopt to a completely different style of play.

And yet, despite these disadvantages, Makarov was one of the very best players in the NHL of his age group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Makarov entered the NHL in 1990; over the next five years he outscored every player in his age group (ie counting all the years from players 30+) and that includes Gretzky, Messier, Bourque, Stastny, Gartner and Mullen. I realize that this is a bit of a selective stat, but it also shows that Makarov, even after a late transition to the NHL, was as dominant as any other similarly-aged scorer in the league at the time.
Here's the raw data:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...rder_by=points

After that, Makarov tailed off, but he was 36 by that time!

And HO pointed out earlier in this thread that Makarov was 6th in points per game among his age group for his entire career.

Conclusion - Makarov is already too far behind Kharlamov, Fetisov, and Tretiak, all players who played very well against the NHL's best. Let's not let him drop any farther.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:48 PM
  #171
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
Tim Horton

I'm surprised to see Tim Horton slip this far. He may be the best NHLer available this round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post

3. Tim Horton. There's something to be said about being the best defenceman on the best defensive team in league history. A key part of four Cup champions. A six-time all-star. Few have done more to cement their reputation, from an individual perspective, so late in their career than Horton. Two-time first-team all-star, alongside Bobby Orr, in the late 60s. One of the best defensive defencemen ever, and one of the strongest players to ever play the game. Tremendous longevity - 15 years between his first and his sixth all-star selections. Numbers aren't impressive, but he wasn't encouraged to jump into the rush, either. Set a record for points in a playoff be a defenceman with 16 in 1962.
.
We all know about Horton's strength and defensive abilities. He was the one defenseman in the league who could really handle large forwards like Gordie Howe. But his scoring is underrated. When Horton set the league record for points by a defenseman in the playoffs, it was while leading a Cup winner in points! On the 1967Cup winner, he was tied for 4th in team scoring in the playoffs.

In fact, where scoring generally decreases in the playoffs, Horton's scoring actually increased slightly. He had 518 points in 1446 regular season games (.358 PPG), but 50 points in 126 playoff games (.397 PPG). The raw numbers look low, but nobody on the uber-defensive Leafs was exactly lighting it up.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 12:48 AM
  #172
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
Another thing that can be brought up for Makarov is that when he was competing in the world championships during the 1980's. The nhl were sending over some of thier top guys, its not like team canada was full of factory workers.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 12:54 AM
  #173
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Horton vs MacInnis

Horton and MacInnis had different playing styles*, but the shape of their careers is similar. Both spent close to two decades as a #1 defenseman, and both were among the top blueliners for much of that time.

Peak
MacInnis - Norris finishes - 1,2,2,2,3,3,4
Horton - Norris finishes - 2,2,3,3,4,4

MacInnis won a Norris later in his career against a weaker field of defensemen. Earlier in his career, he went up against Ray Bourque in his prime, as well as Chelios, Coffey, Leetch, and Stevens, who are all top-100 players or close. He twice finished 2nd to Ray Bourque at his best.

Horton's competition was considerably weaker. He didn't get Norris consideration until the 60s, when Harvey and Gadsby had dropped off. The only defensemen he was competing with who are top-100 candidates were Pierre Pilote and young Orr.

Edge: MacInnis

Career
Horton and MacInnis were both number-1 defensemen for a very long time. Horton was #1 from 1953-54 until 1969-70 - a 17 year span. MacInnis was the #1 from 1985-86 until 2002-03, an 18 year span.

While Horton was a #1 in a 6-12 team league and MacInnis in a 21-30 team league, MacInnis generally played on more successful teams. MacInnis's teams only once missed the playoffs during his 18 years as a #1 defenseman, and were a combined 264 games over 0.500 during that time. Horton's teams were also strong, especially the Leaf dynasty, but his teams were only 52 games over 0.500 as a #1 defenseman and missed the playoffs four times.

Edge: I'll say MacInnis, but it's closer.

Playoffs
Horton's Leafs won four Cups, and Horton led one in playoff scoring (but didn't get a retro-Smythe, for what it's worth). MacInnis won a Cup with the Flames where he led them in scoring and won the Conn Smythe. He didn't have playoff success with strong St. Louis teams.

Edge: It looks like Horton. However, I think the difference in Cups has a lot to do with the rest of the team, not just Horton and MacInnis. Horton had Johnny Bower in goal. MacInnis had...Mike Vernon? Roman Turek? Brent Johnson? MacInnis had Pierre Turgeon as his #1 center in St. Louis - hardly Dave Keon. Horton, but it's not a big edge.

Overall

MacInnis and Horton both had a remarkably long stretch as very good defensemen, and both enjoyed playoff success. I see their longevity and playoff performances as similar, so MacInnis's superior top-end play puts him ahead.

*If you want to get into playing styles...Horton was the better penalty killer, but MacInnis was all-time great on the power play. MacInnis also has an excellent even-strength record - his career adjusted plus-minus is top-10 since 1968.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 02:46 AM
  #174
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
This is my current line of thinking, but I'm open to changing my mind, especially with the older guys:

Here's my current line of thinking:

1. Sergei Makarov - should have gone already. See my longwinded post as to why

2. Tim Horton - best NHLer here. Dominant defensively, great playoff performer, underrated offense

3. Cy Denneny - would likely be an 8-time all star if the awards existed at the time. The offensive leader of the first dynasty (though Nighbor may have been the best overall forward in some eyes shouldn't take anything away from Denneny).

4. Jari Kurri - it's time for him. Fantastic two-way player and fantastic playoff performer. His style of play allowed Gretzky and Coffey to go all-offense without as much worry. His numbers the year after Gretzky left proved his offense wasn't a product of the Great One.

5. Boris Mikhailov - unlike Makarov who should have gone already, this seems like the right place for him. Not that far behind Khalarmov for the title "best Soviet of the 70s."

6. Ted Kennedy - very good but not necessary elite in the regular season, one of the all-time greats in the playoffs

7. Al MacInnis - he never wowed me (other than his shot), but he was a top dman in the league for so long.

After that, it gets tougher. Two early guys with huge attributes, but also huge negatives. And two guys with amazing peaks but who missed an incredible amount of time with injuries.

8. Nels Stewart - I was aware of his negatives before, but didn't realize how bad they were when doing my initial list. Still, he was the career leader in NHL goals for 15 years! That's a huge deal. Two Hart Trophies is huge as well. And yet his negatives... part of my wants to drop him down with Hull.

9. Sprague Cleghorn - I suppose he's the best dman of the NHL's first 25 years, and that says a lot (though it should be noted that #2, Moose Johnson is unlikely to be on the list at all). With so many negative, I'm reluctant to put him even this high.

10. Dickie Moore - Very comparable to Forsberg with the great short peak year and several injury riddled years. I keep switching between him and Forsberg in my mind.

11. Peter Forsberg - It's a shame Forberg is likely to go up before the Fedorov comparison can even be made, but I guess that debate was settled in the eyes of "the list" last time. Would be higher, except for the fact that he played fewer than 60% of the available games. Still better than everyone available after him. Some people do overrate him do to his flashy style of play (the Gilbert Perreault factor? ). Still, he was very good in the playoffs and very good internationally.

Then 4 guys who I think it's too early for:

12. Frank Brimsek - a good bit behind the last crop of goalies added. Almost always behind Durnan or Broda in the all-star voting, and he doesn't have Broda's amazing playoff record.

13. Brett Hull - A great goal scorer, but not much more. Also, he was known for not being able to maintain his goal scoring in the playoffs, until later in his career when he was past his prime.

14. Aurele Joliat - I've seen a few people with him near the top of their lists, but he just seems to lack a certain "greatness" factor as someone said. His offensive statistics are well behind Denneny, Stewart (and Nighbor), and he had the benefit of playing with Howie Morenz. Very good defensively, but not so much to make up the gap.

15. Peter Stastny - even if you take Gretzky and Lemieux out of the picture, his trophy case still isn't that impressive. Or at least it's less impressive than Hull's, and I think it's too early for Hull.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-15-2009 at 02:57 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 03:04 AM
  #175
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm borrowing heavily from the research of others, but it's helpful to have it all in one post.

I. Makarov absolutely dominated the Soviet League (at a time when the Soviets could hang with Canada).



A. Makarov led the Soviet league in scoring every year from 80-89, except for 83 when he was injured for a quarter of the season. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=624953

B. Makarov has the second best Soviet Player of the Year (Soviet MVP) record of all time, behind only Tretiak, ahead of his contemporary Fetisov, and well ahead of Kharlamov.

True, the change in Soviet style between the 70s and 80s made it easier for individuals to dominate (which is why I ranked Kharlamov over Makarov), but it's also true that Makarov, and nobody else, is the forward who did the dominating.

1. He won the Soviet Player of the Year award 3 times and was in the Top Four 10 times. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=592565
2. When Soviet MVP shares were calculated, Makarov was well ahead of everyone but Tretiak: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=672152

C. Makarov was the best member of the KLM line by far.



III. High end Soviet talent had already proven they could skate with NHLers, and Makarov was the best of that talent

People who are detracting from Makarov are making a logical fallacy in my opinion. The Soviet Union proved in several best-on-best tournaments that they weren't that far behind Canada, and that they could certainly beat the best Canada had to offer if they cards fell right for them for whatever reason (insert allegations about Soviet cheating here, but the fact is, that it wouldn't matter if they weren't close). And the fact is that Makarov was (by a good margin), the best forward the Soviets had to offer for an entire decade. No, that doesn't make him close to Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr. No, he wasn't better than Bossy or Clarke. But the best of Canada is already on the list. Isn't it about time that the best offensive player for a decade of the next best hockey nation (and the USSR was closer to Canada at the time than they were to #3) go up too?

If you want a larger sample size than a few international tournaments, Makarov proved himself to be the best forward in the Soviet League over a ten year period. The Soviet Union had proven they could at least hang with Canada. Therefore, Makarov should not be discredited for lack of competition, since he had proven to be the best of the nation that gave Canada trouble.

IV. Makarov was fantastic in the Canada Cups.


There is no need to extrapolate what Makarov might do against the NHL's best by looking at his Soviet League stats. The fact is, he was fantastic against the best Canada had to offer. So we have a guy who is proven over a large sample size in his home league, who was also able to maintain that level against Canada's best. This despite the fact that he was undoubtedly the top focus of Canada's defensemen.

V. Makarov DID prove himself in the NHL, despite numerous disadvantages.

Makarov joined the NHL past his prime at the age of 31. He was at a disadvantage, compared to other 31 year olds:

A. Soviet greats tended to peak early and flame out early, much like NHL dynasty players of certain era. This is assumed to be largely due to the military-style 11 months-per-year training they were forced to undergo, but for whatever reason, it happened.

B. After spending the majority of his playing years in the Soviet system, he had to adopt to a completely different style of play.

And yet, despite these disadvantages, Makarov was one of the very best players in the NHL of his age group.



Here's the raw data:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...rder_by=points

After that, Makarov tailed off, but he was 36 by that time!

And HO pointed out earlier in this thread that Makarov was 6th in points per game among his age group for his entire career.

Conclusion - Makarov is already too far behind Kharlamov, Fetisov, and Tretiak, all players who played very well against the NHL's best. Let's not let him drop any farther.
Amen. People are paying attention, hopefully, possibly?

I really can't understand anyone having a problem with Makarov. If you do, you either a) hate Soviet players b) haven't seen him c) are an idiot d) all three


Last edited by VMBM: 09-15-2009 at 04:08 AM.
VMBM 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 09:03 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.