HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Lafontaine vs, Hawerchuk

View Poll Results: Who was better in their primes?
Dale Hawerchuk 32 58.18%
Pat Lafontaine 23 41.82%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2011, 09:28 PM
  #1
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Lafontaine vs, Hawerchuk

In their primes, who would you say was the better player?

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2011, 09:34 PM
  #2
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
That comma was meant to be a period BTW. Just incase that bugs anyone.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2011, 10:06 PM
  #3
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,050
vCash: 500
Hawerchuk for me, although I do like Lafontaine too.

I think they are close offensively at their peaks but I think Hawerchuk was better without the puck.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2011, 10:49 PM
  #4
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,808
vCash: 500
1990-1993 Lafontaine was probably better than Hawerchuk ever was. But only by very little. Hawerchuk had a longer, fuller prime and a better career.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2011, 11:20 PM
  #5
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,455
vCash: 500
If you take their singular best seasons, Hawerchuk in 1985 and Lafontaine in 1993 then you'll see glaring similarities. Hawerchuk finished 3rd in scoring but 2nd in hart voting while Lafontaine did the opposite.

Other than that, Hawerchuk had other seasons a notch below that one while Lafontaine had 1990 and a lot of other "what if" seasons if not for injuries. Both had measley talent around them early in their career. But their best seasons had Lafontaine with Mogilny and Hawerchuk with Paul MacLean. No question who had the weaker mate with the same results here

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 12:51 AM
  #6
Philx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 54
vCash: 500
I will always admire and respect Hawerchuk for the very valuable role he played on the big line with Gretsky and Lemieux in the 1987 Canada cup. Dale got the puck to Gretsky before he set up Lemieux for that iconic winning goal and he played great throughout that series. Never got the credit he deserved for the major contribution he made to the success of that team.

Philx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 01:23 AM
  #7
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philx View Post
I will always admire and respect Hawerchuk for the very valuable role he played on the big line with Gretsky and Lemieux in the 1987 Canada cup. Dale got the puck to Gretsky before he set up Lemieux for that iconic winning goal and he played great throughout that series. Never got the credit he deserved for the major contribution he made to the success of that team.
No he didn't, Lemieux got the puck to Gretzky before Gretzky set him up for that iconic goal. The three of them were not even a regular line throughout the tournament.


Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 04:06 AM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Trigger View Post
No he didn't, Lemieux got the puck to Gretzky before Gretzky set him up for that iconic goal. The three of them were not even a regular line throughout the tournament.

Hawerchuk was put with Gretzky and Lemieux for the last couple of games of the tournament. They were a regular line in the finals against the Soviets.

Hawerchuk is the guy who won the faceoff in his own zone and started the play that led to the Gretzky/Lemieux rush.

So you're technically correct in that Hawerchuk didn't get the puck to Gretzky. He got the puck up ice, where Lemieux picked it up and got it to Gretzky to start the rush.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-12-2011 at 04:15 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 04:16 AM
  #9
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Anyway, this poll is tough for me. If the question was "who had the better prime?" I would have picked Hawerchuk, because I consider length of prime and consistency during prime as part of the prime.

Since the question is "who was better during his prime?" I have a harder time, since both men seem pretty even at their best. Hawerchuk was just at his best more often, but that's not what the question is asking.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 06:19 AM
  #10
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Anyway, this poll is tough for me. If the question was "who had the better prime?" I would have picked Hawerchuk, because I consider length of prime and consistency during prime as part of the prime.

Since the question is "who was better during his prime?" I have a harder time, since both men seem pretty even at their best. Hawerchuk was just at his best more often, but that's not what the question is asking.
This, if the question was peak, then maybe Lafontaine, even then, it would be debatable, that makes Hawerchuk the easy choice for me.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 08:39 AM
  #11
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,126
vCash: 500
I would take LaFontaine's 1993 season over any season of Hawerchuk. So I have voted for Pat.
That being said, I agree that Hawerchuk had better career, prime and obviously he wins everything with longetivity.

Hawerchuk was up there during eighties with Stastny and Trottier as best center behind Gretz.
LaFontaine never came close to this feat except his 1993.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:26 AM
  #12
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
I would take LaFontaine's 1993 season over any season of Hawerchuk. So I have voted for Pat.
That being said, I agree that Hawerchuk had better career, prime and obviously he wins everything with longetivity.

Hawerchuk was up there during eighties with Stastny and Trottier as best center behind Gretz.
LaFontaine never came close to this feat except his 1993.
exactly how I feel. Voted LaFontaine

gifted88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:28 AM
  #13
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Anyway, this poll is tough for me. If the question was "who had the better prime?" I would have picked Hawerchuk, because I consider length of prime and consistency during prime as part of the prime.

Since the question is "who was better during his prime?" I have a harder time, since both men seem pretty even at their best. Hawerchuk was just at his best more often, but that's not what the question is asking.
Yes you have the right idea. Better prime would depend more on the length of it, whereas better in their prime would depend more on peak. However, I'll post my same argument I did in the poll section and tell me what you think of it.

I just looked at each of their best 9 consecutive seasons, before they declined, and look what I came up with.

Hawerchuk

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

He was tenth in points per game behind Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Kurri, Savard, Stastny, Coffey, Yzerman, and Messier.

Goals per game averages over this time period were as follows; 8.03, 7.73, 7.89, 7.77, 7.94, 7.34, 7.43, 7.48, 7.37 - for an average of 7.66. His average points per game was 1.30 during these 9 consecutive years.

Lafontaine

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

He was tied for 4th in points per game with Oates, behind only Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman.

Goals per game averages over this time period were as follows; 7.43, 7.48, 7.37, 6.91, 6.96, 7.25, 6.48, 5.97, 6.29 - for an average of 6.90. His average points per game was 1.34 during these 9 consecutive years.

Sure he missed quite a few games during that time compared to Hawerchuk, but he played 104 more than Lemieux during this same time span.

9 years is a long time, that's more than enough to conclude who the better player was, as well as the amount I've seen each of them play.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 07:28 PM
  #14
tony d
Goofy for Commish
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,056
vCash: 500
Dale Hawerchuk. Had he played for a better team we'd be talking about him as a top 75 player all-time.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 07:43 PM
  #15
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hawerchuk was put with Gretzky and Lemieux for the last couple of games of the tournament. They were a regular line in the finals against the Soviets.

Hawerchuk is the guy who won the faceoff in his own zone and started the play that led to the Gretzky/Lemieux rush.

So you're technically correct in that Hawerchuk didn't get the puck to Gretzky. He got the puck up ice, where Lemieux picked it up and got it to Gretzky to start the rush.
Hawerchuk was out on the ice to win the face-off. He didn't play regularly with Gretzky and Mario even in the final.

Brian Propp played with Wayne and Mario.

Hawerchuk played a defensive role in the bottom 6, and played it very well.


Lafontaine's best was slightly better than Hawerchuk's, but Dale had the better career.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:25 PM
  #16
Preisst
Registered User
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Trigger View Post
Yes you have the right idea. Better prime would depend more on the length of it, whereas better in their prime would depend more on peak. However, I'll post my same argument I did in the poll section and tell me what you think of it.

I just looked at each of their best 9 consecutive seasons, before they declined, and look what I came up with.

Hawerchuk

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

He was tenth in points per game behind Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Kurri, Savard, Stastny, Coffey, Yzerman, and Messier.

Goals per game averages over this time period were as follows; 8.03, 7.73, 7.89, 7.77, 7.94, 7.34, 7.43, 7.48, 7.37 - for an average of 7.66. His average points per game was 1.30 during these 9 consecutive years.

Lafontaine

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

He was tied for 4th in points per game with Oates, behind only Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman.

Goals per game averages over this time period were as follows; 7.43, 7.48, 7.37, 6.91, 6.96, 7.25, 6.48, 5.97, 6.29 - for an average of 6.90. His average points per game was 1.34 during these 9 consecutive years.

Sure he missed quite a few games during that time compared to Hawerchuk, but he played 104 more than Lemieux during this same time span.

9 years is a long time, that's more than enough to conclude who the better player was, as well as the amount I've seen each of them play.
There is a lot more to hockey than pts per game and goals per game. Hawerchuk, IMHO, was far superior to Lafontaine in virtually every other aspect of the game. To me it's actually not even close, Hawerchuk by a considerable margin.

Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:15 PM
  #17
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Trigger View Post
Yes you have the right idea. Better prime would depend more on the length of it, whereas better in their prime would depend more on peak. However, I'll post my same argument I did in the poll section and tell me what you think of it.
TDMM?

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:21 PM
  #18
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
There is a lot more to hockey than pts per game and goals per game. Hawerchuk, IMHO, was far superior to Lafontaine in virtually every other aspect of the game. To me it's actually not even close, Hawerchuk by a considerable margin.
Yeah I realize that, but I think this is a legitimate enough argument for Lafontaine being the better player. I also don't think Hawerchuk was far superior to Lafontaine in anything, just playmaking by a bit. Pat's skill level was quite noticeably superior to Dale's.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:47 PM
  #19
Preisst
Registered User
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Trigger View Post
Yeah I realize that, but I think this is a legitimate enough argument for Lafontaine being the better player. I also don't think Hawerchuk was far superior to Lafontaine in anything, just playmaking by a bit. Pat's skill level was quite noticeably superior to Dale's.
You think Lafontaines defensive game was better than Hawerchuks? How about faceoffs? How about grit? Who was a better backchecker? Who was a better forechecker? I'm curious if you had the chance to watch these guys play very much?

As for your "legitimate argument" which is more important ;

1) the fact that over a select 9 years for both players that Lafontaine finished with a 1.34 pts per game average to Hawerchuks 1.30 [which is basically the exact same and the average goals per game doesn't really add anything to the argument]

OR

2) the fact that over the 9 years you selected that Lafontaine finished 4th in pts per game to Hawerchuks finishing 10th

*I'll just assume the #s you have provided are accurate as I'm sure they are but I'm not going to bother doubling checking them*

I'm just trying to understand your argument better. As far as I can see the players were relatively close in offensive production but I honestly think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who really thinks that Lafontaines overall game was anywhere even close to Hawerchuks.

** bit off topic as far as "prime" is concerned but here are both players overall NHL #s offensively :

Hawerchuk played 1188 games and had 518 goals [.436 per game] 891 assists [.75 per game] 1409 points [1.19 per game] 730 PIM [.614 per game]

Lafontaine played 865 games and had 468 goals [.541 per game] 545 assists [.63 per game] 1013 points [1.17 per game] 552 PIM [.638 per game]

Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:27 PM
  #20
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
1990-1993 Lafontaine was probably better than Hawerchuk ever was. But only by very little. Hawerchuk had a longer, fuller prime and a better career.
I would agree here and some might call it a peak but definitions are different for everyone.

It would have been interesting to see what either of these extremely gifted players would have been able to do with better line mates for longer stretches in their careers.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2011, 12:13 AM
  #21
rymr66
Registered User
 
rymr66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: anyang
Country: South Korea
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I would agree here and some might call it a peak but definitions are different for everyone.

It would have been interesting to see what either of these extremely gifted players would have been able to do with better line mates for longer stretches in their careers.
while it wasn't for a longer period, we did get to see what lafontaine could do with a better linemate in alex mogilny, who also benefited by playing with lafontaine by scoring 76 goals that year. when hawerchuk put up his 130 points he did it with paul maclean as his linemate, and he was no alex mogilny. how many points would hawerchuk have put up that year if he had a mogilny to play with, i have no idea, but it would have been an incredibly high number.

rymr66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2011, 12:21 AM
  #22
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
You think Lafontaines defensive game was better than Hawerchuks? How about faceoffs? How about grit? Who was a better backchecker? Who was a better forechecker? I'm curious if you had the chance to watch these guys play very much?
I watched each of them play their entire careers, and I think Hawerchuk's defensive game is extremely overrated. It's not that he didn't put defensive effort into his game, I just don't think he was exceptionally good at it, main reason being we wasn't exactly the fastest player. Faceoffs are a non factor for me, how much do they really matter in the grand scheme of things? I don't know what each of their faceoff percentages were anyway, I haven't looked into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
As for your "legitimate argument" which is more important ;

1) the fact that over a select 9 years for both players that Lafontaine finished with a 1.34 pts per game average to Hawerchuks 1.30 [which is basically the exact same and the average goals per game doesn't really add anything to the argument]

OR

2) the fact that over the 9 years you selected that Lafontaine finished 4th in pts per game to Hawerchuks finishing 10th

*I'll just assume the #s you have provided are accurate as I'm sure they are but I'm not going to bother doubling checking them*

I'm just trying to understand your argument better. As far as I can see the players were relatively close in offensive production but I honestly think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who really thinks that Lafontaines overall game was anywhere even close to Hawerchuks.
Both are legitimate arguments and correspond with each other. Thus it makes sense that Lafontaine finished higher in points per game relative to his peers in his 9 year prime compared to Hawerchuk's (the 9 consecutive years I selected for each are right from the beginning of their primes til the year before they declined)

As for assuming the numbers I've provided are accurate, all you have to do is click on the links I've provided.

I stand by my opinon that Hawerchuk's overall game is overrated. Lafontaine had more overall impact as a player in his prime, and I'd easily take him on my team over Hawerchuk, I have no bias towards either player, and am actually equally a fan of both. Other than 85 and 96, where he had a +/- of 22 (85), and 15 (96), his next best +/- were +10, +3, and +2. The rest of the seasons he was a minus player a lot of times by quite a bit. Does a lot of it have to to with the teams he was on? I would say that was certainly a big factor, however there have been more than enough players throughout the history of the game who have been placed on crappy teams, who weren't even considered to be good at defense at all and didn't have bad +/- numbers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
** bit off topic as far as "prime" is concerned but here are both players overall NHL #s offensively :

Hawerchuk played 1188 games and had 518 goals [.436 per game] 891 assists [.75 per game] 1409 points [1.19 per game] 730 PIM [.614 per game]

Lafontaine played 865 games and had 468 goals [.541 per game] 545 assists [.63 per game] 1013 points [1.17 per game] 552 PIM [.638 per game]
Lafontaine played 6 years before and after his prime. Hawerchuk played 6 years after his prime. Hawerchuk played his entire prime in a higher scoring era. As I've already displayed.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2011, 10:48 PM
  #23
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
Faceoffs are a non factor for me, how much do they really matter in the grand scheme of things?
seriously?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 01:14 AM
  #24
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
seriously?
there has been very little demonstrated correlation between winning faceoffs and.... well, anything.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 01:26 AM
  #25
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
there has been very little demonstrated correlation between winning faceoffs and.... well, anything.
puck possession?

vecens24 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 08:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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