HOH Top 60 Centers List & Voting Record - tarheelhockey

TheDevilMadeMe · Mar 22, 2014

Round 1 List

Players from our final top 60 not ranked in this top 60
Doug Gilmour at 62
Alexander Maltsev at 63
Marty Barry at 64
Duke Keats at 73
Jacques Lemaire at 74
Neil Colville at 77

Players unique to this list
Edgar Laprade
Don Raleigh

Players ranked highest overall on this list
Alex Delvecchio at 10 - next highest at 22
Vaclav Nedomansky at 16 - next highest at 36
Frank Foyston at 35 - next highest at 42
Joe Primeau at 42 - next highest at 46
Vyacheslav Starshinov at 46 - next highest at 51
Henrik Sedin at 53 - tied with 2 others
Tod Sloan at 76 - tied with 1 other

Players ranked 2nd highest on this list
Mickey MacKay at 21
Sid Abel at 23
Russell Bowie at 24
Dick Irvin at 40
Pit Lepine at 61
Walt Tkaczuk at 69
Butch Goring at 70

Players ranked lowest overall on this list
Peter Stastny at 50 - tied with 1 other
Joe Malone at 52 - next lowest at 31
Jean Ratelle at 60 - tied with 1 other
Doug Gilmour at 62 - next lowest at 54

Players ranked 2nd lowest on this list
Newsy Lalonde at 20 (tied with 1 other)
Max Bentley at 43
Ron Francis at 48
Alexander Maltsev at 63
Duke Keats at 73
Jacques Lemaire at 74
Tommy Dunderdale at 78

Round 2 voting

Highest
Round 5: Kennedy 1st
Round 6: Lach 2nd

Lowest
Round 1: Mikita 8th
Round 5: Malone NR
Round 6: Malone NR

tarheelhockey · Mar 22, 2014

Heh, pretty terrible list looking back on it. This is the first time I've looked at it since submitting.

I can really see the influence of trophy- and cup-counting while trying to construct a list from scratch.

unknown33 · Mar 22, 2014

Was Delvecchio's #10 in Round 1 an error?

TheDevilMadeMe · Mar 22, 2014

unknown33 said:
Was Delvecchio's #10 in Round 1 an error?

He certainly changed his mind on Delvecchio and Francis between rounds 1 and 2!

This was the very first list I saw other than my own and I remember being grumpy about Maltsev's low spot

While I think you had Malone too low on your original list, I think we as a panel ended up ranking him a little too high, and I was really close to joining you in being the other "no" vote in round 5 before giving Malone 8th over Fedorov.

Question for tarheel - what made you lower your opinion on Nedomansky between votes 13 and 14?

Killion · Mar 22, 2014

Not bad at all Tarheel. Like your rankings. As I didnt participate not my place to criticize any of em... and no, not exactly as Id' have rated the entire pack but close enough. Difficult task... Good job.

Dennis Bonvie · Mar 22, 2014

Delvecchio and Nedomansky really stand out.

Why the huge upswing for Sakic in Round 2 voting?

Why so down on Gilmour?

MXD · Mar 23, 2014

I clearly remember -- when screening, that list made me cringe.

Not that it was rejection material; it's just that, having perused about 20% of it, there was already two really bad placements : Nedomansky, Delvecchio.

Some guys were ranked a bit high, but ranking a player, say, 35th, when he should belong around +- 65th as a bigger effect than ranking a player 16th when he logically be around 45th or even lower.

Then again --- Tarheel tweaked his rankings accordingly.

TheDevilMadeMe · Mar 23, 2014

Ranking individual players too high in round 1 really doesn't matter, since that can always be corrected in round 2. Ranking individuals too low in round 1 could result in them coming up too late, however

IIRC, tarheel felt kind of rushed putting this list together, since as the guy collecting the lists, he had to finish his before opening the voting to anyone else

Dennis Bonvie · Mar 23, 2014

Mickey MacKay at 21. But in rounds 11 & 12 he's left off and in round 13 gets a token 8th.

Ted1971 didn't put MacKay on his list but voted him 1st in round 13.

MacKay gets my vote for most diverse voting record.

tarheelhockey · Mar 23, 2014

unknown33 said:
Was Delvecchio's #10 in Round 1 an error?

In the sense that he was ranked way too high, yes it was a mistake. But not unintentional... I just always had held Delvecchio in pretty high esteem and hadn't done enough homework yet to see why he should be ranked a bit lower.

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Question for tarheel - what made you lower your opinion on Nedomansky between votes 13 and 14?

I just couldn't quite get over the question marks around early Czech hockey. I probably rank international tournament play lower than some (mainly due to the small sample sizes and complicated circumstantial factors) so that didn't help him any, and while his NHL career was a helpful point of reference it wasn't blow-you-away amazing. So when it came to voting, I always ended up feeling less than secure about Nedomansky's spot in the field.

Dennis Bonvie said:
Why the huge upswing for Sakic in Round 2 voting?

I guess I didn't fully appreciate him before the project started.

Why so down on Gilmour?

I've just never been all that high on him. I feel like he gets excessive mileage out of having a one-time spike season on the Leafs at just the right moment in time.

MadArcand · Mar 23, 2014

tarheelhockey said:
I just couldn't quite get over the question marks around early Czech hockey. I probably rank international tournament play lower than some (mainly due to the small sample sizes and complicated circumstantial factors) so that didn't help him any, and while his NHL career was a helpful point of reference it wasn't blow-you-away amazing. So when it came to voting, I always ended up feeling less than secure about Nedomansky's spot in the field.

Early? He played in 70s. 'Early' would be WW1 era, or maybe up to WW2.

BraveCanadian · Mar 23, 2014

tarheelhockey said:
I've just never been all that high on him. I feel like he gets excessive mileage out of having a one-time spike season on the Leafs at just the right moment in time.

It was really two seasons and two playoffs at an immortal level.. and if you saw it all you wouldn't downplay it. He really was that good. Caught lightning in a bottle for a bit.

Dark Shadows · Mar 23, 2014

tarheelhockey said:
I've just never been all that high on him. I feel like he gets excessive mileage out of having a one-time spike season on the Leafs at just the right moment in time.

I was a big fan of killer so ill make a bit of a case for him to be a bit higher.

Exceptional clutch player. In fact, he is one of the first guys you think of when you think "Clutch". It did not matter how hurt he was, he was going to play until he keeled over. He was exceptional defensively and just came out at 110% almost every shift.

Once he was given the chance to play in a more offensive role with injuries on the Blues roster, he had a terrific year. Gilmour also finished 5th in hart voting behind Gretzky, Bourque, Liut and Lemieux(Although Liut/Lemieux/Gilmour were so close in votes they might as well have all finished 3rd behind #2 Bourque and #1 Gretzky).

And amazing playoff in which he was the top playoff scorer without even making the finals that led to that opportunity. It was that year the Blues took Calgary to game 7 and lost 2-1, but GM Cliff Fletcher just LOVED the two way tenacious game of opponent Doug Gilmour.

Loved him so much that he jumped at the opportunity to snag him when troubles arose in StLouis. Calgary had gotten smashed out of the playoffs 4-0 by Edm and Fletch knew exactly who he wanted.

Fletcher to this day Vouches that they would never have touched lord Stanley without Killer.

"No, we don't," he said. "Doug was the difference. We won the Presidents' Trophy again in '88-89, but he was the difference in the playoffs. Al MacInnis won the Conn Smythe Trophy [as playoff MVP] -- and deservedly so, but Doug was the key guy. He just dominated."

Gilmour put up 22 points (11-11) in 22 playoff games and was clutch throughout with his two-way play, culminating with his Cup-clinching goal in Game 6 at the Montreal Forum.

"He was a great teammate and great competitor," fellow 2011 HHOF inductee Nieuwendyk told ESPN.com when asked about Gilmour's '89 playoffs. "He played the game so hard. I don't know how to put it into words, but we really needed him. He carried the mail on that team in a lot of ways. He just a treat to be with."

In Calgary, the 1A/1B tandem of Nieuwendyk and Gilmour was deadly. Nieuwendyk was a good all around player who was amazing at tipping Al Mac's PP slappers from the point(Which also means he was very brave hehe), and Doug was the terrific two way defensive center.

It was a great arrangement until Money trouble hit Calgary. Fletcher had since moved on to Toronto and was amazed he had yet another chance to grab Killer. It was a huge trade, but the key return to Toronto was Killer and Macoun. By the time of the Gilmour trade, Calgary was having an off year with 16-17-5. After the trade, they went 15-20-7. Not a huge downswing, but a downswing.

Toronto on the other hand, was 10-26-5 before Doug Showed up, and after his arrival, went 20-17-2.

You know about his amazing Toronto years as you say. Heck, in the 94 playoff run, It was amazing that he was playing on a severely sprained Ankle with tendon damage after the first round.

I love the guy. Hell, EVERYONE wanted Doug Gilmour on their team.

tarheelhockey · Mar 23, 2014

MadArcand said:
Early? He played in 70s. 'Early' would be WW1 era, or maybe up to WW2.

There was no serious Czechoslovak hockey in the WWI era, and even by WWII it was a fringe nation at best.

The first time that the Czechs produced talent that was relevant on a world scale was the 1960s, and Nedomansky was part of that group.

Canadiens1958 · Mar 23, 2014

Mike Buckna

tarheelhockey said:
There was no serious Czechoslovak hockey in the WWI era, and even by WWII it was a fringe nation at best.

The first time that the Czechs produced talent that was relevant on a world scale was the 1960s, and Nedomansky was part of that group.

Research Mike Buckna, a Canadian, and his influence on Czech hockey pre and post WWII, the 1948-1949, teams,the players - Libor Zabransky et al, the plane crash, the arrests issues of Soviet interference.

That said you raise the key issue which is that the totality of the lists to date seem to be worked backwards. Today's standards imposed on the past as opposed to being worked forwards from the early days.

Prime example is the question of longevity. Work it forwards and the progression of longevity from one digit numbers to todays numbers flows easily from era to era. Work it backwards from today and any career unless Orr like in accomplishment pales and is quickly dismissed.

Hardyvan123 · Mar 23, 2014

Canadiens1958 said:
Research Mike Buckna, a Canadian, and his influence on Czech hockey pre and post WWII, the 1948-1949, teams,the players - Libor Zabransky et al, the plane crash, the arrests issues of Soviet interference.

That said you raise the key issue which is that the totality of the lists to date seem to be worked backwards. Today's standards imposed on the past as opposed to being worked forwards from the early days.

Click to expand...

where is the evidence of that though really?

One of the big things that always comes up is SC counting, ton 10 finishes ect...most everything is numerically much harder to do and repeat today with the larger number of teams and influx of elite non Canadian talent.

Prime example is the question of longevity. Work it forwards and the progression of longevity from one digit numbers to todays numbers flows easily from era to era. Work it backwards from today and any career unless Orr like in accomplishment pales and is quickly dismissed.

Click to expand...

A lack of longevity is often just given as a given for players of the past, even though some guys really did play a long time.

On the flip side is the question of the injury era which pretty much is post early 90's for the NHL and the quantity of elite talent having injuries that alter or end their careers is extremely high, just a simple look at the 90's compared to say the 70's shows this as a troubling trend.

Canadiens1958 · Mar 23, 2014

Hardyvan123 said:
Canadiens1958 said:

Research Mike Buckna, a Canadian, and his influence on Czech hockey pre and post WWII, the 1948-1949, teams,the players - Libor Zabransky et al, the plane crash, the arrests issues of Soviet interference.

where is the evidence of that though really?

One of the big things that always comes up is SC counting, ton 10 finishes ect...most everything is numerically much harder to do and repeat today with the larger number of teams and influx of elite non Canadian talent.

A lack of longevity is often just given as a given for players of the past, even though some guys really did play a long time.

On the flip side is the question of the injury era which pretty much is post early 90's for the NHL and the quantity of elite talent having injuries that alter or end their careers is extremely high, just a simple look at the 90's compared to say the 70's shows this as a troubling trend.

Click to expand...

Seventies alone you have quality players with potential HHOF careers impacted by injuries. LW Rick Martin, Marc Tardiff. Centers Rick MacLeish, Pete Mahovlich, RW - Real Cloutier, Danny Gare. Defensemen Thommie Bergman, Barry Beck.

Your nineties comparable is awaited.

tarheelhockey · Mar 24, 2014

Canadiens1958 said:
Research Mike Buckna, a Canadian, and his influence on Czech hockey pre and post WWII, the 1948-1949, teams,the players - Libor Zabransky et al, the plane crash, the arrests issues of Soviet interference.

I'm aware of those events, but I'm not sure what they have to do with Nedomansky...

Canadiens1958 · Mar 24, 2014

Your Claim

tarheelhockey said:
I'm aware of those events, but I'm not sure what they have to do with Nedomansky...

Your claim was that the Czechoslovakian's started producing relevant talent in the 1960s. Vaclav Nedomansky was a 1960s Czechoslovakian product.

Would strongly suggest that the 1940s Czechoslovakian National team was very relevant - 1947 & 1949 World Champions and nine time European champions at that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_World_Ice_Hockey_Championships

MadArcand · Mar 24, 2014

tarheelhockey said:
There was no serious Czechoslovak hockey in the WWI era, and even by WWII it was a fringe nation at best.

The first time that the Czechs produced talent that was relevant on a world scale was the 1960s, and Nedomansky was part of that group.

No and no.

First olympic medal was in 1933, so relevancy was there well before 1960s. Also, WWI era had Czechoslovak hockey about as serious as the early Canadian hockey (the Dan Bain era). Early, but not completely irrelevant or nonexistent.

Theokritos · Mar 24, 2014

tarheelhockey said:
There was no serious Czechoslovak hockey in the WWI era, and even by WWII it was a fringe nation at best.

The first time that the Czechs produced talent that was relevant on a world scale was the 1960s, and Nedomansky was part of that group.

I'm not making a case for either of them belonging on one of the HOH all-time lists, but there were Czechoslovak players from the 1930s and 1940s who were offered NHL contracts/try-outs, so I would word it a tad more cautiously.

unknown33 · Mar 24, 2014

Canadiens1958 said:
Your claim was that the Czechoslovakian's started producing relevant talent in the 1960s. Vaclav Nedomansky was a 1960s Czechoslovakian product.

Would strongly suggest that the 1940s Czechoslovakian National team was very relevant - 1947 & 1949 World Champions and nine time European champions at that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_World_Ice_Hockey_Championships

MadArcand said:
No and no.

First olympic medal was in 1933, so relevancy was there well before 1960s. Also, WWI era had Czechoslovak hockey about as serious as the early Canadian hockey (the Dan Bain era). Early, but not completely irrelevant or nonexistent.

Did they produce any player that might deserve consideration for this project?

TheDevilMadeMe · Mar 24, 2014

unknown33 said:
Did they produce any player that might deserve consideration for this project?

Josef Malecek and Vladimir Zabrodsky were the two superstars of early Czechoslovak hockey. With Tumba only making it on 4 lists, they didn't have a prayer.

unknown33 · Mar 24, 2014

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Josef Malecek and Vladimir Zabrodsky were the two superstars of early Czechoslovak hockey. With Tumba only making it on 4 lists, they didn't have a prayer.

Pretty obvious that's what tarheel was refering to and others are arguing for the sake of arguing.

tarheelhockey · Mar 24, 2014

unknown33 said:
Pretty obvious that's what tarheel was refering to and others are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Basically.

HOH Top 60 Centers List & Voting Record - tarheelhockey

Registered User

Offside Review Specialist

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Original #4

Registered User

Registered User

Offside Review Specialist

Whaletarded

Registered User

Registered User

Offside Review Specialist

Registered User

tweet@HardyintheWack

Registered User

Offside Review Specialist

Registered User

Whaletarded

Global Moderator

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Offside Review Specialist

Ad

Ad

Ad