HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[K Fleur]

Since you missed about 75% of that sentence, I'll say it again: they were the central figures and captains of teams even better than the present day Pens.

Didn’t miss it, found it not important/lacking context.

But since that’s really what you’re going with...


Better teams on paper with no context sure. Not better relative to their eras. In fact Colorado is certainly worse in that regard.

I can understand not having Malkin there now, but ever? His resume/trophy case is already arguably more impressive than both of theirs

Edit: Think I’ll skip quoting your holier than thou edit diatribe.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Better teams on paper with no context sure. Not better relative to their eras. In fact Colorado is certainly worse in that regard.

The current Pens are absolutely not better than the 2001 Avalanche, relative to their era or not. The Pens won a Stanley Cup with a top defensive pairing of Dumoulin-Hainsey and Matt Murray in net.

I can understand not having Malkin there now, but ever? His resume/trophy case is already more impressive than both of theirs

Like I said, there's always the possibility that he gets there but he isn't going to do it without a significant turn of events.

As for his trophy case, here are his awards results over the past 5 seasons:

2012-13 - No votes for any award
2013-14 - No votes for any award
2014-15 - No votes for any award
2015-16 - No votes for any award
2016-17 - Four 3rd-place votes for AS center

Edit: Think I’ll skip quoting your holier than thou diatribe edit.

Don't do silly things like implying that the leadership difference between Sakic/Yzerman and Malkin is the formality of a "C" on the jersey, and I won't treat your arguments with such disdain.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Is there any correlation between winning faceoffs and winning games?

Searching for a link between winning faceoffs and NHL games

Nothing has indicated there is any meaningful statistical correlation in large sample sizes between winnings face-offs, and winning hockey games.
...

the information we have also shows that winning more face-offs than your opponent by a wide margin over 60-to-65 minutes also does not portend winning said game.
...
Then there's the question individual performance. If face-offs create puck possession (true), and puck possession is good (also true) would a center with poor face-off numbers transitively have poor puck possession numbers?

Florida Panthers center Aleksander Barkov has taken 755 face-offs this year, and has won 46.9 of them, while sporting a Corsi-for percentage over 56. Five centers in the NHL have taken at least 500 face-offs and have better possession numbers than Barkov.
...
And the list goes on. Behind Eller in terms of puck possession and centers is Riley Nash of the Boston Bruins: A Corsi rating of 55.26 percent, with 209 face-offs won, and 212 lost. Down a few spots sits Ottawa Senators center Derick Brassard, another possession driver and more-often-than-not face-off loser.
Somehow, it appears these players are managing to maintain puck possession over large swaths while also losing face-offs.
There's also the other end of this spectrum, a center like Steve Ott, who has won 58 percent of his face-offs, and has a Corsi rating below 45 percent. Matt Duchene of the Colorado Avalanche has won over 62 percent of his face-offs this year, with a 48.57 Corsi-for percentage to go along with that. And the Anaheim Ducks' Antoine Vermette has also won over 62 percent of his face-offs, and also has had a negative puck possession impact.

Why faceoffs aren't as important as they're made out to be | The Hockey News

The point of winning faceoffs is to get control of the puck and if your team is getting out-possessed despite all those wins, it kind of points to how important those faceoff wins really are towards that goal. Stoll is a detriment to whatever team he plays for because he simply can’t do much else outside the circle. And yet, that’s the stat that was cited most frequently after his waiver claim, and it was likely the reason for the claim too. Stats guys talk about shot rates because it does a fair job at predicting future goals – better than anything else that’s currently available. Faceoffs don’t. All they tell you is who won the faceoff. They have their place, but they’re just not as important as they’re made out to be.

Extremely poor study that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about faceoffs.

Basic flaw is that all faceoffs are treated as equal in value and consequences when they are not. Neutral zone faceoffs have lower value and consequences than defensive/offensive zone faceoffs. Yet the study treats all faceoffs as equal.

Similar to flawed save % stats where the provenance of the shot is not taken into account.

 

[K Fleur]

The current Pens are absolutely not better than the 2001 Avalanche, relative to their era or not. The Pens won a Stanley Cup with a top defensive pairing of Dumoulin-Hainsey and Matt Murray in net.

Team achievements relative their era is more what I was getting at. Of course the ‘01 Avalanche beat the ‘17 penguins. In this current era they’d need to cut some cap to even ice that team though.

As for his trophy case, here are his awards results over the past 5 seasons:

2012-13 - No votes for any award
2013-14- No votes for any award
2014-15 - No votes for any award
2015-16 - No votes for any award
2016-17 - Four 3rd-place votes for AS center

Well I guess it’s good Malkin has a career longer than the last 5 seasons, and that the playoffs still happened during this time as well. You’re gonna have to explain what the point of this exercise was? Some kind of attempt at a Jedi mind trick?

Don't do silly things like implying that the leadership difference between Sakic/Yzerman and Malkin is the formality of a "C" on the jersey, and I won't treat your arguments with such disdain.

Silly is implying that something unquantifiable like leadership can be measured much less weigh more than real quantifiable achievements.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Let's be honest: evaluations of "leadership" are heavily influenced by playing style (and at least somewhat by nationality) other than in cases where players/coaches/etc come out and explicitly make it clear that some player (who wouldn't otherwise be given conventional recognition for leadership by the mainstream hockey media) is in fact a leader of their team. Malkin has been a key player on 3 Stanley Cup championship teams, I'd be shocked if he wasn't credited by his teammates for demonstrating at least some level of leadership, if they were asked about it. Of course, the act of getting asked about a player's leadership capabilities often has some bias behind it: the media people who ask these questions don't think of Malkin as a leader, so they don't ask his teammates or coaches to comment on his leadership.

Let's not conflate key player with leadership.

Guy Lafleur was a key player on the dynasty Canadiens, but before and after the dynasty run he refused to work on weaknesses that would make him a more complete player. Finally Canadiens coaches and management grew tired of the attitude and drew the line.

Similar examples exist across nationalities,be it Kent Nilsson or others and extend beyond the NHL.

Fact of the matter is that the Penguins have had to find centers regularly -latest being Derick Brassard to fill roles that normally a second centers fills.

There are faceoff coaches and film study opportunities that certain players will simply not use.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Extremely poor study that shows a fundamental lack of understanding about faceoffs.

Basic flaw is that all faceoffs are treated as equal in value and consequences when they are not. Neutral zone faceoffs have lower value and consequences than defensive/offensive zone faceoffs. Yet the study treats all faceoffs as equal.

Similar to flawed save % stats where the provenance of the shot is not taken into account.

Yeah, the lack of discernment is troubling. You can carry a guy on your roster who’s 25% on face offs, and he won’t really hurt you if he only starts his shifts in the neutral zone. Having one single great faceoff winner is enough to give your team the edge on individual plays that really influence game outcomes... especially if that guy is good enough to hold his own and not be a novelty act.

Blending those two players’ results together tells us nothing at all about either of them, or about the team as a whole.

Team achievements relative their era is more what I was getting at. Of course the ‘01 Avalanche beat the ‘17 penguins. In this current era they’d need to cut some cap to even ice that team though.

Again, the 2017 Penguins are not a particularly strong champion even relative to their era.

Well I guess it’s good Malkin has a career longer than the last 5 seasons, and that the playoffs still happened during this time as well. You’re gonna have to explain what the point of this exercise was? Some kind of attempt at a Jedi mind trick?

I keep saying it over and over — Malkin’s going to have to experience some sort of sharp upturn in his career to reach the Sakic/Yzerman tier. This is the first season since 2012 that he’s looked like a top-5 centerman for a full season and no, that does not qualify as a pace to reach the top-10 of all time. His early career was good but not THAT good.

Silly is implying that somethingunquantifiable like leadership can be measured much less weigh more than real quantifiable achievements.

Everyone in this forum knows where Malkin stands in relationship to Sakic/Yzerman as a team leader and all-round player. You’re not fooling anybody with this line of argument.

 

[K Fleur]

Again, the 2017 Penguins are not a particularly strong champion even relative to their era.

Maybe, but they still accomplished something no other team has done in this era.

I keep saying it over and over — Malkin’s going to have to experience some sort of sharp upturn in his career to reach the Sakic/Yzerman tier. This is the first season since 2012 that he’s looked like a top-5 centerman for a full season and no, that does not qualify as a pace to reach the top-10 of all time. His early career was good but not THAT good.

So this is more of a prime vs peak argument then? That’s fair, Malkin has had many injury problems that have cut into what his prime could/could have been.

Also one does not have to be a top 10 player all time to be better than Sakic and Yzerman.

Everyone in this forum knows where Malkin stands in relationship to Sakic/Yzerman as a team leader and all-round player. You’re not fooling anybody with this line of argument.

So the argument is now switching to leadership and all around play? Not trying to fool anyone, but I am struggling to keep up with your changing arguments.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe, but they still accomplished something no other team has done in this era.

Good for them. It does little to help Malkin here.

So this is more of a prime vs peak argument then? That’s fair, Malkin has had many injury problems that have cut into what his prime could/could have been.

Agreed. Malkin at his best is a Hart level player. But he also has a number of seasons of being lost in the shuffle, which creates a clear separation between him and the Yzerman/Sakic tier. That gap will get larger unless he gathers more individual (not team) accolades going forward. That is the core point I’m making here.

Also one does not have to be a top 10 player all time to be better than Sakic and Yzerman.

Sakic was #10 on our list, and almost everyone agrees he is now #11 because of Crosby’s rising up the ranks. One does indeed have to be a top-10 center of all time in order to be better than Sakic.

So the argument is now switching to leadership and all around play? Not trying to fool anyone, but I am struggling to keep up with your changing arguments.

The leadership argument hasn’t changed. It’s not even an argument really. It’s a universal consensus that you are welcome to challenge if you feel like completely discrediting yourself around here.

I added the all-round player line because it’s also extremely important in this comparison. How is Malkin regarded as a Selke candidate?

 

[K Fleur]

Good for them. It does little to help Malkin here.

He was a central figure in doing so. That is very important according to yourself.

Agreed. Malkin at his best is a Hart level player. But he also has a number of seasons of being lost in the shuffle, which creates a clear separation between him and the Yzerman/Sakic tier. That gap will get larger unless he gathers more individual (not team) accolades going forward. That is the core point I’m making here.

Fair reasoning.

Sakic was #10 on our list, and almost everyone agrees he is now #11 because of Crosby’s rising up the ranks. One does indeed have to be a top-10 center of all time in order to be better than Sakic.

Ah must have been confused by your wording. Yes a player definitely needs to be a top 10 center(not player) to be better than Sakic. Probably top 15 to be better than Yzerman.

The leadership argument hasn’t changed. It’s not even an argument really. It’s a universal consensus that you are welcome to challenge if you feel like completely discrediting yourself around here.

I have not, and am going to challenge something I can’t quantify. I simply don’t find it as important as you appear to.

I added the all-round player line because it’s also extremely important in this comparison. How is Malkin regarded as a Selke candidate?

Malkin is not a Selke candidate no argument there. Never was arguing it in the first place.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Let's not conflate key player with leadership.

Guy Lafleur was a key player on the dynasty Canadiens, but before and after the dynasty run he refused to work on weaknesses that would make him a more complete player. Finally Canadiens coaches and management grew tired of the attitude and drew the line.

Similar examples exist across nationalities,be it Kent Nilsson or others and extend beyond the NHL.

Fact of the matter is that the Penguins have had to find centers regularly -latest being Derick Brassard to fill roles that normally a second centers fills.

There are faceoff coaches and film study opportunities that certain players will simply not use.

Malkin is not a 2nd center. Will it hurts his legacy if the team’s third center fills the 2nd center role? Not at all. That’s the advantage of having two 1st centres on the same team.

Ok, so not using those films is reducing the player’s leadership? I’ve heard it all.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Malkin is not a 2nd center. Will it hurts his legacy if the team’s third center fills the 2nd center role? Not at all. That’s the advantage of having two 1st centres on the same team.

Ok, so not using those films is reducing the player’s leadership? I’ve heard it all.

Neither were Sakic / Forsberg, Yzerman / Fedorov, or other historic pairings of #1 centers but they filled #2 center roles as dictated by circumstances making the team stronger as opposed to weaker when the #3 has to be elevated.

Leaders step up and lead by example. Use all possible tools to improve performance, spending the extra time in the film room etc. Contributes to the team work ethic.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Neither were Sakic / Forsberg, Yzerman / Fedorov, or other historic pairings of #1 centers but they filled #2 center roles as dictated by circumstances making the team stronger as opposed to weaker when the #3 has to be elevated.

Leaders step up and lead by example. Use all possible tools to improve performance, spending the extra time in the film room etc. Contributes to the team work ethic.

So you think that Malkin does nothing to become a better player? How do you think he became one of the best in the game and made a comeback year after 5 straight seasons while he was affected by injuries?

 

[tarheelhockey]

He was a central figure in doing so. That is very important according to yourself.

It’s definitely important. In fact I would say his fistful of rings is almost central to his legacy so far, the reason he’s in the top-20 conversation and not the top-40 conversation or something. His individual performance 2009 specifically was huge in that.

The distinction I’m drawing here is similar to what happened with Messier as he aged. He was a critical part of the Oilers dynasty to the point of winning the Smythe in ‘84. But as good as he was, there’s no way no how that he’s #6 on this list without 1990 and 1994. I doubt anyone expected that to happen when he was 28. Malkin needs something like that if we’re going to talk about him being in the top 10.

 

[Sentinel]

And they are accordingly ranked - Dionne, Bathgate, Geoffrion -just a short list.

Gretzky, Esposito, Selanne, Jagr...

Faceoffs mean squat. I don't care if Ovechkin hasn't taken a faceoff in his life.

 

[Sentinel]

Malkin is far from Gretzky and Lemieux especially when you look at all offensive skills beyond goal scoring.

Now you are really moving them posts.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So because Yzerman and Sakic had a “C” stitched into their jerseys their points matter more?

Sakic's points actually do matter more; he had almost double the number of overtime points of any other player we could find during the playoff project. He was in on half of his team's winners. There's a legitimate argument that he's the best player in the history of Stanley Cup overtime.

That's a kind of leadership that few can replicate.

 

[K Fleur]

Sakic's points actually do matter more; he had almost double the number of overtime points of any other player we could find during the playoff project. He was in on half of his team's winners. There's a legitimate argument that he's the best player in the history of Stanley Cup overtime.

The best performer in the history of Stanley Cup Playoff overtime was Sakic's teammate.

Actually now that you mention it I do remember this board's situational breakdown of Sakic's playoff goal scoring being very impressive. I doubt that makes all of his points matter more, but for the playoffs, sure.

That's a kind of leadership that few can replicate.

Clutch and leadership are two different words with two different meanings.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The best performer in the history of Stanley Cup Playoff overtime was Sakic's teammate.

Not even Patrick Roy draws the kind of separation from Billy Smith and Jean-Sebastien Giguere that Joe Sakic has over Maurice Richard when the game goes past 60 minutes. He didn't just score them; he set them up.

Not as vocal as Lemieux, Deadmarsh, and Roy; but by all accounts, he was as efficient with his words as he was with his snapshots after midnight.

 

[daver]

I just can't imagine a world where Malkin is recognized at the level of Sakic and Yzerman. He doesn't have that kind of profile in the league... it would take something totally unforeseen, like Crosby disappearing and Malkin becoming the captain of the Pens and leading them to another 2 or 3 Cups. Just scoring a lot of points isn't going to get it done, when comparing him to guys who were the central figures and captains of teams even better than the present day Pens.

Even if he has a clearly better offensive resume? Isn't scoring points ultimately going to get it done regardless of one's role and perception of leadership. This is a bit ironic considering Yzerman and Sakic were part of the two of the best centre duos of the past 40 years; they were not flying solo as a #1C. Neither had the trio of best/close to best in the league offense, elite defense, and legendary leadership going at the same time (I don't think Sakic qualifies as great leader any more than Malkin does not qualify).

I agree that things like leadership and all around play can elevate a player above another who have similar offensive resumes but that should be the extent of it. That being said, I think Malkin is on the same tier offensively but lacks longevity and/or elite full seasons at this point. I think he is in the #15 to #20 range, at least ahead of Forsberg.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The best performer in the history of Stanley Cup Playoff overtime was Sakic's teammate.

Actually now that you mention it I do remember this board's situational breakdown of Sakic's playoff goal scoring being very impressive. I doubt that makes all of his points matter more, but for the playoffs, sure.




Clutch and leadership are two different words with two different meanings.

Arguably but fact remains that Sakic scored half his playoff OT goals after Patrick Roy retired in 2003:

Joe Sakic Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

As well as a fair number of assists.

 

[daver]

Looking at the players above Sakic, would it be fair to say that only Clarke and Messier have the intangibles that have elevated them above others with clearly better offensive numbers? Or that they are players whose lack of intangibles have not hurt their ranking like a Mario or a Mikita?

I don't think Malkin has done anything to warrant a rep that he is notably lacking in intangibles like leadership skills or a commitment to being defensively responsible, nor do I think Yzerman and Sakic did things that were on the same level of a Clarke or Messier.

 

[Thenameless]

Could part of the problem be that we are seeing two different Malkin's? We know Yzerman's career arc of offensive dynamo to well rounded leader. We know Sakic to be a consistent scorer with playoff heroics and a nice late career season.

The thing with Malkin is, there's a version of him that almost plays like an indifferent bum that's way less than Yzerman and Sakic overall. And then once in awhile we see this version of "Angry Malkin" that for short bursts is even better than Crosby. And maybe people are putting different weightings on the two?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Could part of the problem be that we are seeing two different Malkin's? We know Yzerman's career arc of offensive dynamo to well rounded leader. We know Sakic to be a consistent scorer with playoff heroics and a nice late career season.

The thing with Malkin is, there's a version of him that almost plays like an indifferent bum that's way less than Yzerman and Sakic overall. And then once in awhile we see this version of "Angry Malkin" that for short bursts is even better than Crosby. And maybe people are putting different weightings on the two?

Then there is the version of Malkin that plays on aline with Crosby as a wing because his center skills are just not at the same level as Crosby's.

Basically a modern day version of Joe Malone or Nels Stewart who shifts to wing when paired with a true center.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Even if he has a clearly better offensive resume? Isn't scoring points ultimately going to get it done regardless of one's role and perception of leadership.

Not unless you think Mark Recchi needs to be a lot higher on the list. Points are important but they’re only one part of the résumé.

This is a bit ironic considering Yzerman and Sakic were part of the two of the best centre duos of the past 40 years; they were not flying solo as a #1C.

No, but they definitely were both regarded as the “franchise player” even in spite of having second-line teammates who are highly ranked all-time. And at times, they both did have significant stretches of flying solo to great success. I realize Malkin has performed well without Crosby (which is why he is where he is in this thread), but those stretches have been pretty short. The Pens have never been Malkin’s team and he has never really been the guy who has to answer for their success or failure.

Neither had the trio of best/close to best in the league offense, elite defense, and legendary leadership going at the same time

You’re right, and that’s exactly why Yzerman is ranked below Mikita and Clarke (for example).

However, Yzerman DID have a long stretch as arguably the best two-way centerman in the league. Malkin hasn’t shown an ability or inclination to become that player.

(I don't think Sakic qualifies as great leader any more than Malkin does not qualify).

Sakic was a fine leader, and widely recognized for that.

I agree that things like leadership and all around play can elevate a player above another who have similar offensive resumes but that should be the extent of it.

That’s like saying a team that loses 6-7 is better than a team that wins 3-0. The game is played at both ends of the ice.

That being said, I think Malkin is on the same tier offensively but lacks longevity and/or elite full seasons at this point. I think he is in the #15 to #20 range, at least ahead of Forsberg.

I do agree that he’s in Forsberg territory now.

Edit: also understand that the closer you get to #1, the more it takes to jump up a notch. He might pass 3 guys in a year and then take 3 years to pass the next one. The next one after Forsberg is Marcel Dionne, one of the singular offensive stars of all time; is Malkin at that level? After that you soon encounter Henri Richard and his 11 Stanley Cups. These are not easy players to pass.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Then there is the version of Malkin that plays on aline with Crosby as a wing because his center skills are just not at the same level as Crosby's.

Basically a modern day version of Joe Malone or Nels Stewart who shifts to wing when paired with a true center.

It happens like one or two times a year...