HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[bobholly39]

"Good", "bad", importance, small sample size.

This would go both ways though?

For instance, if Malkins season where he played 43 is of too small sample size to be of importance because he never had a full season so bad, Crosby's partials of less than 43 games would similarly not be of importance because he never had a full season so good?

I figured someone would go there with Crosby after my comments

My answer is.....no. I count Crosby's season of 41 games. Because I believe he could have maintained that pace over a longer stretch.

Look at Forsberg in 2002 playoffs. I could be ok with the idea of not counting his playoffs at face value if someone were to say "well he got an unfair advantage by resting all year and being ready for playoffs, and as such playing above what would be normally expected". I don't really think this happened for Crosby. He played 41 games from the start of season. In 2012-2013, he played the first 36 games of the year. If someone were to play 40 games out of 80, and only playing every 2 games with a ton of rest in between - sure, count that a bit less maybe. Like Lemieux in 1996 where he sat out back to back games? Sure - maybe hold that a bit against him when comparing that season of his to other all-time great seasons (though only to a certain extent, since he still did play 70 games overall, it's not like he only played ~40)

Using my logic you can probably extrapolate that if it's ok to give Crosby credit for a 41 game season and assume he would have kept his pace to the end (or at least close to it) - i should be able to apply the same logic to Malkin's bad season and assume he would have played bad all year and so hold it against him. Maybe?

But I think over an 80 game season, it's more likely that a player whose never had a bad season manages to start scoring closer to his average scoring rate, and raises his numbers.

Sticking to Crosby he had 19 points in his first 30 games in 2016. Then 66 in his last 50.
I'm not saying Malkin's season in 2011 would have looked that way if he played all year, but i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that over 70-80 games his scoring rate might have normalized a bit.

So yeah I don't hold 2011 against Malkin too much, because of small sample size.
But I do count 2011 as a plus for Crosby (and 2013, and even somewhat 2012 since it was in consecutive years).

I feel a lot stronger about the latter than the first for what it's worth. So if you want to hold 2011 against Malkin - I'm less bothered by it. I just don't in my own assessment of a player

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Semantics I guess. Subtract, add less, it's all in the wording.

I like the fact that Malkin has not had a "bad" season where he under-performed by a lot.
I don't like the fact that Sakic has had a "bad" season where he underperformed (maybe more than 1).

+1 for Malkin
-1 for Sakic

Whether you add more/less or subtract is semantics.

I only evaluate health/games played in overall career, not individual seasons.

If Sakic had been injured for the season at about the 50 game mark of 1993-94, he would have finished 15th in points per game instead of 33rd. You're essentially saying that him playing the remaining 30-35 games and producing at only about 1.00 ppg makes it a worse season than if he'd just sat in the press box for two months. I mean, I guess if he'd been a minus-50 in those last 30 games you could argue this...

 

[Staniowski]

The problem with the approach you're taking is that it's based way too much on the "eye test" (which is the most subjective evaluation of all) and specifically "appearing dominant" which is going to be biased in favor of players with specific styles/traits and also towards those who peaked younger/came in guns blazing.

A lot of people would claim that Lindros looked "better" or at least "more dominant" that Sidney Crosby, but there's absolutely no way he was actually a better hockey player, and the results bare that out.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never said anything about an "eye test" or "appearing dominant", and my approach isn't based on these things.

When you assess the quality of a player, you consider everything possible - watch hockey games, consider them in various circumstances and situations, look at statistical data, analyze, etc., and come to a conclusion of how good a player is, and how good they are in a particular period of time.

Maybe a lot of people would claim Lindros "looked better", as you say, than Crosby. All I know is that I wouldn't claim that.

You're imagining something that I never said or implied.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.

Appreciate the ever condescending tone.

Simple calculation actually. Typical NHL game 2017-18 to date sees 5.93 goals per game.Takes anywhere from a couple to max 30 seconds to score a goal or under 3 minutes of game time out of 60 represented by offensive play.At most 5%.

Rest of the time is spent playing defensive hockey until breakdowns create offensive opportunities.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lindros is a great example.

Well, I guess we can say he played 7 seasons before his major decline began (due to his multiple concussions). In those 7 seasons, he was top 5 in PPG 5 times (that's more than Yzerman in his entire career). Won the Hart, 1st Team, 2nd Team, was a very dominant player throughout this period. He played in 4 best-on-best tournaments, and performed quite well in them.

This seems to be lots of time to judge how good he was. He was 26 when he started his decline, so we probably saw him at his best.

To answer your question, yes, if I thought Lindros was better than Malkin, I would definitely rank Lindros ahead. Why would you do otherwise?

There's no need to fantasize about what Lindros would have achieved in subsequent seasons if he didn't have concussions. We saw 7 seasons of Lindros at or near his best. Why is it difficult to compare that to Malkin's 12 seasons?

The difference between us is that I would rank players according to how good they were - on the ice, playing hockey. But this is not how you rank them, as you've clearly acknowledged.

Bear in mind that this project (and the other "Top _____" projects) specifically declined to specify criteria for the rankings. Each voter was to take his/her own approach, which was acceptable as long as it was coherent. So the final product is a crowdsourced approach, a blend of different ideas which created a consensus list. This was most evident in the #1 spot on the goalie list, where one voter had Hasek ranked lower than the consensus -- a controversial but fair viewpoint which accounted for the difference in ranking between Hasek and Roy.

Which is to say, this project DOES account for the viewpoint that players should be ranked much more heavily on peak performance than anything else. It's just that this viewpoint is given a weight proportionate to the number of people who view all-time rankings that way (a minority).

Also:

There's no need to fantasize about what Lindros would have achieved in subsequent seasons if he didn't have concussions. We saw 7 seasons of Lindros at or near his best. Why is it difficult to compare that to Malkin's 12 seasons?

Even if you take away the concussions, there's no good reason to simply assume that Lindros continues to dominate beyond his peak seasons. Perhaps his physical style of play wears him down, perhaps he gets lazy and fat, perhaps his attitude gets him traded to Carolina where he disappears into obscurity as a 3rd liner. Malkin has actually showed up to the rink for 12 years and done things that appear on paper -- including this 2018 season which has been one of his best. He should get credit for having achieved that whereas Lindros did not.

 

[Staniowski]

Yzerman probably did more than Lindros internationally, actually. Besides 1991 (when he was 18 years old), Lindros was an average to poor international performer. Yzerman was good in 1996, and fairly critical in 2002.

Yzerman probably did more than Lindros internationally, actually. Besides 1991 (when he was 18 years old), Lindros was an average to poor international performer. Yzerman was good in 1996, and fairly critical in 2002.

Lindros did okay, but I agree he wasn't great in best-on-best. I don't think his strengths were particularly suited to that type of hockey (BTW, I was never a fan or admirer of Lindros).

Yzerman, well, it's somewhat difficult to evaluate since he was cut in training camp for both best-on-best tournaments in his 20s. But, in the first 3 best-on-best in which he participated, he only scored 5 points in 16 games. Did okay in '96, but not great. In '02 - at the age of 37 - he did put up some points (for the first time), but he was playing with some real talent in that tournament.

 

[daver]

Yes, that's exactly the point. A season that we agree was "nothing special" almost won the Art Ross. The 2004 leaderboard simply wasn't very strong. Sakic had better seasons than 2004 that were nowhere close to winning an Art Ross due to stronger competition at the top of the leaderboard in those years. This is problem with just counting up Top X points finishes, or points per game finishes in the case of the poster I was originally responding to. They aren't all created equal.

I agree with this sentiment but I don't agree with ambiguous and broad statements about competition which is what you originally made.

To be more specific, I think their peak seasons are very close regardless of their actual placing in the Art Ross. Agree or disagree?

 

[Staniowski]

Even if you take away the concussions, there's no good reason to simply assume that Lindros continues to dominate beyond his peak seasons. Perhaps his physical style of play wears him down, perhaps he gets lazy and fat, perhaps his attitude gets him traded to Carolina where he disappears into obscurity as a 3rd liner. Malkin has actually showed up to the rink for 12 years and done things that appear on paper -- including this 2018 season which has been one of his best. He should get credit for having achieved that whereas Lindros did not.

But that's not what I was saying. I'm saying there is no reason to evaluate Lindros beyond his first 7 seasons (when he was at or near his best). For me, there's no reason to assume what would happen if he didn't have concussions. I would merely compare Lindros and his 7 seasons to Malkin and his 12 seasons. I understand you would compare them differently, and I have no problem with that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If Sakic had been injured for the season at about the 50 game mark of 1993-94, he would have finished 15th in points per game instead of 33rd. You're essentially saying that him playing the remaining 30-35 games and producing at only about 1.00 ppg makes it a worse season than if he'd just sat in the press box for two months. I mean, I guess if he'd been a minus-50 in those last 30 games you could argue this...

My guess is that the biggest factor in play here was the holdout and eventual trade of Quebec's PP quarterback, Steve Duchesne. He was finally moved for "character" forwards at around the 50-game mark of that season, with Quebec shifting toward a more grinding approach and I am guessing less offensive opportunity for Sakic.

 

[daver]

Why is Hart/Smythe votings criteria an indisputable truth? Hart/Smythe votings aren't affected by reputation and team success in the slightest?

When determining how much "2-way" play factors into a players value, historical Hart voting points to some consideration for defense (e.g. Clarke, Federov, Datysuk) but nothing close to putting a 50% value on defense as the term "2-way" seems to mean for some posters in this thread.

It's why Sakic's 00/01 season is on par with Yzerman's and Malkin's best despite being not quite as good offensively. It's why Yzerman's 2nd of half of his career is touted despite an significant decrease in his offensive production.

 

[daver]

Semantics I guess. Subtract, add less, it's all in the wording.

I like the fact that Malkin has not had a "bad" season where he under-performed by a lot.
I don't like the fact that Sakic has had a "bad" season where he underperformed (maybe more than 1).

+1 for Malkin
-1 for Sakic

Whether you add more/less or subtract is semantics.

I only evaluate health/games played in overall career, not individual seasons.

What are the numbers you came up with to conclude this? Malkin had some mediocre partial seasons:

36th in PPG in 10/11
14th in PPG in 12/13

 

[daver]

I appreciate your response. However when I look at the names of these 5 great players, I just can't imagine ranking these players this way (based on "accomplishments"). To me, Yzerman (as good as he was) is the 5th best player of this group. I couldn't bring myself to rank him 1st, just because he played the longest, had good health, adapted quite well to a changing role, and played for a great team.

Anyway, I'll mostly just follow the discussions. Some of these comparison discussions are quite interesting.

He is 2nd in this ranking based exactly on what he accomplished. For sure breaking down each player into peak, prime,playoffs etc... is interesting but it's not what this ranking is about.

 

[bobholly39]

What are the numbers you came up with to conclude this? Malkin had some mediocre partial seasons:

36th in PPG in 10/11
14th in PPG in 12/13

Read my other posts about sample size? I responded to this at least twice in the last page.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I agree with this sentiment but I don't agree with ambiguous and broad statements about competition which is what you originally made.

To be more specific, I think their peak seasons are very close regardless of their actual placing in the Art Ross. Agree or disagree?

I don't think my statements on competition were particularly broad. I looked at couple specific Malkin-era seasons and compared them to a few seasons from the late 80s/early 90s. If you want to accuse me of failing to provide supporting evidence that prime versions of Messier, Hull, Oates, Fedorov, Selanne, Jagr, to name a few, provided stiffer competition in the scoring race than prime versions of Joe Pavelski, Jiri Hudler, and Jamie Benn...guilty as charged.

I would agree that the peak seasons of the players in question are very close. The poster I originally responded to seems to feel Malkin has a decided advantage, and bases it on placement on the yearly points per game leaderboard. This line of reasoning, moreso even than its actual conclusion, is what I take issue with.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My guess is that the biggest factor in play here was the holdout and eventual trade of Quebec's PP quarterback, Steve Duchesne. He was finally moved for "character" forwards at around the 50-game mark of that season, with Quebec shifting toward a more grinding approach and I am guessing less offensive opportunity for Sakic.

1993-94 Nordiques post Pierre Page meltdown in the 1993 playoffs were a disaster. He had lost the room.

 

[86Habs]

Lindros did okay, but I agree he wasn't great in best-on-best. I don't think his strengths were particularly suited to that type of hockey (BTW, I was never a fan or admirer of Lindros).

Yzerman, well, it's somewhat difficult to evaluate since he was cut in training camp for both best-on-best tournaments in his 20s. But, in the first 3 best-on-best in which he participated, he only scored 5 points in 16 games. Did okay in '96, but not great. In '02 - at the age of 37 - he did put up some points (for the first time), but he was playing with some real talent in that tournament.

Honestly I don't give either guy a significant amount of credit for international play (not to the same extent that I do for, say, Sakic, who had the one outstanding performance in 2002 and was otherwise "good"). It was unfortunate that Yzerman was cut from the Canada Cup teams in 1987 and (especially) 1991. I always thought Yzerman was the more versatile player for Canada, in that he could move to the wing, like he did in 1996 and 2002, and also move up and down the lineup fairly easily. The Yzerman/Brind'Amour/Fleury line was arguably Canada's best line in 1996, particularly in the medal round against Sweden and the U.S. In 2002, Yzerman was on the top line with Mario and Kariya and was all over the ice in the gold medal game against the U.S. I would say that was a memorable performance by him. Conversely, Lindros was a non-factor in 2002, and wasn't able to raise his game and lead Canada in 1996 or 1998. You alluded to Lindros's style of play perhaps not being a good fit for international hockey above, and that's probably true to an extent. Perhaps the expectations on him were unreasonable, but in the end Lindros was a disappointment internationally.

 

[daver]

I don't think my statements on competition were particularly broad. I looked at couple specific Malkin-era seasons and compared them to a few seasons from the late 80s/early 90s. If you want to accuse me of failing to provide supporting evidence that prime versions of Messier, Hull, Oates, Fedorov, Selanne, Jagr, to name a few, provided stiffer competition in the scoring race than prime versions of Joe Pavelski, Jiri Hudler, and Jamie Benn...guilty as charged.

I would agree that the peak seasons of the players in question are very close. The poster I originally responded to seems to feel Malkin has a decided advantage, and bases it on placement on the yearly points per game leaderboard. This line of reasoning, moreso even than its actual conclusion, is what I take issue with.

Fair enough. I agree that listing Art Ross and PPG finishes with no context is very misleading especialy in this particular comparison but should be countered with alternatives rather than namedropping of HHOF players which doesn't unmuddy the waters.

 

[daver]

Read my other posts about sample size? I responded to this at least twice in the last page.

Let's just say I disagree with your position on PPG being the primary metric. Using PPG brings hypothetical scenarios and alternative career paths into play thus the need for context when looking at PPGs. What if Malkin doesn't get injured in 2010/11? Perhaps he improves his PPG to a more respectable one but can we say with any certainty that he plays as well as he did the next season or that the injury bug could not have hit him halfway thru that year instead? That would leave us with Malkin not having a full peak season to compete with the other two.

Malkin does have a case for being the better player when he is on the ice vs. Sakic and Yzerman based on PPG but that should take a backseat to raw point finishes and raw point career totals where Malkin is lacking at this point. If he draws even with them on that front, I don't have an issue with perhaps putting him ahead based on a more dominant PPG vs. his peers.

 

[Staniowski]

Let's just say I disagree with your position on PPG being the primary metric. Using PPG brings hypothetical scenarios and alternative career paths into play thus the need for context when looking at PPGs. What if Malkin doesn't get injured in 2010/11? Perhaps he improves his PPG to a more respectable one but can we say with any certainty that he plays as well as he did the next season or that the injury bug could not have hit him halfway thru that year instead? That would leave us with Malkin not having a full peak season to compete with the other two.

Malkin does have a case for being the better player when he is on the ice vs. Sakic and Yzerman based on PPG but that should take a backseat to raw point finishes and raw point career totals where Malkin is lacking at this point. If he draws even with them on that front, I don't have an issue with perhaps putting him ahead based on a more dominant PPG vs. his peers.

Malkin's raw numbers and PPG numbers can easily be considered together to create a very clear picture of his offensive abilities and performances.

When you do, there is no reason to question his very elite offense.

He's played 12 seasons. In 5 of them he has played 70 or more games. The first was his rookie year, good year, 85 points and 18th in scoring. In the other four 70+ game seasons, he has finished 1st, 1st, 2nd, and the current season - a good chance for another 1st or 2nd (currently a very close 2nd). These are his raw finishes. Always at or very close to the top of the scoring leaders. This is very impressive.

Overall, he has had 7 top-5 finishes in PPG in 12 seasons. Only 5 players in the past 50 years have as many: Gretzky 14; Lemieux 11; Crosby 10; Esposito 8; and Jagr 8.

 

[daver]

Malkin's raw numbers and PPG numbers can easily be considered together to create a very clear picture of his offensive abilities and performances.

When you do, there is no reason to question his very elite offense.

He's played 12 seasons. In 5 of them he has played 70 or more games (well, he's almost there for the current season). The first was his rookie year, good year, 85 points and 18th in scoring. In the other four 70+ seasons, he has finished 1st, 1st, 2nd, and the current season - a good chance for another 1st or 2nd (currently a very close 4th). These are his raw finishes. Always at or very close to the top of the scoring leaders. This is very impressive.

Overall, he has had 7 top-5 finishes in PPG in 12 seasons. Only 5 players in the past 50 years have as many: Gretzky 14; Lemieux 11; Crosby 10; Esposito 8; and Jagr 8.

I don't see where I questioned his level of offensive eliteness, I clearly said he has case to be viewed as better "on a per game" basis. I was merely pointing out that he unfortunately has not been able to do more with it because of injuries thus is not ranked at the level his abilities might dictate like a Lindros or a Forsberg.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Look at Forsberg in 2002 playoffs. I could be ok with the idea of not counting his playoffs at face value if someone were to say "well he got an unfair advantage by resting all year and being ready for playoffs, and as such playing above what would be normally expected".

I mean, you can repeat it a lot, but I think saying that a player coming off of three surgeries since September and who was injured again within 5 games was unfairly rested will continue to be about as well received as your ideas about defensive play from forwards.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Fair enough. I agree that listing Art Ross and PPG finishes with no context is very misleading especialy in this particular comparison but should be countered with alternatives rather than namedropping of HHOF players which doesn't unmuddy the waters.

I'm not sure what you mean by "alternatives"?

Shame on me for just listing all the HOF talents that populated the leaderboard in certain years, but is presenting additional supporting evidence really an expectation when declaring a Messier or a Jagr a superior offensive player to a Benn or a Pavelski?

 

[daver]

I'm not sure what you mean by "alternatives"?

Shame on me for just listing all the HOF talents that populated the leaderboard in certain years, but is presenting additional supporting evidence really an expectation when declaring a Messier or a Jagr a superior offensive player to a Benn or a Pavelski?

In terms of strictly offensive production, Benn's 14/15 season was superior to some of Jagr's and Messier's seasons so I am not sure what you think this narrative accomplishes. If you want to cherrypick which seasons you compare Jagr and Messier to Benn then you need to do the same with Malkin who is clearly the superior offensive player to Benn once you remove the one or two seasons he wasn't.

I will say it again, there is no reason to believe any player from today would do worse, relative the league, in the Yzerman/Sakic era.

If you do believe this, what season should we note as the where the talent level of the league dropped and Art Ross finishes need to be valued less?

 

[Canadiens1958]

When determining how much "2-way" play factors into a players value, historical Hart voting points to some consideration for defense (e.g. Clarke, Federov, Datysuk) but nothing close to putting a 50% value on defense as the term "2-way" seems to mean for some posters in this thread.

It's why Sakic's 00/01 season is on par with Yzerman's and Malkin's best despite being not quite as good offensively. It's why Yzerman's 2nd of half of his career is touted despite an significant decrease in his offensive production.

You are simply tossing numbers around to fit your offensive agenda.

As pointed out previously the amount of time any player including elite offensive centers/skaters spend on offence is in the very low single digits.

The remainder of the time is strictly about playing defence hockey especially without the puck. Offensive hockey is the by product of defensive breakdowns that create opportunities -SOGs, etc. but represent a single digit amount of ice time.

The more you repeat your offensive mantra the easier it is to spot the weaknesses.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

In terms of strictly offensive production, Benn's 14/15 season was superior to some of Jagr's and Messier's seasons so I am not sure what you think this narrative accomplishes. If you want to cherrypick which seasons you compare Jagr and Messier to Benn then you need to do the same with Malkin who is clearly the superior offensive player to Benn once you remove the one or two seasons he wasn't.

I will say it again, there is no reason to believe any player from today would do worse, relative the league, in the Yzerman/Sakic era.

If you do believe this, what season should we note as the where the talent level of the league dropped and Art Ross finishes need to be valued less?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to say Benn is a superior offensive player to Malkin; that's ludicrous.

What I AM saying is that using Malkin's high rank on the points per game leaderboard in 2016 as some sort of trump card over Sakic's absence from the same in 1993 is a BAD argument. You have seemingly agreed with this already, stating that "listing Art Ross and ppg finishes without context is very misleading". Yes. Yes it is.

Yet in apparent contradiction (and maybe I'm misunderstanding now), you then state the underlined above. Which seems to imply that finishing at X placement in the scoring race has the same degree of difficulty every year. However we've already agreed (or so I thought) that Sakic's 2nd place finish in 2004 was nothing special and lagged behind other seasons where he didn't finish as high. So is every 2nd place finish equal, or does each one need to be evaluated with more context? You seem to be arguing both.