Ogopogo's "Greatest NHL Careers" update

[Sturminator]

ABOUT Syl Apps & Hart Award : While he was handed a Hart for what Hockey Outsider says to be a "political" reason (I don't know about it, so I trust him on this matter...), he probably lost a Hart to "political" reasons too, when the Amerks folded and the award was given to Tommy Anderson.

I'm sure mixing up Apps and Kennedy was just a typo. Kennedy was probably never the best player in any given season, but he was certainly an all-time great and deserved more than a paltry three 2nd team all star selections, hence the Hart in '55.

I've got Apps as the best Leaf of all-time, followed shortly by Chuck Conacher. Apps' combination of skill, leadership and success does it for me, not to mention the fact that the guy lost two prime years to the second world war. Conacher wasn't the winner that Apps was, Horton not the leader and Kennedy not the talent. Apps had it all.

 

[raleh]

I had Horton 4th, but there's very little separating any of them. Bower and Broda also deserve serious consideration as the top Leaf.

I have Horton ranked a bit lower (around 15th all-time) so that might explain the difference.


I've been told I might Overrate Horton quite a bit, so I suppose I have no argument!

 

[jiggs 10]

Any list that has Steve Yzerman below Elmer Lach is seriously flawed. Taking nothing away from Elmer Lach, a very good player for many years on the dominant team in the NHL at the time, but come on...

Or in place of Elmer Lach I could have picked about 35 others. Yzerman is a top 20 all-time player in anyone's book, and if you add in playoff success, he is higher. 3 Cups in 4 Finals, a Conn Smythe, a Selke, a Pearson, etc. And the Wings stunk in his first 4 seasons with them, yet he was still putting up very good numbers.

I also agree with the Yashin-above-Alfredsson thing. How is that possible? Alfredsson has the higher career PPG, more of everything, is a leader, and has had more playoff success. Plus, stats don't mean everything when it comes to "greatest NHL career". You have to be able to measure desire, pure skill, influence, leadership, and many other factors into the mix. This is why Ron Francis is not generally considered a top 30 all-time player. He lasted a long time being very good, but was NEVER one of the top 10 players in the game at any time in his career. He is in the top 10 in all scoring totals, but only because of longevity. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to switch places with Francis and say I played 23 years in the NHL at a slightly-higher-than-average level! But I wouldn't want to be considered one of the top 30 ever. That would be an insult to the game and to the league.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Yzerman is barely top 40 in my book. Elmer Lach is easily as good as Yzerman, think 92-94 Doug Gilmour with a longer prime. Lach is seriously underrated, one of the best plamakers ever.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've been told I might Overrate Horton quite a bit, so I suppose I have no argument!

I think Horton and Stevens are very similar in quality and style. Horton was better, but I have them pretty close to each other on my (hypothetical) all-time list. For me, they're both something like #14-18. (I really should finish that list one day...)

Everyone has different criteria, and that's what makes these discussions interesting.

 

[MXD]

I think Horton and Stevens are very similar in quality and style. Horton was better, but I have them pretty close to each other on my (hypothetical) all-time list. For me, they're both something like #14-18. (I really should finish that list one day...)

Everyone has different criteria, and that's what makes these discussions interesting.

Just to "gage" your opinion of Horton/Stevens....
How would you compare them to Rod Langway?
(this isn't a question asked solely to HO!)

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'd say Horton and Stevens are a fair jump up from Langway. Better offensive games, more physical and a proven record of clutch play, while Langway was never able to lead a team to success. Although I have Horton/Stevens closer to #20.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just to "gage" your opinion of Horton/Stevens....
How would you compare them to Rod Langway?
(this isn't a question asked solely to HO!)

Agreed with Nalyd. Langway was much weaker offensively than either of them, and his playoff performances weren't as good. Langway had a great peak but Stevens and Horton were excellent for a much longer period of time.

 

[jiggs 10]

Yzerman is barely top 40 in my book. Elmer Lach is easily as good as Yzerman, think 92-94 Doug Gilmour with a longer prime. Lach is seriously underrated, one of the best plamakers ever.

Well, Doug Gilmour was never even close to as good as Yzerman, and lasted much less time in his "peak" (about 4 years), so...

Like I said, I'm not knocking Lach. I'm just saying Yzerman is better and was for a longer period of time. But that's JMO.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Gilmour in 92-94 was as good as Yzerman ever was, and Lach played a similar style but maintained that elite MVP contender level for a longer period than Gilmour.

 

[Sens Rule]

Gilmour in 92-94 was as good as Yzerman ever was, and Lach played a similar style but maintained that elite MVP contender level for a longer period than Gilmour.

Agreed Gilmour from 92-94 was as good as Yzerman ever was. However Gilmour had a 2.5 year peak or so while Yzerman had a lot longer career that was at a much higher level than Gilmour's was besides Gilmour's huge couple of season peak.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Agreed Gilmour from 92-94 was as good as Yzerman ever was. However Gilmour had a 2.5 year peak or so while Yzerman had a lot longer career that was at a much higher level than Gilmour's was besides Gilmour's huge couple of season peak.

I know this, I'm not saying Gilmour is better. I'm saying 92-94 Gilmour is a reference point for what Elmer Lach did on a year to year basis.

 

[Sens Rule]

I know this, I'm not saying Gilmour is better. I'm saying 92-94 Gilmour is a reference point for what Elmer Lach did on a year to year basis.

I understand. I was just saying that I agree with you that for 2 seasons and maybe parts of another Gilmour was a truly dominant player. I think many, including the guy you were discussing Lach with, believe that Gilmour was never was as good as peak-Yzerman.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Gotcha.

 

[mouser]

I'm going to respond to this post mostly out of context because I think it illustrates much of the contention in this thread.

Nice to see you have learned a few things in your first week of school.

Posting a work for critique then insulting the critics is probably not the most productive way to go about things.

What is more important: winning or style of play? What is more important: physical presence or scoring goals? What is more important: percieved media bias by a fellow countryman or actual results?

Very good question. What is most important?

I think you'll find a great amount of the feedback in this thread deals with disagreements on what is most important to include into a formula. Or how certain variables should be elevated or reduced.

Call it positivism if you wish but, the methodology is sound. Results matter, style of play not so much.

The math is sound, as any equation is. The methodology is not sound unless you're using some alternate definition of the word "methodology". For reference see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology



My advice would be:

- If you want people to agree with your list, it simply isn't going happen. That's human nature--we'll argue about anything.

- If you want feedback on adjusting your equations then I'd start out by better defining exactly what you're trying to accomplish. For starters: "Ogopogo's 'Greatest NHL Careers'" -- how are you defining 'careers'? It appears you are using a subset of best years while other posters feel all years should play into the equation. As simple as that difference might seem, it's a huge gap you won't cross without more clearly stating your inputs and expected outputs.