Petition to Red Fisher: Big Pete in HoF NOW!!

[chooch*]

Big Pete Mahov; Habs no.1 centre 1971-1977

1972 Team Canada regular (Lemaire not chosen); Prettiest goal ever Game 2.
1976 Canada Cup (Lemaire not chosen)
1976 AllStar game MVP (Lemaire 0 allstar games)
2 hundred point seasons (Lemaire 0)
2.5 years on Lafleur line (same as Lemaire)
4 Stanley Cups

A tough ornery centre who could deke, shoot and pass at the highest levels of the game; who was the reason Guy suddenly blossomed (forget the nonsense helmet story); who faked Tretiak in Game 2 shorthanded goal; Habs centre season record for assists and points (not Beliveau).


Lemaire HoF ; Big Pete - Why Not?????!!!!

If you watch any old Lemaire -Lafleur games; Guy dominates in spite of Lemaire who basically sucks and hogs the puck. Mahov feeds Guy and works in tandem with him

any comments

Click to read more...

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Well Big Pete Mahovlich sure was a great player. Yes the guy has a record for most assists and points as a center in habs history. However what he didnt have that Lemaire had was the all around 2 way game, and ablility to perform in the clutch the way Lemaire did (Lemaire scored 2 stanley cup winning goals). Also Mahovlich was being accused of being selfish at times not wanting to pass the puck. But despite all that the guy sure was a big, talented player and a great stickhandler. I would say he will eventually get in.

 

[chooch*]

Lemaire retired Lafleur and popularized the trap; for that he should be banned from the HoF.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Mahovlich was certainly a great player and was fun to watch, but I think Lemaire had a better career overall.

- Lemaire has significantly more goals and points despite playing (slightly) fewer games.
- Lemaire is a significantly better playoff performances. (Lemaire has more goals, assists, and points in addition to having a higher goals per game, assists per game, points per game ratio).
- Lemaire was a significantly better defensive player.
- Lemaire had a more consistent peak value. True, Mahovlich had a couple of monstrous seasons ('75 and '76) but never again had 75 points. However Lemaire eclipsed 75 points 5 times.

 

[mvp76]

I'd say Retire Robinson's numbers after catching a few vintage habs games on tv.
But what do I know.

 

[BM67]

Big Pete Mahov; Habs no.1 centre 1971-1977

Lemaire had more points in 72, 73 and 77. Pete was moved from the top line in 77 and traded in 78.

1972 Team Canada regular (Lemaire not chosen); Prettiest goal ever Game 2.
1976 Canada Cup (Lemaire not chosen)

Mahovlich didn't play in the 76 Canada Cup.

1976 AllStar game MVP (Lemaire 0 allstar games)

Lemaire played in 2 All-star games.

2 hundred point seasons (Lemaire 0)

Mahovolich scored a point a game twice. Lemaire did it 7 times. Lemaire had 12 20+ goal seasons to Pete's 7. Lemaire had 6 30+ goal seasons to Pete's 5. Lemaire peaked at 44 goals, while Pete topped out at 36. Lemaire had 12 years with 20+ assists. Pete had 10. Lemaire and Pete both had 9 years with 30+ assists. They both also had 5 40+ assist seasons and 3 of 50+.

2.5 years on Lafleur line (same as Lemaire)
4 Stanley Cups

Lemaire played on 8 Cup winners in 12 years. Lemaire led the 79 Playoffs in goals and points. He had a point a game in 5 playoff runs. Pete only managed it once.

A tough ornery centre who could deke, shoot and pass at the highest levels of the game; who was the reason Guy suddenly blossomed (forget the nonsense helmet story); who faked Tretiak in Game 2 shorthanded goal; Habs centre season record for assists and points (not Beliveau).


Lemaire HoF ; Big Pete - Why Not?????!!!!

If you watch any old Lemaire -Lafleur games; Guy dominates in spite of Lemaire who basically sucks and hogs the puck. Mahov feeds Guy and works in tandem with him

any comments

Two big years don't overcome a career that was otherwise fairly mediocre for a star. I'd say Bobby Smith is about as likely to make the Hall.

 

[Chili]

Pete Mahovlich did play in the 1976 Canada Cup. One of the few who I would rate as a better stickhandler, Gilbert Perreault was also in that tournament.

I specifically remember Pete as the player who initiated the sweater exchange at the end of the tournament when he swapped sweaters with a Czech player (I seem to remember it was Vladimir Dzurilla?).

Big Pete was one of my favorite players growing up. He had great reach, stickhandling ability and was a team player/leader. He had a nice career but for me he would fall in the category of very good player (i.e. the next level below hall of famer). He dominated for a short period but his career seemed to "peter" out.

In contrast, Lemaire was playing some of the best hockey of his career when he retired. And the Habs certainly missed him the year after he retired when their cup run was brought to an end by an unlikely opponent. Lemaire would be in the top two way players I've seen play. An excellent defensive center, who also scored a bunch of points.

 

[john g]

and here I thought you were talking about J-L Grand Pierre (the real - Big Pete) by your thread title :lol

 

[mcphee]

Peter the Younger as Danny Gallivan called him was one of my favorites. He was quite an open ice hitter early in his career and he developed into an excellent center.He played with a flair that you seldom see. He came up big in international play and was a big part of the Habs team of the 70's. He wasn't really what I'd call tough or ornery though he'd have his moments. He just wasn't as complete a player as Jacques Lemaire. Throw the numbers out the window, do you use them when evaluating Bob Gainey ? Lemaire was a complete center whose knowledge of the game allowed his wingers to free lance more than they could have with anyone else. His shot ranks with the all timers and he came up big when it mattered most. Scotty Bowman was on local radio last week discussing Red Fisher's list and mentionned Lemaire as the guy who didn't get enough credit from that team. I'll not dispute Bowman. BYW, Lemaire didn't invent the trap or dream up new defensive systems, he just taught them better than anyone else.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

It broke a young Hab fans heart when they dealt Pete for Larouche. He was one of my fav's, but come on, he was never the all-round, consistent and cluch player Lemaire was.

 

[Lard_Lad]

It was a mistake to put Lemaire in. It'd be an even bigger one to put Mahovlich in just because Lemaire's there.

 

[David Puddy]

Lemaire retired Lafleur and popularized the trap; for that he should be banned from the HoF.

I'll thank you to refer to it as the un-deux-deux or one-two-two!

Pete Mahovlich didn't even reach the 300 goal mark or the 500 assist plateau (288 Goals, 485 Assists, 773 Points.) Those numbers are almost in the Cam Neely range (395 G, 299 A, 694 PTS,) and Neely was at least selected to the Second All-Star Team four times.

 

[BM67]

It was a mistake to put Lemaire in. It'd be an even bigger one to put Mahovlich in just because Lemaire's there.

Calling it a mistake to put a guy who retired as the 4th highest playoff scorer in NHL history in the HoF, after only a 12 year career, is pretty harsh.

 

[Lowetide]

I'm astounded someone thinks Lemaire doesn't deserve the Hall. Tremendous 2 way centerman whose responsible play allowed Lafleur to be Lafleur. Perfect match of skills imo.

Big Pete was a beauty, there's no doubt. But it took some time for him to mature (he was actually the cause of a rule change many years ago when Detroit wanted to send him out but couldn't clear him through waivers. Toronto had the same problem with one of their kids so they just changed the rule to allow the teams to send the players down without an option of recall that season. The NHL never was very good at equality) and by the time he did there was no real sustain to the heart of his career.

Lemaire on the other hand surprised with strong play in the fall of 1967 (post expansion) and earned a job on the LW (Habs were extremely strong at C with Beliveau, Henri Richard and Backstrom). He wasn't terrific defensively and he and Doug Favell lost the Calder to Derek Sanderson who was.

 

[Lard_Lad]

Calling it a mistake to put a guy who retired as the 4th highest playoff scorer in NHL history in the HoF, after only a 12 year career, is pretty harsh.

Not when, as noted here, he never won an individual award, was never named to a first- or second- all-star team, and only played in two all-star games. Lemaire was a very good centre, responsible defensively, and an excellent postseason guy. But so was Bobby Smith, and there's no rush to put him in the Hall.

Even in his best year, 72-73, Lemaire wasn't even ione of the top 5 centres (let alone players) in the league - Esposito, Ratelle, Clarke, Dionne, Perreault, and Mikita were better than him, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to think guys like Sittler and Unger could've done at least as well as Lemaire did, given the same supporting cast.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Not when, as noted here, he never won an individual award, was never named to a first- or second- all-star team, and only played in two all-star games. Lemaire was a very good centre, responsible defensively, and an excellent postseason guy. But so was Bobby Smith, and there's no rush to put him in the Hall.

Even in his best year, 72-73, Lemaire wasn't even ione of the top 5 centres (let alone players) in the league - Esposito, Ratelle, Clarke, Dionne, Perreault, and Mikita were better than him, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to think guys like Sittler and Unger could've done at least as well as Lemaire did, given the same supporting cast.

His best year was 77-78. In both years he was the third leading scorer amongst centers and no worse than 1st or 2nd amonst two way centers. Only Clarke and Trottier were better two way centers during Lemaire's career. While Esposito, Ratelle, Dionne, Perreault, and Mikita were great offensive players, none of them held a candle to Lemaire in two way play and playoff performance. Lemaire's place in the Hall was well earned.

 

[BM67]

Not when, as noted here, he never won an individual award, was never named to a first- or second- all-star team, and only played in two all-star games. Lemaire was a very good centre, responsible defensively, and an excellent postseason guy. But so was Bobby Smith, and there's no rush to put him in the Hall.

Even in his best year, 72-73, Lemaire wasn't even ione of the top 5 centres (let alone players) in the league - Esposito, Ratelle, Clarke, Dionne, Perreault, and Mikita were better than him, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to think guys like Sittler and Unger could've done at least as well as Lemaire did, given the same supporting cast.

Ron Francis and Peter Stastny have 0 All-Star teams to their credit. The fact that he was the 3rd best center in 77-78, might lead one to pick that as his best year. Rating him behind 5 players from the THN Top 50 list, and 7 from the Top 100, doesn't really hurt his case for the HoF.

Lemaire was in the top 25 career point leaders, and the top 20 on a points per game basis, and 4th in career playoff scoring, when he retired. He has more career playoff points than any of the players mentioned above except for Mikita.

 

[chooch*]

This isnt about Lemaire although I would say that he was jealous of Lafleur from about 75 on wards and almost never passed the puck to him (check his assist totals on the Lafleur line). His supposed defensive prowess is a joke unless you mean hanging back while Guy and Shutt try to score. Lemaire never, I mean NEVER, was used on the penalty kill; whereas Big Pete most certainly always was by Scotty. His goal in Game 2 of the 1972 series was shorthanded afterall. I remember laughing along with Dick Irvin one night when Lemaire fell literally in front of a shot in a blocking attempt so bad and so rare for him. He was no Guy Carbonneau.

Pete was more than stats; he was a true leader. Those who say he shouldnt be in the HoF based on stats didnt watch the Habs from 70-77; didnt see his settling effect on Guy (who was retired by Jacques); didnt see his lovely passes and dekes; didnt see a goal v. Rangers in 75 where he went end to end (best goal ever?).

As for Jacques - why wasnt he on TeamCanada 72? or the 76 Canada Cup instead of Pete??

Answer that.

 

[mcphee]

This isnt about Lemaire although I would say that he was jealous of Lafleur from about 75 on wards and almost never passed the puck to him (check his assist totals on the Lafleur line). His supposed defensive prowess is a joke unless you mean hanging back while Guy and Shutt try to score. Lemaire never, I mean NEVER, was used on the penalty kill; whereas Big Pete most certainly always was by Scotty. His goal in Game 2 of the 1972 series was shorthanded afterall. I remember laughing along with Dick Irvin one night when Lemaire fell literally in front of a shot in a blocking attempt so bad and so rare for him. He was no Guy Carbonneau.

Pete was more than stats; he was a true leader. Those who say he shouldnt be in the HoF based on stats didnt watch the Habs from 70-77; didnt see his settling effect on Guy (who was retired by Jacques); didnt see his lovely passes and dekes; didnt see a goal v. Rangers in 75 where he went end to end (best goal ever?).

As for Jacques - why wasnt he on TeamCanada 72? or the 76 Canada Cup instead of Pete??

Answer that.

Chooch, in this lockout season, coupled with expressvu's free month of January, I watched a lot of classic games over the last 6 weeks. Lemaire was definitely on th epenalty kill. Lemaire essentially had 2 careers in Mtl. as a player. Up to about 76 he was the offensive threat expected to rival Cournoyer as the team's go to guy. It never quite happened that way as he was a solid player but aside from 1 year, never threatened to join the 50 goal guys. His last 3 years, he became,imo, the most complete player on the team. I've always thought that, and see no reason to change from anything I've read here. Further, Bowman trusted him in those roles and freely states as much when asked. As for Canada Cups, it was timing I guess. If they were played in 77,8, or 9 or even 80, I'm sure he would have been picked. I think that if we dug up old Mtl. Star articles from the fall of 71, Peter's selection may have raised a few eyebrows, though I'm glad they picked him. As for Peter M being a true leader, I've read whatever books are available from the players from that team and I lived in the city then. I'm not slandering the guy because the stories were documented. The players loved Peter, and would want to be in his taxi going out for dinner, but his lifestyle kept him from being considered a leader. He was the team party animal and Bowman's whipping boy. His mishaps in local establishments were legendary. I have no problem with this as during the same era, a few of my own were pretty legendary. He was the lovable wayward guy on that team, not their leader. Remember when Shutt called their line the Donut Line ? [ no center]. Remember when he and Mario Tremblay bralwed in their hotel ? Remember when Bowman fined him $100 for missing curfew and he peeled off $200 and said I'm coming in late tomorrow too. None of these make him a bad guy, but the team knew he had personal problems and his trade was inevitable. I wouldn't post this stuff if it wasn't in the Dryden or whoever books, as he was a Hab I really liked from the day I saw him with the Mtl. Voyageurs. I also admire the way he is upfront about his problems and doesn't make excuses. If I list favorites, he's way ahead of Lemaire in my books. I just think that Lemaire was a superior player.

One story I heard about Peter M., which I have no idea as to its truth is about the fact that he wouldn't drop the gloves by his 2nd or 3rd year, and if forced to, would grab and wrestle. Apparently Ferguson took him aside and explained that he had good enough hands to not use them the way Fergy had. The story came 3rd hand from an old Jr. tough guy named Globensky, memorable to 70's Jr. Canadien fans.

 

[#66]

Wow I had no idea that P. Mahovlich was that wild. I've always heard that he wanted to be traded from the Pens because of the teams drunks. Its kind of funny that he gets traded for Pierre Larouche, another bad seed.

 

[mcphee]

Wow I had no idea that P. Mahovlich was that wild. I've always heard that he wanted to be traded from the Pens because of the teams drunks. Its kind of funny that he gets traded for Pierre Larouche, another bad seed.

Peter Mahovlich was by no means 'a bad seed'.

 

[looooob]

interesting post mcphee

my dad was at a local watering hole(I've never asked him which one) the night before the first game of the 72 summit series...alot of the Canadian boys were out tying one on, but none more prominent than Pete M, who was pretty tanked, telling anyone within earshot how much of a cakewalk the series would be (of course he wasn't alone in thinking that...so I'm not really blaming him perse)

 

[#66]

Peter Mahovlich was by no means 'a bad seed'.

So he was a guy that just liked to party to much?

 

[mcphee]

So he was a guy that just liked to party to much?

I don't want to play Doctor Phil here and I honestly don't know what goes into alcoholism. By definition, I don't where the line between partying too much and what they call a disease is drawn. I've heard Peter M discuss his past and I was pretty impressed by how candid he was. I know the guy's teammates loved him and they also knew towards the end of his time in Mtl. that he was crossing the line. I just don't like to label guys, whether it's bad seed, or whatever, it's too easy to wrap stuff up in a neat package. In fairness, I doubt you were really doing that.

 

[#66]

I don't want to play Doctor Phil here and I honestly don't know what goes into alcoholism. By definition, I don't where the line between partying too much and what they call a disease is drawn. I've heard Peter M discuss his past and I was pretty impressed by how candid he was. I know the guy's teammates loved him and they also knew towards the end of his time in Mtl. that he was crossing the line. I just don't like to label guys, whether it's bad seed, or whatever, it's too easy to wrap stuff up in a neat package. In fairness, I doubt you were really doing that.

Yeah, bad seed might have been a bad term. He and Larouche always seemed to be well liked by their teams. I'm wondering if he was trying to correct his lifestye when he went to the Pens. Like I've said in the other post he complained about being on a team with a bunch of drunks and pretty much demanded a trade. Going from Montreal to Pitt in those days must have been hard enough but that atmosphere must have made it even worse.