Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ahh, yes. Datsyuk vs. Malkin.

I'll be the first to openly question, all things considered, are we really that sure that Malkin has delivered more value than Datsyuk?

Hooley Smith must get in now.

Larionov seems fairly weak for this class; everyone else is going to get a serious look from me.

Bowie was the most dominant of all players here, but also against the weakest class of players. It's going to be a mixed bag of votes for this guy.

Datsyuk did have that 2nd team all-star nod in 2009.

Oh, but, Malkin was the first team all-star that year. Probably only because he won the Art Ross that year. But in the playoff...Malkin won the Conn Smythe.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Only 2 Hart Trophy winners this round: Malkin & Lindros

Only 2 Art Ross Trophy winners this round: Malkin and Lindros

However, if they had them then, Bowie probably would have won multiples of both.

 

[seventieslord]

Another thing - Why Datsyuk over Modano? I had and still have Modano over him. Am I underrating Datsyuk?

I hated the guy and think that he is currently the most overrated retired player on the main section of hfboards, but Eric Lindros is looking awfully attractive this round. (I feel dirty saying that)

Delvecchio basically has to go this round. I underrated him on my original list by a little bit, and we're already getting into the range where I originally had him.

After getting some newfound appreciation for Modano about three years ago I always had him ahead. but Datsyuk has closed the gap and they're basically equals at this point, IMO. I mean, there's no doubt Datsyuk was better defensively, right? And offensively his top-5 or so seasons are better, at least by rankings and percentages. Is it just longevity that keeps Modano ahead at this point for you? That would be uncharacteristic.

Gilbert Perreault was very good defensively. Not Richard, Keon or even Delvecchio level but many time zones ahead of Hawerchuk and Oates. Where do you get the perception factor?

The perception factor, as in, he seems to be regarded as much better than his offensive stats are.

And you're the first one who's ever said Perreault was very good defensively.

Jean Ratelle was a solid 2 way player. He was also a surprisingly good player along the boards for a Lady Byng winner.

So that said, with the offensive gap between them really small (and likely negated by the fact that Ratelle could really score goals) is there any good reason to have Oates over him?

I don't get that either.

Guess we'll soon find out.

2nd, 3rd and 4th in Hart voting has to be top-2 in this round, doesn't it? And for players from back then (Schmidt, Apps, Nighbor, etc), Hart voting should transcend stats a bit, no?

Datsyuk did have that 2nd team all-star nod in 2009.

Oh, but, Malkin was the first team all-star that year. Probably only because he won the Art Ross that year. But in the playoff...Malkin won the Conn Smythe.

So trophy counting, then?

What percentage better offensively is Malkin, realistically? Does that outweigh how much incredibly better at everything else Datsyuk is? I'm sorry, but when I watch Malkin I see him look disinterested a lot of the time. Datsyuk always seems central to every play that is going on, in all three zones.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

After getting some newfound appreciation for Modano about three years ago I always had him ahead. but Datsyuk has closed the gap and they're basically equals at this point, IMO. I mean, there's no doubt Datsyuk was better defensively, right? And offensively his top-5 or so seasons are better, at least by rankings and percentages. Is it just longevity that keeps Modano ahead at this point for you? That would be uncharacteristic.



The perception factor, as in, he seems to be regarded as much better than his offensive stats are.

And you're the first one who's ever said Perreault was very good defensively.



So that said, with the offensive gap between them really small (and likely negated by the fact that Ratelle could really score goals) is there any good reason to have Oates over him?



2nd, 3rd and 4th in Hart voting has to be top-2 in this round, doesn't it? And for players from back then (Schmidt, Apps, Nighbor, etc), Hart voting should transcend stats a bit, no?



So trophy counting, then?

What percentage better offensively is Malkin, realistically? Does that outweigh how much incredibly better at everything else Datsyuk is? I'm sorry, but when I watch Malkin I see him look disinterested a lot of the time. Datsyuk always seems central to every play that is going on, in all three zones.

So Hooley Smith is in consideration because of his Hart votes, but I'm trophy counting (the Hart) for Malkin?

I mentioned last round that Joe Thornton was often disinterested, but it seemed to be a non-factor for him.

 

[Sturminator]

So Hooley Smith is in consideration because of his Hart votes, but I'm trophy counting (the Hart) for Malkin?

Hart votes are not the only reason Smith is in consideration here.

 

[ted2019]

I mustve underrated Hooley Smith and Larionov. Both on my list but at 70+ :S

Datsyuk by far best defensive forward of the group. Who would follow? Larionov?

I think I had Datsyuk 45th and Igor 48th on My list.

 

[seventieslord]

So Hooley Smith is in consideration because of his Hart votes, but I'm trophy counting (the Hart) for Malkin?

Two different eras. In one, the points race and hart votes were seemingly not correlated at all. In the other, they are almost perfectly correlated.

So yes, I think leaning on hart votes for players we've never seen is a fair thing to do.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Seems like Larionov gets credit for simply having an NHL career.

I agree that he's likely to be a non-factor in this round, but for the sake of setting the table in future discussion: it's probably not just that Larionov had "an" NHL career, but that his later years included an important supporting role on a pseudo-dynasty that won 3 Cups.

 

[ted2019]

Agree, Modano should be up by now. I don't think it's that much of a drop from Fedorov to him, really.

Why should Modano be up now? His last 10 seasons on the league, He averaged 0.75 PPG. Before that, He averaged 1.03 PPG in His first 11 seasons. He never had a season over 93 Pts ( did that 2 seasons in a row) and His next highest point total was 85. He just doesn't have the resume to be up yet.

 

[MXD]

Two different eras. In one, the points race and hart votes were seemingly not correlated at all. In the other, they are almost perfectly correlated.

So yes, I think leaning on hart votes for players we've never seen is a fair thing to do.

I tend to agree. But one thing though; for many years, the MVP criteria has been followed quite litteraly. I'm pretty convinced Tom Anderson wasn't the best player in the league in 41-42, but I'm quite convinced he was way more valuable (to its team) than, say, Bryan Hextall, the ARt Ross winner that season and a much more "relevant" candidate as to who was the best player in the NHL that season.

Namely because Hextall had very competent linemates, the Rangers had a very good center line and solid defense, and so on.

While Anderson's team was... well, bad.

Back to Smith, he played its relevant years on (mostly) good teams, so I think we have to take for granted that its Hart voting results weren't because he was the best player on a team headed straight for the special olympics.

 

[sr edler]

The perception factor, as in, he seems to be regarded as much better than his offensive stats are.

Like in that segment of the TSN Top 10 Most Skilled Hockey Players where Shanahan describes him [Perreault] as "sort of a Mario Lemieux before there was Mario Lemieux" and how his goals were "highlight reel goals". Then Hull compares him to Denis Savard and Pavel Bure. But his bow legs and how he liked to go end to end through the whole opposition reminds him of Datsyuk, and Datsyuk's a player with a bit of perception factor to as well, me thinks.

Perreault is at 07:24

 

[tarheelhockey]

I tend to agree. But one thing though; for many years, the MVP criteria has been followed quite litteraly. I'm pretty convinced Tom Anderson wasn't the best player in the league in 41-42, but I'm quite convinced he was way more valuable (to its team) than, say, Bryan Hextall, the ARt Ross winner that season and a much more "relevant" candidate as to who was the best player in the NHL that season.

Namely because Hextall had very competent linemates, the Rangers had a very good center line and solid defense, and so on.

While Anderson's team was... well, bad.

So what you're saying is that Ron Francis would have been a Hart contender in an earlier era?


(Sorry, couldn't help myself!)

 

[MXD]

So what you're saying is that Ron Francis would have been a Hart contender in an earlier era?


(Sorry, couldn't help myself!)

Actually, in my assessment, I'd probably punish the player who got Hart votings in circumstances that strongly indicates he wasn't as good as his Hart votings indicates. Maybe just a little less credit given.

But yeah... probably Francis fits that bill.

But back to original topic -- that situation certainly DOES NOT affect Hooley Smith, who played on mostly good (but never great, except for his rookie season) teams.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hart votes are not the only reason Smith is in consideration here.

That was all I had to respond to at this stage.

Besides, my point wasn't about Smith, rather the criticism for my trophy counting on the heals of trophy vote counting by the same individual.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Two different eras. In one, the points race and hart votes were seemingly not correlated at all. In the other, they are almost perfectly correlated.

So yes, I think leaning on hart votes for players we've never seen is a fair thing to do.

None of us saw Eddie Shore play. But when it was brought up that he won 4 Hart trophies it was stated that voting was really different back then so it shouldn't be counted the same as more modern Hart Trophy winners. Guess it can go either way, depending on who's argument you wish to make.

 

[MXD]

I sorta like the new entrants group this time around. All usual caveats (ie, before arguments) apply.

As I said before, Smith and Datsyuk woudl probably have completely changed my list.

Ratelle is a very interesting inclusion at this point. Not in Datsyuk's territory for defensive or playoffs play, but very good nonetheless, and interesting longevity. And not a softie, despite numerous Lady Bing. One Lindsay. But a somewhat ugly weakness though : not really a factor from 20 to 26 years old, and became a factor at 27. That coincides with... yep, expansion. Still, a top-8 until proven contrary, and a very legit Top-4 hopeful.

I think Larionov came available just at the right time. Like, as it stands now, he's certainly a probable Top-8, and absolutely no shot at Top-4.

Bowie is, and will be, divisive. He uttlerly dominated a field... I could've possibly having been part of.

 

[MXD]

None of us saw Eddie Shore play. But when it was brought up that he won 4 Hart trophies it was stated that voting was really different back then so it shouldn't be counted the same as more modern Hart Trophy winners. Guess it can go either way, depending on who's argument you wish to make.

With Shore, it had more to do with the fact that D-Men got WAYYY more Hart consideration in his era than nowadays, or even Orr-a-days.

 

[seventieslord]

None of us saw Eddie Shore play. But when it was brought up that he won 4 Hart trophies it was stated that voting was really different back then so it shouldn't be counted the same as more modern Hart Trophy winners. Guess it can go either way, depending on who's argument you wish to make.

Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just didn't pay attention well enough to that discussion piece... in comparing shore to another defenseman from a later era, it is important to note that defensemen got way more hart votes across the board in that era compared to others. Would you disagree?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

None of us saw Eddie Shore play. But when it was brought up that he won 4 Hart trophies it was stated that voting was really different back then so it shouldn't be counted the same as more modern Hart Trophy winners. Guess it can go either way, depending on who's argument you wish to make.

The Shore argument you are speaking of is tied specifically to the defenseman position and the Norris Trophy. It is a fact that before the Norris was introduced defensemen got a lot more Hart consideration than they did after it was introduced. The argument is that among defensemen only it is unfair to do straight comparisons of Hart records when one player played before the Norris and the other after.

The only relevance it has here would be to say that pre-Norris centers had more competition for the Hart.

 

[thom]

Is Ty Cobb and Eddie shore very good comparisons in terms of both being jack *****

 

[Canadiens1958]

Back Surgeries

I sorta like the new entrants group this time around. All usual caveats (ie, before arguments) apply.

As I said before, Smith and Datsyuk woudl probably have completely changed my list.

Ratelle is a very interesting inclusion at this point. Not in Datsyuk's territory for defensive or playoffs play, but very good nonetheless, and interesting longevity. And not a softie, despite numerous Lady Bing. One Lindsay. But a somewhat ugly weakness though : not really a factor from 20 to 26 years old, and became a factor at 27. That coincides with... yep, expansion. Still, a top-8 until proven contrary, and a very legit Top-4 hopeful.

I think Larionov came available just at the right time. Like, as it stands now, he's certainly a probable Top-8, and absolutely no shot at Top-4.

Bowie is, and will be, divisive. He uttlerly dominated a field... I could've possibly having been part of.

Jean Ratelle between the ages of 20 - 26 had two back surgeries including a spinal fusion. Initially feared he would not play hockey again.

 

[MXD]

Jean Ratelle between the ages of 20 - 26 had two back surgeries including a spinal fusion. Initially feared he would not play hockey again.

I totally knew that, but my knowledge of recovery and 100% recovery times for back surgeries occuring in the 60ies is pretty much non-existent.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Imlach and Bowman

The perception factor, as in, he seems to be regarded as much better than his offensive stats are.

And you're the first one who's ever said Perreault was very good defensively.

Playing first for Punch Imlach then Scotty Bowman coached/ managed NHL meant a center had to be at least very good defensively to play and last. This is after playing junior for Roger Bedard who demanded solid defense from his players. Producing Rejean Houle who could hold his own against Bobby Hull when playing with Henri Richard.

 

[seventieslord]

Playing first for Punch Imlach then Scotty Bowman coached/ managed NHL meant a center had to be at least very good defensively to play and last. This is after playing junior for Roger Bedard who demanded solid defense from his players. Producing Rejean Houle who could hold his own against Bobby Hull when playing with Henri Richard.

....or maybe he was just talented enough that they just let him do his thing?

Punch Imlach, for one, is on record as being in awe at his talent level. There's no hard and fast rule saying he would have to pound Perreault into a system game. I've never once read anything saying Perreault was any good defensively, and his GF:GA ratio was actually very weak for a 1000 point player.

This would need to be much better substantiated. I can't see anyone just taking your word for it on this one.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just didn't pay attention well enough to that discussion piece... in comparing shore to another defenseman from a later era, it is important to note that defensemen got way more hart votes across the board in that era compared to others. Would you disagree?

What? What did you call me?

Son, you're forgetting yourself.