Round 2, Vote 11 (HOH Top Wingers)

[overpass]

Noble was 27 years old, had played 7 pro seasons, and won 2 Cups before the Hart even existed. Also, in the same year he made a Hart showing (1926) his teammate Nels Stewart actually won the trophy. Furthermore, considering he was not a point-scoring stud but a utility player who switched back and forth between positions with ease, I'm not sure he would really have had a lot of Hart consideration under even the best of circumstances.

So I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to measure this player by Hart votes. But for the sake of completeness, let's look at Noble's record against the other candidate in this round.

In the Montreal Gazette article that announced the 1925-26 voting results, the writer noted that Montrealers would be surprised that Reg Noble finished so low.

"Noble was highly favoured in these parts, but his usefulness was not as apparent to other critics around the circuit."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19260318&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 20 finishes of the post-expansion NHLers

Rod Gilbert had 4 seasons as a full-time player before the expansion. I'm asterixing top finishes from before the expansion.

Top 20 points finishes

Gilbert: 5, 5, 7*, 8, 9*, 12, 15, 16, 17, 17*
Kovalchuk: 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11
LeClair: 4, 5, 9, 9, 13, 16
Fleury: 6, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20
Alfredsson: 4, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19
Cournoyer: 6, 8, 13, 16, 19
Middleton: 10, 10, 13, 14, 14, 16
Neely: 15, 20

Top 20 goals finishes

Kovalchuk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 8
Cournoyer: 4, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 12, 20
LeClair: 3, 3, 5, 5, 7, 10
Neely: 2, 3, 8, 9, 19
Gilbert: 3,* 7, 7*, 9*, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18
Fleury: 3, 6, 7, 11, 19
Middleton: 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18
Alfredsson: 9, 9, 9, 12

Top 20 assists finishes

Gilbert: 2, 6, 6, 6, 7*, 9*, 9, 17, 18
Alfredsson: 8, 11, 13, 13, 13, 17
Fleury: 6, 7, 11, 14, 18
Middleton: 18, 14, 17, 20
Cournoyer: 13, 20
Kovalchuk: 15, 18
LeClair: 17
Neely: NONE

10 VsX weighted scores

10 years is the preferred method when comparing only post-expansion players, since post-expansion players usually have 10+ years as effective players. Any comparison involving pre-expansion players should use 7 year VsX, since pre-expansion players usually had shorter primes due to fewer roster spots and weaker medical care.

Remember, this is a weighted score that gives a player's best seasons more weight. (The weights matter more to the 10 year score than the 7 year one).

Theoren Fleury 78.9
Ilya Kovalchuk 78.5
Daniel Alfredsson 78.4
Rod Gilbert 78.2 (possibly hurt by the benchmark in the early 70s set by the Bruins)
John LeClair 73.5
Yvan Cournoyer 69.6 (possibly hurt by the benchmark in the early 70s set by the Bruins)
Rick Middleton 68.4
Cam Neely 55.6

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In the Montreal Gazette article that announced the 1925-26 voting results, the writer noted that Montrealers would be surprised that Reg Noble finished so low.

"Noble was highly favoured in these parts, but his usefulness was not as apparent to other critics around the circuit."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19260318&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Montreal paper calling a Montreal player underrated by the voters? I'm skeptical.

 

[seventieslord]

Rick Middleton, to early. Especially given the lack of recognition granted great defensive forwards in this project. The likes of Bob Gainey, George Armstrong and Bob Pulford are being shamelessly ignored.

Prime evidence of this is the following comparison of the impact Bob Gainey had in the playoffs, playing agains the Boston Bruins, covering Rick Middleton.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=70368029&postcount=32

Key elements hi-lited.


In eight playoffs series against the Bruins when the Gainey / Middleton match-up was in play, the Canadiens went 26W - 11L in 37 games, winning 7 of the 8 series.

Bob Gainey dominated Rick Middleton. In the 37 games, Rick Middleton registered 8G / 8A. Only 11 of the 16 points were scored at ES. So in the 37 playoff games, Rick Middleton was reduced to a 0.432 PPG player. vs his RS 0.98 level or his career overall PO 0.88 level. Effectively against the rest of the league in 77 PO games, Middleton registered 84 points in 77 games or a 1.09 PPG level. Furthermore in the same games Bob Gainey scored 6G and 9A for 15 points.

As a comparable against another LW, Craig Ramsay and the Buffalo Sabres in two series Rick Middleton scored 7G and 16A over 11 games, Bruins winning both series. The difference speaks for itself.

Let's look at this logically.

This is being used as a point against Middleton, but to me it looks like a point for Gainey.

If this was unique and other scorers didn't have trouble maintaining their stats against Gainey, then yes, it would look bad for Middleton that someone had his number so badly. But, then Gainey wouldn't be so special if he only had this impact on one major player.

Presumably, Gainey had this impact on a number of major players. So then, why single out Middleton?

Theoren Fleury 78.9
Ilya Kovalchuk 78.5
Daniel Alfredsson 78.4
Rod Gilbert 78.2 (possibly hurt by the benchmark in the early 70s set by the Bruins)
John LeClair 73.5
Yvan Cournoyer 69.6 (possibly hurt by the benchmark in the early 70s set by the Bruins)
Rick Middleton 68.4
Cam Neely 55.6

I think any adjustment that is made to be forgiving of this would put him ahead of the next best 10-year guy by 2-3 points.

Honest question, are you perhaps a little selective about which one-dimensional guy you will champion when he's the top scorer not yet on the list? Because Gilbert really seems to fit that bill right now and he's not getting the Shriner/Drillon treatment from you.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hart voting? For a guy who was a defensive defenseman in his 30s when the award existed?

You'll say anything to raise doubts about a player from before your time.

Really why the personal attack here, it's a serious question?

As for the actual voting he was 28 years old in 24-25 and didn't place in the top 15 guys (in a 6 team league with basically 1 line per team) and then placed 12th the enxt year.

Even as a forward earlier on in a much smaller NHL his scoring finishes and playoff resume is hardly earth shattering don't you agree?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Rick Middleton, to early. Especially given the lack of recognition granted great defensive forwards in this project. The likes of Bob Gainey, George Armstrong and Bob Pulford are being shamelessly ignored.

Prime evidence of this is the following comparison of the impact Bob Gainey had in the playoffs, playing agains the Boston Bruins, covering Rick Middleton.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=70368029&postcount=32

Key elements hi-lited.


In eight playoffs series against the Bruins when the Gainey / Middleton match-up was in play, the Canadiens went 26W - 11L in 37 games, winning 7 of the 8 series.

Bob Gainey dominated Rick Middleton. In the 37 games, Rick Middleton registered 8G / 8A. Only 11 of the 16 points were scored at ES. So in the 37 playoff games, Rick Middleton was reduced to a 0.432 PPG player. vs his RS 0.98 level or his career overall PO 0.88 level. Effectively against the rest of the league in 77 PO games, Middleton registered 84 points in 77 games or a 1.09 PPG level. Furthermore in the same games Bob Gainey scored 6G and 9A for 15 points.

As a comparable against another LW, Craig Ramsay and the Buffalo Sabres in two series Rick Middleton scored 7G and 16A over 11 games, Bruins winning both series. The difference speaks for itself.

funny I thought those Habs teams had a guy in net named Dryden and 3 guys on D who were half decent as well, not to mention some forwards as well,it wasn't like it was Gainey versus Middleton 1 on 1 was it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Honest question, are you perhaps a little selective about which one-dimensional guy you will champion when he's the top scorer not yet on the list? Because Gilbert really seems to fit that bill right now and he's not getting the Shriner/Drillon treatment from you.

I think I ranked Drillon 6th last round; some champion I am. (4 of the guys I had over him made it).

Here's an idea - if you think Gilbert is underrated, YOU champion him.

You know, I found some of what you wrote about Gilbert to be compelling before you wrote this. I hadn't thought about how the VsX formula is probably a little too rough on early 70s non-Bruins until you pointed it out.

As for the merits, you should know by now that even though I'm reposting the VsX tables, I don't think that's all anyone should go on - it's merely a rough estimate of regular season point production. Gilbert's goal scoring is pretty mediocre for this round, and in putting together the top 20 tables, I noticed that his playmaking seems to have taken a step up around the time of the 1967 expansion right when he started playing with Ratelle (not sure if either of those - expansion or Ratelle is much of a factor though). His playoff record is unspectacular, though not nearly as bad as Ratelle's when they played together. His All-Star record is pretty meh, playing in not the strongest era for RWs.

Anyway, if you want Gilbert to rank higher, why don't you spend time making the case for him? Show us how important his assists were. Show us that his playoffs aren't really that bad. Show us more about his All-Star record.

______________

Anyway, I don't think Gilbert was as good offensively as Drillon. Is he 100% better than Kovalchuk? (I realize he doesn't have all of Kovalchuk's negatives, so I'll likely have him higher, but still).

 

[unknown33]

How does Olmstead compare to the likes of Armstrong, Gainey or Provost?
I had him below on my round 1 list.

 

[MXD]

Anybody can post domestic records for Yakushev and Balderis?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Vote 11

Let's look at this logically.

This is being used as a point against Middleton, but to me it looks like a point for Gainey.

If this was unique and other scorers didn't have trouble maintaining their stats against Gainey, then yes, it would look bad for Middleton that someone had his number so badly. But, then Gainey wouldn't be so special if he only had this impact on one major player.

Presumably, Gainey had this impact on a number of major players. So then, why single out Middleton?



I think any adjustment that is made to be forgiving of this would put him ahead of the next best 10-year guy by 2-3 points.

Honest question, are you perhaps a little selective about which one-dimensional guy you will champion when he's the top scorer not yet on the list? Because Gilbert really seems to fit that bill right now and he's not getting the Shriner/Drillon treatment from you.

Because Middleton is up for consideration in vote 11, while the others are not. Rather logical wouldn't you say.

 

[MXD]

Because Middleton is up for consideration in vote 11, while the others are not. Rather logical wouldn't you say.

But in the end, you're still saying that one of the best, if not the best, defensive forward of all-time contributed to shut down a player who is clearly not the best offensive player of all time, and who is nowhere close to that status.

I mean, Gainey may be a better player all-in-all than Middleton (its really not far-fetched, and I dare say, he's not the only mostly defensive forward with such a claim), but Gainey shutting down Middleton wouldn't go a long way to prove either, as Middleton could, and did, score quite a bit in his career, and didn't do so in a Kovalchuk-fashion.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Because Middleton is up for consideration in vote 11, while the others are not. Rather logical wouldn't you say.

Your post may have been logical, but it wasn't factual.

I pointed this out early, but apparently it was ignored.

You referred to 8 playoff series.

In one series Middleton didn't play, he was hurt.

In another Gainey didn't play, he was hurt.

In 2 others, Middleton was not the first line RW for the Bruins yet, hence he probably wasn't matched up with Gainey.

Hard to believe this bogus argument is still in play.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bert Olmstead

Olmstead : How important is support ? Or, is it better to be a passenger in the bus (and sometimes hint the driver about the destination) or to drive the bus absolutely nowhere ?

I already know I overrated him a bit in the initial list. Something striking : playoffs numbers are very weak at first glance (flipped places with Moore?). On the other hand : Hart record is decent of this stage and make him look, well, maybe not as a passenger. Worth noting : those Hart finishes were NOT with the Habs.

Also led the league twice in assists, with a 2nd place as well (but Béliveau and Geoffrion).

I can't really imagine a player getting Hart consideration after being waived the year before (other than St-Louis).

Also led the playoffs in assists twice.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/olmstbe01.html

The Intra League Draft in the fifties was not the same as being waived today or attaining one of the Free Agent levels and signing.

Bronco Horvath was a 2nd team AS member a couple of seasons after being claimed in the 1957 Intra League Draft. Gerry Cheevers, Terry Sawchuk and others were also claimed at various points in their career in a similar fashion.

Final comment about Bert Olmstead. Started playing with Beliveau and Geofrrion into the 1954-55 season, Previously played with Maurice Richard with the Canadiens.

 

[Batis]

This past week I have tried to compare Balderis and Yakushevs scoring both domestically and internationally more in detail.

Helmuts Balderis 7 year Vs2 Soviet League

82/83: 1st 111 (2nd Kozhevnikov)
76/77: 1st 102 (2nd Petrov)
79/80: 2nd 100 (1st Makarov)
84/85: 3rd 96 (2nd Krutov)
74/75: 3rd 94 (2nd Mikhailov)
75/76: 4th 88 (2nd Yakushev)
80/81: 7th 82 (2nd Kapustin)

111, 102, 100, 96, 94, 88, 82 - 7 year average 96.1

Alexander Yakushev 7 year Vs2 Soviet League

68/69: 1st 125 (2nd Starshinov)
75/76: 2nd 100 (1st Shalimov)
72/73: xxx 90 (2nd Martinyuk)
66/67: 4th 83 (2nd Firsov)
69/70: 5th 83 (2nd Mikhailov)
73/74: 3rd 77 (2nd Maltsev)
74/75: xxx 67 (2nd Mikhailov)

125, 100, 90, 83, 83, 77, 67 - 7 year average 89.3

This is how their numbers compare to other 70´s and 80´s Soviet wingers. I looked at the numbers of all wingers from Boris Mikhailov (born 1944) to Andrei Khomutov and Sergei Svetlov (born 1961).

Top 10 Wingers: 7 year Vs2 Soviet League

1. S. Makarov: 132, 130, 128, 123, 119, 119, 111: Average 123.1
2. V. Krutov: 100, 100, 100, 100, 93, 93, 92: Average 96.9
3. H. Balderis: 111, 102, 100, 96, 94, 88, 82: Average 96.1
4. B. Mikhailov: 100, 100, 100, 93, 92, 90, 88: Average 94.7
5. A. Yakushev: 125, 100, 90, 83, 83, 77, 67: Average 89.3
6. V. Kharlamov: 108, 100, 93, 83, 81, 80, 76: Average 88.7
7. V. Shalimov: 104, 87, 87, 83, 79, 72, 71: Average 83.3
8. V. Vikulov: 100, 100, 88, 78, 71, 70, 66: Average 81.9
9. A. Martinyuk: 100, 90, 90, 74, 64, 58, 55: Average 75.9
10. N. Drozdetsky: 95, 89, 80, 73, 71, 62, 61: Average 75.9

Balderis domestic numbers are as previously mentioned really impressive. The only winger significantly ahead of him is Makarov and Balderis domestic production is around the level of Krutov and Mikhailov. And even if we include centers the only other player who is significantly ahead of him is Vladimir Petrov. Another thing to note is that six of Balderis seven best years in relation to the second highest scorer in the league was achievied while playing for Riga. It seems like Balderis really thrived from being the clear number one on his team rather than being one of many stars.

Yakushevs domestic numbers are also impressive as his 7 year Vs2 is around the level of Kharlamov and not that far behind the Krutov, Balderis and Mikhailov group.

Helmuts Balderis 7 major international tournaments Vs2

WHC 1977: 6th 79 (2nd Mikhailov)
WHC 1978: 7th 79 (2nd Hlinka)
WHC 1979: 9th 64 (2nd Kharlamov)
WO 1980: xxx 64 (2nd P. Stastny)
WHC 1976: xxx 63 (2nd Novak)
WHC 1983: xxx 60 (2nd Krutov)
CC 1976: xxx 56 (2nd Orr)

79, 79, 64, 64, 63, 60, 56 - 7 tournaments average 66.4

Alexander Yakushev 7 major international tournaments Vs2

WHC 1972: 3rd 94 (2nd Vikulov)
WHC 1974: 3rd 93 (2nd Martinec)
WHC 1975: 4th 89 (2nd Petrov)
WO 1976: 8th 70 (2nd Maltsev)
WHC 1977: xxx 58 (2nd Mikhailov)
WHC 1973: 5th 52 (2nd Mikhailov)
WHC 1976: xxx 44 (2nd Novak)

94, 93, 89, 70, 58, 52, 44 – 7 tournaments average 71.4

Top 10 Wingers: 7 tournaments Vs2 International

1. V. Kharlamov: 167, 100, 100, 93, 90, 88, 88: Average 103.7
2. S. Makarov: 120, 108, 106, 100, 100, 86, 85: Average 100.7
3. B. Mikhailov: 113, 100, 100, 100, 86, 86, 83: Average 95.4
4. V. Krutov: 115, 107, 100, 100, 79, 78, 73: Average 93.1
5. V.Vikulov: 100, 100, 100, 82, 78, 63, 59: Average 83.1
6. S. Kapustin: 92, 84, 79, 73, 72, 67, 57: Average 74.9
7. A. Khomutov: 100, 100, 100, 64, 54, 46, 39: Average 71.9
8. A. Yakushev: 94, 93, 89, 70, 58, 52, 44: Average 71.4
9. H. Balderis: 79, 79, 64, 64, 63, 60, 56: Average 66.4
10. V. Shalimov: 106, 100, 100, 50, 50, 36, 21: Average 66.1

As previously mentioned Yakushev has an advantage over Balderis internationally. The difference was not as big as I expected though and while Balderis “only” made the top 10 in scoring in three of the seven international tournaments he played in he was consistently only a point or two away from being a top 10 scorer. In the 1983 WHC Balderis had as many points as Marcel Dionne who finished top 10 in scoring but finished outside of the top 10 because of less goals scored.

It should be noted that Yakushevs Vs2 in the 1973 WHC takes a hit from the incredible dominance of the MPK line in that tournament. Yakushev finished in 5th place in scoring that tournament but his 15 points was still miles away from the number 2 scorer Mikhailovs 29 points. But in general I think it can be said that while both Yakushev and Balderis numbers in major international tournaments are relatively good they are far from as great as their domestic numbers. In Yakushevs defence he has his amazing performances in the 1972 and 1974 Summit Series to make his international resume more impressive.

As I mentioned in my previous post I think that these two players are extremely close to each other when it comes to both ability, peak, prime and career value. I would say that Balderis was the slightly better player offensively but that Yakushev with his more well rounded game while being almost as good offensively should be ranked as the ever so slightly better player. But in my opinion they are so even that its almost impossible to decide especially considering that they are very even in Soviet MVP voting and when it comes to other accolades to.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rick Middleton

Your post may have been logical, but it wasn't factual.

I pointed this out early, but apparently it was ignored.

You referred to 8 playoff series.

In one series Middleton didn't play, he was hurt.

In another Gainey didn't play, he was hurt.

In 2 others, Middleton was not the first line RW for the Bruins yet, hence he probably wasn't matched up with Gainey.

Hard to believe this bogus argument is still in play.

Does not change the numbers.

Furthermoer you claim that Middleton was not the 1st line winger. During the time frame in question the three Bruins RW were Terry O'Reilly - poor skater, Bobby Schmautz whose line basically played against the Lambert-Riseborough-Tremblay line. remember the Mario tremblay KO of Schmautz? So if you wish to believe that Scotty Bowman would waste a strong skater like Gainey on O'Reilly instead of the Bruins best skater Rick Middleton, be my guest.

True 1988 Bob Gainey was hurt and missed the series against Boston. Only series that Rick Middleton played against the Canadiens where the Bruins one. 1G 1A in 5 games for a pre retirement Middleton.

So your point reduces to Rick Middleton was never in a winning series against the Canadiens when Bob Gainey played. Sorry for giving Middleton credit for something he obviously did not earn.

 

[seventieslord]

I think I ranked Drillon 6th last round; some champion I am. (4 of the guys I had over him made it).

Here's an idea - if you think Gilbert is underrated, YOU champion him.

You know, I found some of what you wrote about Gilbert to be compelling before you wrote this. I hadn't thought about how the VsX formula is probably a little too rough on early 70s non-Bruins until you pointed it out.

I don't think he's underrated - I think he's rated just fine. This would be a good round for him to get voted in, probably in the top 2.

Forgive me if you feel I've mischaracterized your preferences in this project, but it does seem that as soon as guy is at the top for VsX, one dimensional or not, you want to see him get in. Nothing wrong with that but that's how I saw it.

As for the merits, you should know by now that even though I'm reposting the VsX tables, I don't think that's all anyone should go on - it's merely a rough estimate of regular season point production. Gilbert's goal scoring is pretty mediocre for this round, and in putting together the top 20 tables, I noticed that his playmaking seems to have taken a step up around the time of the 1967 expansion right when he started playing with Ratelle (not sure if either of those - expansion or Ratelle is much of a factor though). His playoff record is unspectacular, though not nearly as bad as Ratelle's when they played together. His All-Star record is pretty meh, playing in not the strongest era for RWs.

how is his goal scoring mediocre for this round? He's got more top-10 finishes than most of the post-expansion guys, and I don't see a reason to value the pre-expansion ones differently. He's also got more top-20s than anyone, and although I would value 11th-20ths less pre-expansion, he doesn't have any of those.

He had help posting his points like most guys here, but on the whole the numbers don't seem to indicate it was an inordinate amount. Even with Brad park scoring points with him, a 1.36 score is right in Shanahan/Robitaille territory.

Anyway, if you want Gilbert to rank higher, why don't you spend time making the case for him? Show us how important his assists were. Show us that his playoffs aren't really that bad. Show us more about his All-Star record.

- I'll look into his assists when I have the right sheet. I'm not sure what his 1st:2nd assist ratio is going to be.

- His playoffs probably are that bad.

- he has no Recchi-style 4th-5th place all-star finishes with significant votes worthy of consideration. Are there a bunch of seasons where players with less points got the all-star team over him?

______________

Anyway, I don't think Gilbert was as good offensively as Drillon. Is he 100% better than Kovalchuk? (I realize he doesn't have all of Kovalchuk's negatives, so I'll likely have him higher, but still).

his VsX (after mental adjustment) is just barely below Drillon's, and I have to think that Apps was more help than Ratelle.

How close does his 7-year VsX have to be before his six other significant seasons push him ahead? Or to put it the other way, how many more significant seasons does he need to have to outweigh a very small 7 year VsX gap?

Because Middleton is up for consideration in vote 11, while the others are not. Rather logical wouldn't you say.

I think that still misses the point. It shouldn't be an indictable offense to score significantly less against Gainey, because if Gainey is as special a player as many think, it would be very common for star RWs to suffer the same fate. If it is, then it makes no sense to use it as a strike against Middleton.

Your post may have been logical, but it wasn't factual.

I pointed this out early, but apparently it was ignored.

You referred to 8 playoff series.

In one series Middleton didn't play, he was hurt.

In another Gainey didn't play, he was hurt.

In 2 others, Middleton was not the first line RW for the Bruins yet, hence he probably wasn't matched up with Gainey.

Hard to believe this bogus argument is still in play.

good points.

 

[MXD]

If Noble's positionnal breakdown referred to above is correct, Noble led the D-Men in scoring in 18-19... In spite missing a few games.

While we're at it -- any VsX (7) has been made for Noble ?
If so, what were the "registering" years and was he playing forward or D ?

The registering years would be useful regarding lack of Hart consideration.

 

[Captain Bowie]

This past week I have tried to compare Balderis and Yakushevs scoring both domestically and internationally more in detail.

Helmuts Balderis 7 year Vs2 Soviet League

82/83: 1st 111 (2nd Kozhevnikov)
76/77: 1st 102 (2nd Petrov)
79/80: 2nd 100 (1st Makarov)
84/85: 3rd 96 (2nd Krutov)
74/75: 3rd 94 (2nd Mikhailov)
75/76: 4th 88 (2nd Yakushev)
80/81: 7th 82 (2nd Kapustin)

111, 102, 100, 96, 94, 88, 82 - 7 year average 96.1

Alexander Yakushev 7 year Vs2 Soviet League

68/69: 1st 125 (2nd Starshinov)
75/76: 2nd 100 (1st Shalimov)
72/73: xxx 90 (2nd Martinyuk)
66/67: 4th 83 (2nd Firsov)
69/70: 5th 83 (2nd Mikhailov)
73/74: 3rd 77 (2nd Maltsev)
74/75: xxx 67 (2nd Mikhailov)

125, 100, 90, 83, 83, 77, 67 - 7 year average 89.3

This is how their numbers compare to other 70´s and 80´s Soviet wingers. I looked at the numbers of all wingers from Boris Mikhailov (born 1944) to Andrei Khomutov and Sergei Svetlov (born 1961).

Top 10 Wingers: 7 year Vs2 Soviet League

1. S. Makarov: 132, 130, 128, 123, 119, 119, 111: Average 123.1
2. V. Krutov: 100, 100, 100, 100, 93, 93, 92: Average 96.9
3. H. Balderis: 111, 102, 100, 96, 94, 88, 82: Average 96.1
4. B. Mikhailov: 100, 100, 100, 93, 92, 90, 88: Average 94.7
5. A. Yakushev: 125, 100, 90, 83, 83, 77, 67: Average 89.3
6. V. Kharlamov: 108, 100, 93, 83, 81, 80, 76: Average 88.7
7. V. Shalimov: 104, 87, 87, 83, 79, 72, 71: Average 83.3
8. V. Vikulov: 100, 100, 88, 78, 71, 70, 66: Average 81.9
9. A. Martinyuk: 100, 90, 90, 74, 64, 58, 55: Average 75.9
10. N. Drozdetsky: 95, 89, 80, 73, 71, 62, 61: Average 75.9

Balderis domestic numbers are as previously mentioned really impressive. The only winger significantly ahead of him is Makarov and Balderis domestic production is around the level of Krutov and Mikhailov. And even if we include centers the only other player who is significantly ahead of him is Vladimir Petrov. Another thing to note is that six of Balderis seven best years in relation to the second highest scorer in the league was achievied while playing for Riga. It seems like Balderis really thrived from being the clear number one on his team rather than being one of many stars.

Yakushevs domestic numbers are also impressive as his 7 year Vs2 is around the level of Kharlamov and not that far behind the Krutov, Balderis and Mikhailov group.

Helmuts Balderis 7 major international tournaments Vs2

WHC 1977: 6th 79 (2nd Mikhailov)
WHC 1978: 7th 79 (2nd Hlinka)
WHC 1979: 9th 64 (2nd Kharlamov)
WO 1980: xxx 64 (2nd P. Stastny)
WHC 1976: xxx 63 (2nd Novak)
WHC 1983: xxx 60 (2nd Krutov)
CC 1976: xxx 56 (2nd Orr)

79, 79, 64, 64, 63, 60, 56 - 7 tournaments average 66.4

Alexander Yakushev 7 major international tournaments Vs2

WHC 1972: 3rd 94 (2nd Vikulov)
WHC 1974: 3rd 93 (2nd Martinec)
WHC 1975: 4th 89 (2nd Petrov)
WO 1976: 8th 70 (2nd Maltsev)
WHC 1977: xxx 58 (2nd Mikhailov)
WHC 1973: 5th 52 (2nd Mikhailov)
WHC 1976: xxx 44 (2nd Novak)

94, 93, 89, 70, 58, 52, 44 – 7 tournaments average 71.4

Top 10 Wingers: 7 tournaments Vs2 International

1. V. Kharlamov: 167, 100, 100, 93, 90, 88, 88: Average 103.7
2. S. Makarov: 120, 108, 106, 100, 100, 86, 85: Average 100.7
3. B. Mikhailov: 113, 100, 100, 100, 86, 86, 83: Average 95.4
4. V. Krutov: 115, 107, 100, 100, 79, 78, 73: Average 93.1
5. V.Vikulov: 100, 100, 100, 82, 78, 63, 59: Average 83.1
6. S. Kapustin: 92, 84, 79, 73, 72, 67, 57: Average 74.9
7. A. Khomutov: 100, 100, 100, 64, 54, 46, 39: Average 71.9
8. A. Yakushev: 94, 93, 89, 70, 58, 52, 44: Average 71.4
9. H. Balderis: 79, 79, 64, 64, 63, 60, 56: Average 66.4
10. V. Shalimov: 106, 100, 100, 50, 50, 36, 21: Average 66.1

As previously mentioned Yakushev has an advantage over Balderis internationally. The difference was not as big as I expected though and while Balderis “only†made the top 10 in scoring in three of the seven international tournaments he played in he was consistently only a point or two away from being a top 10 scorer. In the 1983 WHC Balderis had as many points as Marcel Dionne who finished top 10 in scoring but finished outside of the top 10 because of less goals scored.

It should be noted that Yakushevs Vs2 in the 1973 WHC takes a hit from the incredible dominance of the MPK line in that tournament. Yakushev finished in 5th place in scoring that tournament but his 15 points was still miles away from the number 2 scorer Mikhailovs 29 points. But in general I think it can be said that while both Yakushev and Balderis numbers in major international tournaments are relatively good they are far from as great as their domestic numbers. In Yakushevs defence he has his amazing performances in the 1972 and 1974 Summit Series to make his international resume more impressive.

As I mentioned in my previous post I think that these two players are extremely close to each other when it comes to both ability, peak, prime and career value. I would say that Balderis was the slightly better player offensively but that Yakushev with his more well rounded game while being almost as good offensively should be ranked as the ever so slightly better player. But in my opinion they are so even that its almost impossible to decide especially considering that they are very even in Soviet MVP voting and when it comes to other accolades to.

Good stuff. Though the gap between the two in domestic vs. international is very close, it seems Balderis gets the edge because he looks better compared to contemparires in the thing he was better at (domestic scoring) than Yakushev did in the thing he was better at (International).

Is there any reason to weight either more than the other, or simply takie them as 2 even halves of the picture?

 

[Batis]

Good stuff. Though the gap between the two in domestic vs. international is very close, it seems Balderis gets the edge because he looks better compared to contemparires in the thing he was better at (domestic scoring) than Yakushev did in the thing he was better at (International).

Is there any reason to weight either more than the other, or simply takie them as 2 even halves of the picture?

Well part of the reason why I hold Balderis as the slightly better player offensively goes back to that Balderis strained relationship with Tikhonov meant that he lost many opportunities to play with the national team. So I personally give the offensive edge to Balderis because he managed to keep up with Yakushev quite well internationally despite having more limited opportunities. Usually I put abit more weight on international play than domestic play though as international performances most of the time seems to have been considered more important by the soviet observers of the time. But like I said I personally feel like Balderis is a special case in that regard. However as a overall player Yakushev has a slight edge in my opinion because of his superior two way game.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Well part of the reason why I hold Balderis as the slightly better player offensively goes back to that Balderis strained relationship with Tikhonov meant that he lost many opportunities to play with the national team. So I personally give the offensive edge to Balderis because he managed to keep up with Yakushev quite well internationally despite having more limited opportunities. Usually I put abit more weight on international play than domestic play though as international performances most of the time seems to have been considered more important by the soviet observers of the time. But like I said I personally feel like Balderis is a special case in that regard. However as a overall player Yakushev has a slight edge in my opinion because of his superior two way game.

Good to know.

Is there anything else that would go into comparing the two away from the puck? Was it as simple as Yakushev was a "plus" player away from the puck, while Balderis was an "even" player away from the puck? (Even meaning he didn't help or hurt his team much, essentially average).

 

[Batis]

Good to know.

Is there anything else that would go into comparing the two away from the puck? Was it as simple as Yakushev was a "plus" player away from the puck, while Balderis was an "even" player away from the puck? (Even meaning he didn't help or hurt his team much, essentially average).

Yes I would say that it is more a case of Yakushev being a "plus" player away from the puck than Balderis being a defensive liability. Now I have not made any in depth analysis of it but I would say that your description of their play away from the puck seems reasonable to me based on my own impressions of them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In the Montreal Gazette article that announced the 1925-26 voting results, the writer noted that Montrealers would be surprised that Reg Noble finished so low.

"Noble was highly favoured in these parts, but his usefulness was not as apparent to other critics around the circuit."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19260318&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

That sounds consistent with the day-to-day impressions that I've observed. He wasn't a guy who would knock your socks off, but he was important to his team game in and game out.

Kind of like Syd Howe, whose value was also really hard to quantify. Utility guys who spent too much time at D to rack up huge stats, but too much time at forward to be listed as a defenseman for this project.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good stuff. Though the gap between the two in domestic vs. international is very close, it seems Balderis gets the edge because he looks better compared to contemparires in the thing he was better at (domestic scoring) than Yakushev did in the thing he was better at (International).

Is there any reason to weight either more than the other, or simply takie them as 2 even halves of the picture?

2 things:

1) There is an argument that the Soviet domestic league was just a bunch of glorified exhibition games to prepare the players for what actually mattered to them - international play. Nobody ranks Petrov over Kharlamov and Mikhailov, and that's what you would have to do if you based on on the recorded domestic scoring.

2) Yakushev never played on the stacked Red Army team, and Balderis did. Batis, can you post what Balderis' stats looked like both on and off CSKA?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think he's underrated - I think he's rated just fine. This would be a good round for him to get voted in, probably in the top 2.

Forgive me if you feel I've mischaracterized your preferences in this project, but it does seem that as soon as guy is at the top for VsX, one dimensional or not, you want to see him get in. Nothing wrong with that but that's how I saw it.

Yes, you mishcharacterized my preferences. Next time, make it about the players and not me, and you don't have to worry about doing that again. For like the 10th time in the project - just because I re-post VsX tables does not mean they are the only thing I use to rank forwards. Maybe I should just stop posting them to save myself the grief.

Again, if players are relatively close as point producers, I favor the goal scorer. Not to mention, I don't think Drillon and Gilbert are super close as point producers.

Drillon's 7 year VsX is quite a bit higher even if you give Gilbert something of a bump.

Also look at top 10 finishes (which I think can still be useful to detect whether the VsX standard might be unfair to a particular player in a particular era):

Drillon Top 10 points finishes: 1, 2, 4, 8
Gilbert Top 10 points finishes: 5, 5, 7, 8, 9

Personally, I think that favors Drillon quite a bit, as a pure peak producer. Drillon was also the better goal scorer by a pretty big margin. Gilbert wins in longevity as a top player and fewer negatives. If you're big into career value over peak/prime, by all means, rank Gilbert higher.

how is his goal scoring mediocre for this round? He's got more top-10 finishes than most of the post-expansion guys, and I don't see a reason to value the pre-expansion ones differently. He's also got more top-20s than anyone, and although I would value 11th-20ths less pre-expansion, he doesn't have any of those.

I posted the goal scoring finishes in post 52. He quite clearly lacks the goal scoring peak of Kovalchuk, Cournoyer, LeClair, or Neely, with only 1 top 5 finish. Then he's also competing with Balderis and Yakushev.

his VsX (after mental adjustment) is just barely below Drillon's, and I have to think that Apps was more help than Ratelle.

Drillon seems to have relied on teammates to get possession of the puck in the offensive zone, but once there, he was as good as anyone. Anyway, Gilbert didn't just play with Ratelle, he also played with Brad Park, who was easily #2 behind Orr at driving possession at the time. I don't believe the late 30s/early 40s Leafs had any noteworthy offensive defensemen, did they?

How close does his 7-year VsX have to be before his six other significant seasons push him ahead? Or to put it the other way, how many more significant seasons does he need to have to outweigh a very small 7 year VsX gap?

How about we look at things other than just VsX - such as goal scoring finishes, contemporary opinion (like All-Star Teams) and playoff scoring? To me, it's more than just "look at their VsX, now look at who played for longer."

 

[tarheelhockey]

Above we have the SOG numbers for skaters between 1963-64 and 1978-79. Cournoyer is 16th overall on this category yet he is 4th overall in goal scoring. Furthermore amongst the top 25 shooters, Cournoyer has the best S5 at 17.9. Top 50 he is topped by only Johnny bucyk. Top 100 Cournoyer is topped by only John Bucyk and Steve Shutt.

Rather obvious that Cournoyer had the disadvantage of reduced ice time and fewer scoring opportunities given that during his career the Canadiens were regular top five in the league for SOG, yet Cournoyer was never the league leader in SOG for one single season.

This is an interesting way to view the effect of 3-line/4-line rotations.

For the sake of getting down to specifics, let's look at his 1972 (peak goal scoring) season. Here is how the league's most frequent shooters sorted out that season:

Player | Shots | Goals | S% | Team Shots Rank | Team Goals Rank
Esposito|1st|1st|15.5%|2nd|1st
Orr|2nd|11th|10.5%|2nd|1st
B. Hull|3rd|3rd|14.9%|11th|5th
Unger|4th|12th|11.2%|4th|10th
Goldsworthy|5th|t17th|10.5%|t7th|8th
M. Redmond|6th|9th|15.5%|t7th|4th
D. Hull|7th|20th|11.1%|11th|5th
Dionne|8th|NR|10.4%|t7th|4th
Lemaire|t9th|15th|12.0%|3rd|3rd
Martin|t9th|6th|16.5%|14th|12th
Keon|11th|NR|6.8%|5th|9th
Park|12th|NR|9.1%|1st|2nd
Mahovlich|13th|t7th|16.5%||3rd|3rd
D. Redmond|14th|NR|3.9%|12th|4th
Hadfield|15th|2nd|20.7%|1st|2nd
Tallon|16th|NR|7.1%|10th|13th
Gilbert|17th|t7th|18.1%|1st|2nd
Walton|18th|NR|11.9%|2nd|1st
Sabourin|18th|NR|11.9%|4th|10th
Tzachuk|20th|NR|10.4%|1st|2nd

Keep in mind that during this season, at the team level shots correlated strongly to goals -- and both shots and goals correlated strongly to wins. So a team that generated a lot of shots was more likely to win than one that didn't.

In that respect, we can see pretty clearly that Phil Esposito was massively valuable in 1972. He led the league in both shots and goals, with a high shooting%, and his team results were correspondingly strong. It's likely that Esposito was skating big minutes in order to get all those shots in the first place, but he certainly made them count.

An interesting comparable is Vic Hadfield. He was the most frequent-shooting forward on the most frequent-shooting team in the league, the Rangers. Yet I count 9 teams whose shot-leading forward took more shots than Hadfield. That strongly suggests to me that Hadfield was getting less ice time than those other players. The most logical way to square the difference between individual and team results is to infer that the Rangers were rolling 4 lines that year. But look at Hadfield's scoring results: he shot over 20% and finished second only to Espo in goals.

At the other end of the spectrum we have guys like Gary Unger, who finished 4th in shots. Unger's Blues shot the puck a lot, and he personally shot the puck a lot, but neither he nor the Blues came up with a particularly impressive goal total. The implication is that Unger was skating a lot of minutes and compiling goals based largely on volume of opportunity, rather than playing successful hockey on either the individual or the team level. Given the correlation between his personal stats and his team's results, we can infer that we was skating minutes that were consistent with a 3-line rotation.

So where does that leave Cournoyer? Well, we can see that he didn't even make the top 20 in shots and that his team's leading shooter was only 6th (average) among team leaders. Yet as a team the Habs were only a handful of shots short of a tie for 2nd overall, and they were 3rd in goal scoring. That would appear to confirm C58's assertion that the Habs were rolling 4 lines at this time.

Furthermore, Cournoyer was very close to the top of the goal scoring chart while shooting at a spectacular 22.6%, second best in the league. And of course we know that the Habs were one of the best teams in the league at the time, so this was all done as part of an effective, winning scheme. Essentially, he was the most efficient scorer in a system that was designed to win games at the expense of individual opportunities.

The shot/goal/% data seems to line up in support of what C58 has been saying about taking line rotations into account. In the sample season, players like Cournoyer and Hadfield maximized their opportunities while playing for successful teams. Their 1972 achievements are arguably more impressive than guys like Bobby Hull and Rick Martin, who were clustered around them on the scoring list while enjoying apparent advantages in ice time and volume of scoring opportunity.