Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Wingers)

[VMBM]

This round, I plan on focusing on the case for Bill Cook, comparing Sergei Makarov with Valeri Kharlamov, and comparing Alexander Ovechkin to the other short prime players available this round (Lafleur, Kharlamov, Conacher). I was thinking I would make the general case for Sergei Makarov, but it sure doesn't look like I have to.

If that is going to be a statistical comparison, we already know it's a blowout, right? Hopefully there will be quotes too. I'll try to provide some...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Indeed we should and it looks to me that the entire career of Lafleur is still the best, he just did it in 6 years and not in 20.

Like I said he is in the mix for best peak (consecutive which matters a bit to me, not sure about other people) but if we look at Lafleur outside of his 6 year peak, his career isn't that great and probably closer to 60 than 1 in the outside of any wingers best 6 years metric, which was my point.

 

[unknown33]

I don't know if that's entirely true.

Finishing 1st in hart votes among teammates is what I meant.

Also this is more accurate representation of voting imo

75/76:
Lafleur - 13%
Dryden - 6%
P. Mahovlich - 2%

76/77:
Lafleur - 38%
Robinson - 6%

77/78:
Lafleur - 30%
Dryden - 1%
Robinson - 1%

78/79:
Lafleur - 18%
Savard - 3%
Robinson - 1%
Gainey - 1%
Dryden - <1%

*In 73/74 Cournoyer had 0.46% and Lafleur none.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If that is going to be a statistical comparison, we already know it's a blowout, right? Hopefully, there will be quotes too. I'll try to provide some...

Its like poster Dreakmur used to say - if you look simply at the stats and awards voting for Kharlamov, he doesn't really stand out that much. If you look at the anecdotes, he's as good as anyone not named Gretzky, Orr, etc.

Yes you can help here too a lot, obviously. You're the one who first made the case that Kharlamov might be rated so highly because of his performances at the 1972 and 1976 Olympics, in addition to the first 4 games of the Summit Series, right?

All that said, the general public and most older European fans would have Kharlamov over Makarov. Seems the majority here favors Makarov (I am one of them), but we need to document why we favor Makarov for the project to have credibility, IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't know if that's entirely true.

In the years Lafleur was a Hart finalist, his teammates finished as follows:

75/76:
Lafleur - 3rd
Dryden - 4th
P. Mahovlich - 7th

76/77:
Lafleur - 1st
Robinson - 5th

77/78:
Lafleur - 1st
Dryden - 10th
Robinson - 10th

78/79:
Lafleur - 2nd
Savard - 6th
Robinson - 12th
Gainey - 13th
Dryden - 16th

There seems to be a trend here, especially in comparison to cook who had , at least an equal in Boucher during his time in the NHL.

That being said Cook did have the better pedigree coming into the league than Boucher did but we have limited information, ie, no eye test or video to confirm the actual relationship.

Simply finding quotes, in an era when reporting was more akin to a booster club than investigative journalism doesn't really decide the matter either.

I have Lafleur ahead of cook, despite my concerns outside of his 6 year peak.

I think a Bossy/Lafleur comp would be good this round both have their cases.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There seems to be a trend here, especially in comparison to cook who had , at least an equal in Boucher during his time in the NHL.

You argued the opposite of this when we were ranking Frank Boucher in the centers project.

I don't know why you aren't just honest with us and state that you don't like Bill Cook because of when he played.

 

[ted2019]

Anywhere we can find numbers 1-4 ?

 

[unknown33]

There seems to be a trend here, especially in comparison to cook who had , at least an equal in Boucher during his time in the NHL.

I don't think he was, Cook > Boucher.

To be fair Lafleur didn't face a C of Boucher's quality as 'competiton' on his own team and voting for D and G for the Hart was less common.

 

[unknown33]

1) Length of prime. Lafleur's prime was awesome, but Cook was a star from 1923-24 until 1933-34. That's an 11-6 advantage in years. (He wasn't as consistent over those 11 years as Lafleur was over his dominant 6 year stretch, however). Perhaps the length vs consistency even out.

I haven't looked at it in detail, but I would like to know much Lafleur had an advantage in peak (6 seasons) or absolute peak (1-3 seasons) and how good the 5 years Cook had on him were. And if he was really a 'star' in all 11 years or some off-years.

2) All-around game. Neither was anything special defensively, but Cook was known as one of the most physically punishing players of his era, and his leadership was highly praised.

Alright I agree with that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ted Lindsay

I've seen a few posts that seem to consider Ted Lindsay a step down from Mike Bossy, and I disagree. Both were key members of dynasties. Both were overshadowed by teammates in Hart voting. Lindsay's stats compared to his peers are quite a bit better than Bossy's, but you can say that they were inflated by playing with Gordie Howe.

Lindsay contributed quite a bit other than offense. One of the best agitators, pound for pound tough guys, and leaders of all-time:

He was only 5'8" and 160 pounds but could hold his own in fights and in the corners with much larger opponents. But Lindsay was also a gifted offensive player, a natural goal scorer who set records for a left wing and made up one third of Detroit's famous Production Line in the 1940s and 1950s. Nine times he was an All-Star, eight of those selections to the First Team. Such a combination, in such a small, powerful package, hadn't been seen in the National Hockey League before the arrival of Terrible Ted Lindsay, and it hasn't been seen since.

I had the idea that I should beat up every player I tangled with and nothing ever convinced me it wasn't a good idea.

I hated that SOB. Right from the very first game.

He was the leader of the Red Wings every night he went on the ice. Nobody else, he was the motivator, he was the leader, and he was not a big man. He might have been the best left winger of all time, complete. I mean, when you talk about greatness, you have to talk about people who absolutely hate to lose.

On any list of the greatest left wings to play, Ted Lindsay had to be right at the very top. With his leadership, his determination, his scoring stats, his toughness, his defensive ability, his ability to get under the skin of opponents... He was lucky he didn't have to face a lynch mob of the other players in the league!

Ted Lindsay was one of those guys who was a fiesty, fiesty player on the ice. He gave it 100% all the time, and likely one of the greatest, if not the best left winger of them all.

The reason why we had success - everybody could shoot and score, everybody could carry the puck, and everybody's full intent was, "if I had to hit somebody, I would do so." I didn't find it was fun to hide behind somebody, and all three of us had those particular ingredients, so nobody could concentrate on Ted Lindsay, or Gordie Howe, or Sid Abel, we all did it.

Lindsay was the first player to lift the Cup and skate around the rink with it, starting a great tradition.

A story about Lindsay's fearlessness/recklessness/trolling

Prior to the third game of (a series) against Toronto, the local paper reported that several fans had issued death threats toward both Lindsay and Howe for an alleged injury to the Leaf's Tod Sloan. The game went on as planned despite the threat of a shooting. After Lindsay scored the game winning goal in overtime, he held his stick like a rifle and pointed it at the crowd taunting the Maple Leaf faithful.

The end of his career in Detroit

At the age of 31, Ted Lindsay finished 2nd in NHL scoring (to Howe of course) and led the league in assists. He was then traded to Chicago for his role in starting the NHLPA (the reason the Pearson Trophy was re-named the Lindsay Trophy).

Lindsay tried to play hard, but his heart was still in Detroit. After 3 seasons in Chicago, he retired. 4 years later, he made a one-year comeback with the Wings, and the team finished first in the NHL in the regular season for the first time since before Lindsay left. Lindsay retired for good and the Hall of Fame waived the waiting period.

 

[Elvis P]

...My next tier comprises of Bossy, Lindsay, and Ovechkin. Of those 3, Ovechkin has a huge advantage in Hart recognition, but the other two were significant contributors to dynasties on top of their strong regular season stats. Note it isn't just that they played for dynasties, they were significant contributers. These 3 are likely to go 4-6 on my list in some order. Frank Mahovlich is an "easy last" this round for me. Not convinced he was any better than fellow left wings Dickie Moore or Cy Denneny, among others. ...This round, I plan on focusing on the case for Bill Cook, comparing Sergei Makarov with Valeri Kharlamov, and comparing Alexander Ovechkin to the other short prime players available this round (Lafleur, Kharlamov, Conacher). ...

You think OV is top 6 this round? He's never even been in a Conference Final. I'm stunned you guys think he's had a better career than Geoffrion, Bathgate, Clapper, Dickie Moore, Joliat, Cy Denneny, Mikhailov, and Jari Kurri. I'll take these guys (plus Toe Blake and Pavel Bure if we're only talking playoffs) on my playoff team over him.

Edit: Added the words this round. Bolded them in red.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lindsay is a tough call, he had his career really take off when Howe became the guy in Detroit and that says more about Howe than Lindsay but it's still a big "what if"?

No doubt he was a great player but it's really hard to separate how much the Howe affect was.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You think OV is top 6?

Top 6 this round, Top 10 overall.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You think OV is top 6? He's never even been in a Conference Final. I'm stunned you guys think he's had a better career than Geoffrion, Bathgate, Clapper, Dickie Moore, Joliat, Cy Denneny, Mikhailov, and Jari Kurri. I'll take these guys (plus Toe Blake and Pavel Bure if we're only talking playoffs) on my playoff team over him.

AO's teams haven't done well but AO has a pretty decent playoff resume and his regular season one is one of the top this round, if not the top, statically.

He has a legit case for 5th never mind 6th.

Frankly I'm shocked by the guys you think had better careers than AO listed above, is there really any case for any of them having better careers than AO?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lindsay is a tough call, he had his career really take off when Howe became the guy in Detroit and that says more about Howe than Lindsay but it's still a big "what if"?

No doubt he was a great player but it's really hard to separate how much the Howe affect was.

Lindsay was 3 years older than Howe and won an Art Ross in 1949-50 before Howe really became "the guy." (Howe was 3rd in scoring). Though interesting to note that Sid Abel (2nd in scoring) won the Hart that year.

I agree that there was probably (almost definitely?) something of a "Howe effect" for most of his time in Detroit, however. I don't think Lindsay was actually the 2nd best scorer in the league every time he finished 2nd to only Howe - which was 3 times - he also finished 3rd to Howe and Richard once.

 

[Elvis P]

...Frankly I'm shocked by the guys you think had better careers than AO listed above, is there really any case for any of them having better careers than AO?

1. I don't feel the need to make the case for these HHoFers over a non-HHoFer. 2. I have to run. 3. Geoffrion was ranked over Conacher and Mahovlich by this board in the HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009) - Part II. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1730019

 

[unknown33]

1. I don't feel the need to make the case for these HHoFers over a non-HHoFer.

Huh?

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Like I said he is in the mix for best peak (consecutive which matters a bit to me, not sure about other people) but if we look at Lafleur outside of his 6 year peak, his career isn't that great and probably closer to 60 than 1 in the outside of any wingers best 6 years metric, which was my point.

Are you a peak or longevity guy these days? Its hard to keep track.

 

[Captain Bowie]

1. I don't feel the need to make the case for these HHoFers over a non-HHoFer. 2. I have to run. 3. Geoffrion was ranked over Conacher and Mahovlich by this board in the HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009) - Part II. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1730019

Isn't that really semantics, at this point? Only thing holding Ovechkin out of the hall is time and eligibility.

 

[ted2019]

Top 6 this round, Top 10 overall.

I think I had Ovechkin in my top 10 also.

 

[ted2019]

Top 6 this round, Top 10 overall.

Mike Bossy
Charlie Conacher
Bill Cook
Valeri Kharlamov
Guy Lafleur
Ted Lindsay
Frank Mahovlich
Sergei Makarov
Alexander Ovechkin

Very early on, I have...
Lafleur
Makarov
Cook
Bossy
Ovechkin
Lindsay

The others I have to take a look at, but Mahovlich is most likely last in my voting.

 

[MXD]

Ovechkin, playoffs --- I can say for sure that he did what he had to do in 09-10. Maybe did not elevate his game, but he played well. If you're looking for goat horns, Jose Theodore and Mke Green. Not AO.

 

[MXD]

Yes, I think Cook has the advantage in regular season. Two reasons:

1) Length of prime. Lafleur's prime was awesome, but Cook was a star from 1923-24 until 1933-34. That's an 11-6 advantage in years. (He wasn't as consistent over those 11 years as Lafleur was over his dominant 6 year stretch, however). Perhaps the length vs consistency even out.

2) All-around game. Neither was anything special defensively, but Cook was known as one of the most physically punishing players of his era, and his leadership was highly praised.

As for the Hart voting, keep in mind that 2 of Cook's best 4 seasons were in the WCHL, when he would have been ineligible for the Trophy, and he was runner-up to a defenseman in his 2 best NHL years. Even taking those into account, Lafleur does have the advantage in Hart voting, though. His peak/prime was awesome.



That's the way I see it. Cook is no Guy Lafleur in the playoffs, but he's no Andy Bathgate either. (Bathgate is someone who I imagine would be already available if his playoff record were better).

One thing I'm looking at this round : Was it reasonable to expect Lafleur put up prime-Lafleur numbers prior to 74-75 ? Oddly enough, my preliminary thesis is that Lafleur was somewhat better than his numbers indicated, which is usually not something that is often said about offensive players. But at this point, I just really can't quantify it, and the parallels that can be made are mostly with guys that are quite a few notches below Lafleur (think.... Jude Drouin).

In other words -- Had Lafleur gotten 80 points per season, as opposed to 55 -- how that would have affected the perception we get ?

 

[MXD]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=13898630&postcount=13

Thanks, much appreciated.

Further context -- when Conacher passed Cook on the RW pecking order back in the 30ies, Cook was already QUITE old. Head to head, Conacher was somewhat better, but it was probably expected, considering age.

Speaking of Cook -- did WW1 had an impact on his career, and if yes, should we actually bother?

 

[Captain Bowie]

How impressive was Lindsay's 8 1st team AS selections?

Here are the guys that finished 2nd, and where they were in scoring:

47/48:
Lindsay - 9th (1st in goals)
Gaye Stewart - 4th

49/50:
Lindsay - 1st
Tony Leswick - 17th

50/51:
Lindsay - 7th
Sid Smith - T10th

51/52:
Lindsay - 2nd
Sid Smith - 5th

52/53:
Lindsay - 3rd
Bert Olmstead - 9th

53/54:
Lindsay - 3rd
Ed Sandford - T8th

55/56:
Lindsay - T12th
Bert Olmstead - 4th

56/57:
Lindsay - 2nd
Real Chevrefils - T12th