Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Hawkey Town 18]

IMPORTANT NOTE: Post 2 of every voting thread will contain instructions as to who to send your votes to. If you send your votes to the wrong person, we can't guarantee that they will be counted.

MOD: This is a strictly on-topic thread. Posts that don't focus on the wingers listed in Post 2 will be deleted or moved at the discretion of the moderators. This will be strictly enforced in every Round 2 voting thread, regardless of who the OP is - TDMM

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top 8-12 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of at least five (5) days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
• Final voting will occur for two (2) days, via PM. Everyone ranks their top 8 players.
• Top 4 players will be added to the list
• Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 4 places with remaining players until a list of 60 wingers is obtained
• If there are major breaks in the Round 2 voting totals, we may add more or less than the targeted 4 players in certain rounds
• The number of players available for discussion at once will increase from 8 as we move down the list, based on natural breaks in the aggregate list put together in Round 1

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (23):
Andros , Art of Sedinery , BillyShoe1721 , Dennis Bonvie , Hawkey Town 18 , intylerwetrust , kmad , MadArcand , reckoning , Rob Scuderi , ted1971 , TheDevilMadeMe , the edler , tony d , Ursaguy , bigbuffalo313 , Canadiens1958 , Darth Yoda , Hardyvan123 , MXD , tarheelhockey , unknown33 , seventieslord , Johnny Engine

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes.

Click to read more...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Vote 3 will begin now and debates are scheduled to run through Thursday Oct 9 at 9 PM EST. You may PM votes to Hawkey Town 18 starting on Wednesday, Oct 8.

We will be sending out confirmations when we receive ballots from the voters. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume we never received it and should resubmit it and post in this thread saying they did so.

Vote 3 will be for places 9 through 12 (4 places) on the Top 60 list.

There are only 8 eligible candidates for Vote 3 because of the natural breaks of Round 1 point totals. You will still rank your Top 8 when voting.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Andy Bathgate
Charlie Conacher
Bernie Geoffrion
Valeri Kharlamov
Ted Lindsay
Frank Mahovlich
Alexander Ovechkin
Teemu Selanne

 

[MXD]

Only 8 ? Certainly surprised. And a bit disappointed that two of the three newcomers are from the O6... And not necessarily the two I'd vote in first.

Hopefully that bad season with the Avs won't become a topic...

 

[Captain Bowie]

My initial thoughts.

Ovechkin is the clear #1, Lindsay is the clear #2 for me this round.

Like Makarov, I am going to have a tough time placing Kharlamov. I'll just have to read the discussions about him and put him wherever "feels" best.

Conacher should be easier to place than Cook was, considering his entire career was in the NHL, and another bonus (analysis-wise) is I don't think he will need any WWII adjustments.

Bathgate, Geoffrion, and Mahovlich should be quite easy to compare, considering their extensive career overlap.

Which leaves Teemu Selanne. Not sure what to make of him. I feel like the goodwill towards him in the last few years are for reasons outside of the scope of this project. I mean who wouldn't like a guy who finished his career the way he did, with class and respected by everyone. With that being fresh in everyone's mind I think it has definitely affected the way the generally hockey public views him, not sure about those within this project, but upon reflection of my pre-lim list I may have ranked him too high. I'll look into him further later on, but curious what people's opinions are on him. Not sure what to make of him yet. He could be anywhere from a small notch behind Ovechkin to a small notch ahead of Mogilny.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

My initial thoughts.

Ovechkin is the clear #1, Lindsay is the clear #2 for me this round.

Like Makarov, I am going to have a tough time placing Kharlamov. I'll just have to read the discussions about him and put him wherever "feels" best.

Conacher should be easier to place than Cook was, considering his entire career was in the NHL, and another bonus (analysis-wise) is I don't think he will need any WWII adjustments.

Bathgate, Geoffrion, and Mahovlich should be quite easy to compare, considering their extensive career overlap.

Which leaves Teemu Selanne. Not sure what to make of him. I feel like the goodwill towards him in the last few years are for reasons outside of the scope of this project. I mean who wouldn't like a guy who finished his career the way he did, with class and respected by everyone. With that being fresh in everyone's mind I think it has definitely affected the way the generally hockey public views him, not sure about those within this project, but upon reflection of my pre-lim list I may have ranked him too high. I'll look into him further later on, but curious what people's opinions are on him. Not sure what to make of him yet. He could be anywhere from a small notch behind Ovechkin to a small notch ahead of Mogilny.

You must not have read the thread on the main board about Selanne and his new book.

 

[Captain Bowie]

You must not have read the thread on the main board about Selanne and his new book.

I didn't. What did I miss?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Teemu Selanne: Playoff Evaluation


While we all recognize that he does not have that singular, dominant, Conn Smythe caliber run on his resume, a lot of what he has done gets lost in the shuffle when people look at his cumulative playoff totals.

Consider this: we've been looking at seven-year VsX in the project for the past two rounds, so that we can better gauge the type of player these Wingers were in their prime. Selanne happens to have exactly seven top-ten finishes in scoring. So what did Selanne's playoffs look like in those seven seasons?

First, let's look at how his teams performed in the playoffs during Selanne's seven top-ten finishes.

Team Playoff Record: 8-19, 68/90 GF/GA

They were pretty bad, lasting only five series, winning just one series. The teams that eliminated Selanne's teams had between 93-101 points. Hebert and Shtalenkov in 1997 provided the only goaltending in these runs that even exceeded .900 - not surprisingly being the tandem that won the only series in Selanne's seven best years, but even they were ultimately and understandably bested by the 1997 Detroit Red Wings who were on their 14-2 steak to close out the playoffs.

The teams Selanne played for in his seven best years did not put him in a situation conducive to a Conn Smythe-caliber run. People's instincts seem to be to put the blame on Selanne, the star player, but how did Selanne perform on an individual level in the playoffs following his seven top-ten seasons?

27 GP, 19 G, 27 PTS, 3 GWGs (1 OT)

He scored 28% of his teams' playoff goals, points on 40% of his teams' playoff goals, three of his teams' eight GWGs, and he was the team-leading goal scorer in every series. Those aren't exactly the ratios one would expect, given his reputation. If he had better support in his best years - whether it be defensively or offensively - he stood a very good chance of having a signature playoff run a la Pavel Bure in 1994 (who thankfully had Kirk McLean and Trevor Linden playing excellent hockey), but the individual runs were all too short. As a whole, however, despite playing for a team that only won 8 of 27 games, Teemu Selanne was an excellent playoff performer in his seven best seasons.


Of course, the NHL playoffs aren't the only measure of how Selanne played during pressure games. He played a lot of international hockey in his career. Consider this: the NHL has sent players to the Olympics five times. Despite playing for a team that is never one of the top-three favorites, Selanne's teams have won four Olympic medals in those five tournaments. Individually, he was the tournament's leading scorer in 1998, the tournament's leading scorer in 2006, and the tournament's Most Valuable Player in 2014. That's three of the five tournaments where Selanne was a major star.

People tend to brush off the 2014 selection as a parting-gift, but the circumstances weren't much different than how Joe Sakic won the MVP in 2002: like Sakic who was also not the leading scorer of the 2002 Olympics (trailing Sundin by 3 points), Selanne (trailing Kessel by 2 points) was the leading scorer of the playoff round (and in Selanne's case, he scored both of Finland's GWGs against Russia and the USA - goals that broke a tie in both games). And besides, if you're that against a player being named Most Valuable of a tournament that he wasn't the leading scorer of, remind yourself that Selanne already did that twice.

If a player stuck behind the Iron Curtain was the leading scorer of two best-on-best tournaments and the Most Valuable Player of a third, how would you treat that? Performing that well in an Olympic tournament once is nice, but not necessarily reflective of anything. Three times out of five though? That's a pattern of elevated performance under pressure.

He also scored 4-5-9 in the 10 World Cup games that were held while he was an NHL player, and in terms of non-best-on-best games, he was the leading goal scorer of the 1992 Olympics and the 1999 World Championship Most Valuable Player as well (that's the tournament a player goes to after their team posts an .874 series against Detroit...).


So how did Selanne get the reputation? Everything after his best seasons - things that would be otherwise ignored had his teams gone deeper in the playoffs when he was a top-ten player - makes up a much bigger percentage of his playoff resume. Despite spending 37.2% of his regular season games as a top-ten scorer, Selanne played just 20.8% of his playoff games in those years. In addition to his seven top-ten finishes, Selanne had another four seasons above a point-per-game. He made the playoffs twice in those years: the 2006 and 2007 (Mighty) Ducks.

Team Playoff Record: 25-12, 104/81 GF/GA

And here are Selanne's playoff stats for what are the 8th and 9th best seasons of his career relative to his peers.

37 GP, 11 G, 29 PTS, 4 GWGs (1 OT)

He was no longer a point-per-game player in the playoffs in his 8th and 9th best seasons, and while it is clear that he did not meet his regular season expectations on the powerplay in these runs, he was just as good at even-strength as he was in the accompanying regular seasons. 10 of his 11 playoff goals came at even-strength (0.27 per-game, same as in the regular season) despite him scoring 49% of his goals on the powerplay in the accompanying regular season. It wasn't a matter of him wilting under pressure; teams game-planned around Selanne being the league's best power-play goal scorer.

And these weren't exactly pushover defensive teams he was facing: of the seven playoff series in these two years, the (Mighty) Ducks faced both[/I] Jennings winners, two more top-five defensive teams, another top-ten defensive team, and Chris Pronger's Oilers. The closest thing they had to a break were the 2006 Avalanche, and not surprisingly, the Mighty Ducks swept them and Selanne was a point-per-game player.

Selanne was the team's leading playoff scorer in 2006, and tied for 2nd in 2007 behind breakout star Ryan Getzlaf. Cumulatively, no Anaheim player posted even a .80 point-per-game figure over their two deep runs, with only two players having anything above 0.65, so it isn't as if Selanne was a passenger; he was still the best offensive player over the two years.

1. Selanne, 11-18-29 (0.78)
2. Getzlaf, 10-14-24 (0.65)
3. McDonald, 12-11-23 (0.62)
4. S. Niedermayer, 5-17-22 (0.59)
5. Perry, 6-12-18 (0.56)
6. Beauchemin, 7-10-17 (0.47)
6. Penner, 6-11-17 (0.50)
6. Pahlsson, 5-12-17 (0.46)
9. Marchant, 3-13-16 (0.59)
10. Pronger, 3-12-15 (0.79)

I remind you, this is analysis of how Selanne played in the playoffs in the 8th and 9th best seasons of his career relative to his peers.

During these two runs, he scored big goals in big games. In 2006, Selanne had a game-tying goal in Game 6 against favored Calgary waived off for interference that happened after the puck was in the net...

Yelle got his first goal of the series midway in the opening period, scoring on a rebound.

Anaheim appeared to even it shortly afterward when Selanne backhanded a shot into the net, but the Ducks' Joffrey Lupul was called for goaltender interference, so the score didn't count.

Selanne predictably protested, and the replay did seem to show his shot already had gone in before Lupul made contact with Kiprusoff.

...so Selanne scored the game-tying goal again, and then scored the opening goal (and GWG) in Game 7.

In 2007, the team faced adversity in only one series. Down 2-1 in the Conference Finals to Detroit, Selanne scored 6 points in the final 3 games to help take the series, including the last-minute game-tying assist in Game 5, and the OT GWG in the same game.

He wasn't as good as Scott Niedermayer or Chris Pronger (who played for Anaheim in 2007 but not 2006), but he was the next best player on the team in his 8th and 9th best seasons. People sometimes point to rounds where Selanne did not score enough points, but if you look at that list of Anaheim players, every one of them was held to 2 points or less in a series at least three times except for Selanne (once in seven series) and Pronger (once in four series). It might not have been the offensive contribution of his peak years, but it was still the most consistent series-to-series offensive contribution of a team that went deep twice.


The remaining portion of Selanne's career - the sub-point-per-game seasons caused by injury or age (all of them in his 30s or 40s) - contained the following anchor of a playoff record:

66 GP, 14 G, 32 PTS

Included in these are playoffs such as 2001, probably Selanne's best regular season of this sample.

Selanne couldn't feel his fractured thumb last spring because of the six to nine painkilling shots he got before and during each Sharks playoff game.

But, Selanne added, "You have to at least try."

But just because these years make up the largest sample of Selanne's playoff career does not mean that they should be reflective of how he was as a pressure performer. At that point, you're double-counting injury and age against him. We know why he wasn't particularly good in these 66 playoff games: he wasn't a particularly good player when he appeared in them.


Between how he performed in the playoffs when he was a top-ten player on a horrible team (19 goals in 27 games for 8-19 teams), how he performed in best-on-best tournaments (three exceptional Olympics), and how he was still the leading offensive contributor for the 2006 and 2007 (Mighty) Ducks (five points more than the 2nd place player), it's time to give some real consideration to Selanne, who closely trails recent addition Mike Bossy at 7 and 10-year VsX.

Seven year weighted Vs. X score - 1927 to 2014

Rank|Player|Score
26 | Mike Bossy | 94.4
27 | Joe Thornton | 94.4
28 | Steve Yzerman | 93.5
29 | Bryan Trottier | 93.5
30 | Syl Apps Sr | 93
31 | Teemu Selanne | 92.9

Ten year weighted Vs. X score - 1927 to 2014

Rank|Player|Score
20 | Mike Bossy | 90.1
21 | Steve Yzerman | 89.7
22 | Teemu Selanne | 89.6

 

[seventieslord]

He could be anywhere from a small notch behind Ovechkin to a small notch ahead of Mogilny.

Those are both extremely outlandish suggestions. He's nowhere near either player. I mean yeah, he may end up just 6 spots behind Ovechkin, but that's not really close at all, nor is the 30-50 spot gap he deserves to be ahead of Mogilny.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Preliminary thoughts:

Pretty sure I specifically named Bathgate, Geoffrion, and Selanne as the three players in particular who I think should have been made available before Mahovlich, so I'm obviously happy that they are the new candidates. Open to being convinced otherwise, though.

I'll probably have Ovechkin, Lindsay, and Kharlamov in my top 4. I guess that means Kharlamov was somewhat rehabilitated in my mind last round. No idea who I prefer for my other spot at this point.

I'll get to posting some tables now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When looking at top 10 finishes, please note that it is probably more difficult to repeat as a top 10 finisher in a larger league with more (European?) competition (which is what inspired the proliferation of Vs2, then VsX).

Top 5 finishes are bolded.

Top 10 Points

Lindsay: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 9
Bathgate: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5
Ovechkin: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 8
Conacher: 1, 1, 3, 4, 4
Selanne 2, 2, 5, 5, 7, 8, 8
Geoffrion: 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 7, 7
Mahovlich: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 10

Note that Conacher has an extreme goals/assists ratio even for his era, and played in an era that awarded fewer overall assists, so his point rankings are probably somewhat inflated compared to better playmakers in his era.

Top 10 Goals

Ovechkin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5
Conacher: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Selanne: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 10
Mahovlich: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Lindsay: 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 9
Geoffrion: 1, 1, 5, 5, 8, 9
Bathgate: 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8, 9

Conacher has those 5 goal scoring titles and nothing else.

Top 10 Assists

Bathgate: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4
Lindsay: 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 9
Selanne: 4, 7, 9, 9, 10
Geoffrion: 6, 6, 6, 7, 10
Ovechkin: 6, 6, 10
Mahovlich: 7, 8, 10
Conacher: 5

Bathgate played the point on the powerplay, which is probably part of the reason he has so many more assists than goals, despite being a winger at even strength. In his prime, however, all of New York's offense seems to have run through him. Definitely not the whole reason, however, as Geoffrion also played the point on the powerplay - at least later in his career.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

It would be interesting in seeing a Bathgate vs. Geoffrion comparison. Bathgate seems to be the more prolific scorer during the regular season which is impressive considering his team situation compared to Geoffrion. But does Geoffrion's PO resume override this?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

7 Year weighted Vs-X scores 1927 to 2014

A formula for determining the quality of a player's point production in his best 7 regular seasons, compared to a typical #2 scorer in the league those years.

Details here and here

Players with a second number - the second number is an adjustment for the weak competition during World War 2. It should be considered an estimate (even moreso than the regular VsX number).

Rank|Player|Score
1 | Gordie Howe | 126
2 | Jaromir Jagr | 114.6
3 | Bobby Hull | 107.1
4 | Maurice Richard | 105.7/102.5
5 | Guy Lafleur | 104.9
6 | Ted Lindsay | 104.8
7 | Andy Bathgate | 101.2
8 | Alex Ovechkin | 97.5
9 | Charlie Conacher | 97.1
10 | Bill Cook# | 96.6
11 | Doug Bentley | 96.2/87.2
12 | Mike Bossy | 94.4
13 | Teemu Selanne | 92.9
14 | Martin St. Louis | 92.9
15 | Toe Blake | 92.6/85.3
16 | Sweeney Schriner | 91.9
17 | Bernie Geoffrion | 90.2
18 | Busher Jackson | 90
19 | Roy Conacher | 88.8/85.4
20 | Mark Recchi | 88.6
21 | Brett Hull | 88.2
22 | Jari Kurri | 88.1
23 | Gordie Drillon | 88.1
24 | Syd Howe | 87.9/84.3
25 | Jarome Iginla | 87
26 | Dickie Moore | 86
27 | Pavel Bure | 86
28 | Frank Mahovlich | 85.5
29 | Paul Kariya | 85.4
30 | John Bucyk | 85.3

Top 5 in Hart voting 1923-24 to 2013-14

For a couple of years in 1930s, we only have top 3 or 4, but for the most part, this is complete.

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Gordie Howe | 6 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 16
Bobby Hull | 2 | 2 | 4| 0 | 1 | 9
Jaromir Jagr | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 |0 | 7
Guy Lafleur | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6
Maurice Richard | 1 | 2 | 3 |0 | 0 | 6
Alexander Ovechkin | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4
Andy Bathgate | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4
Brett Hull | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3
Aurele Joliat| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2| 3
Jarome Iginla | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3
Doug Bentley | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
Markus Naslund | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3
Syd Howe | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3
Teemu Selanne | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3
Martin St. Louis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
Bill Cook# | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
Charlie Conacher | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2
Mike Bossy | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2
Ted Lindsay | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2
Frank Mahovlich | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2
Bernie Geoffrion | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1

#some prime years in the WCHL

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Some relevant posts from last round:

I'm only linking to my own posts, since I know how I prefer to have them summarized. Others are encouraged to do the same.

Ovechkin vs. Lafleur

Conclusion: Their regular season resumes are close, but Lafleur should be ranked above Ovechkin because of his outstanding playoff performances)

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89936129&postcount=201

Ovechkin vs. Conacher

Conclusion: I think that Ovechkin was a slightly better talent, as evidenced by slightly better regular season prime performances across the board. Conacher has a better playoff resume (though not nearly as outstanding as Lafleur's), partly due to opportunity, but that's the way the puck bounces.

I have Ovechkin a tier over Conacher, simply because he's done more for longer - Conacher led the league in goals 5 times... and did very little of note outside this time frame. He was effectively done as an elite NHL player at the age of 27 - quite early even for that era.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89936157&postcount=202

Ovechkin vs Kharlamov

Major Points:

Ovechkin's NHL top 5 finishes and All-Star Teams look very similar to Kharlamov's but in a much stronger league.

Kharlamov does have a strong "player of the year" voting record (top 5 every seasons from 1969-1976), but it's hardly comparable to NHL Hart voting and not all that much better than the records of his countrymen Boris Mikhailov and Alexander Maltsev.

To Kharlamov's credit, his top 5s were all consecutive, while Mikhailov and Maltsev (who had longer careers) had down years in between. Note, during Kharlamov's 8 year prime, he dominated Mikhailov and Maltsev in Player of the year voting, as shown by other posters. Many of their best finishes were outside this time frame.

If there is any argument for Kharlamov over Ovechkin, it would be his "big game" resume - specifically performances in some high-end tournaments.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89936209&postcount=203

Ted Lindsay beyond the offense

One of the best agitators, pound for pound tough guys, and leaders of all-time. At least one journalist also noted his defensive ability.

Seemed to have a significant impact on Detroit's record when he was traded, then briefly came back.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89852557&postcount=35

 

[VMBM]

Over the last month I have rewatched the 1972 and 1974 Summit Series along with the 1976 Super Series and while watching them play it feels so obvious that Kharlamov was clearly a level above Mikhailov and Petrov in his prime. But then you look at the statistics and the awards and it doesnt feel as obvious anymore. I have never understood and i dont think i will ever understand how Kharlamovs dominance on the ice did not translate better to the scoresheet. I mean the man seemed to be flying at times and to be able to create scoring opportunities pretty much when he wanted to.

That could be a thread of its own. His individual success in the 1971-72 season, i.e. when he played with other players, might suggest that Kharlamov would've been more effective, if he had played on a different line/unit in his prime. It isn't very, er, extensive evidence, though, and it still doesn't fully explain, why he couldn't stand out statistically from Mikhailov and Petrov (like Makarov did vis-à-vis Krutov and Larionov) when he played with them.

One thing I've noticed is that during many seasons (besides the obvious 1976-77 season), Kharlamov played a few league games less than e.g. his linemates, and this obviously did not improve his numbers, especially if he missed a lot of those 'easy games' against weak teams.

Anyway, I agree that he was a level above both Mikhailov and Petrov... and a level above Maltsev too in my opinion; skill-wise, Maltsev was the one who could rival Kharlamov, but Kharlamov seemingly always performed better especially against the top competition. Only Yakushev in the 1972 series looked as dominant as Kharlamov did. Yakushev was the top Soviet scorer in the 1974 series too, but I think he had only a couple of big games (3, 8), and generally wasn't anything special. So yeah, my eye test also tells me that Kharlamov was da man in 1972-76.

Also, some kind of a 1970s USSR vs. 1980s USSR thread would be in order. My main question would be: are the 1970s Soviet teams & players overrated (except 1978-79) and/or are the 1980s Soviet teams & players (especially outside the Green Unit) underrated? The results were just clearly better in the 1980s, even though the 1970s teams had more 'big names' and were seemingly more balanced.

 

[seventieslord]

how was Geoffrion without the puck? I thought I remembered reading or hearing a fairly long time ago that he was somewhat of a power forward, but you never really hear about it in the ATD, where his GMs would, and should push that if there's something to push. So is he more of an offense-only guy, or is there more to him? Sources please.

 

[sr edler]

To me, the problem with a guy like Selänne is that he's the quintessential non-intangible guy. He scored a lot of points, especially in the regular season, but I feel there's too many holes there, or too less dimensions. I'm not a great fan of his game because I felt it a bit too opportunistic and simplistic, or flat. As for the Olympics for example, I think there's a good reason I was always more impressed by his linemate Saku Koivu.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Of course, the NHL playoffs aren't the only measure of how Selanne played during pressure games. He played a lot of international hockey in his career. Consider this: the NHL has sent players to the Olympics five times. Despite playing for a team that is never one of the top-three favorites, Selanne's teams have won four Olympic medals in those five tournaments. Individually, he was the tournament's leading scorer in 1998, the tournament's leading scorer in 2006, and the tournament's Most Valuable Player in 2014. That's three of the five tournaments where Selanne was a major star.

People tend to brush off the 2014 selection as a parting-gift, but the circumstances weren't much different than how Joe Sakic won the MVP in 2002: like Sakic who was also not the leading scorer of the 2002 Olympics (trailing Sundin by 3 points), Selanne (trailing Kessel by 2 points) was the leading scorer of the playoff round (and in Selanne's case, he scored both of Finland's GWGs against Russia and the USA - goals that broke a tie in both games). And besides, if you're that against a player being named Most Valuable of a tournament that he wasn't the leading scorer of, remind yourself that Selanne already did that twice.

If a player stuck behind the Iron Curtain was the leading scorer of two best-on-best tournaments and the Most Valuable Player of a third, how would you treat that? Performing that well in an Olympic tournament once is nice, but not necessarily reflective of anything. Three times out of five though? That's a pattern of elevated performance under pressure.

The Olympics are obviously a very small sample of games, but if you were going to pick the best men's ice hockey player of all-time at the Olympic Games, is it wrong to think it would be a two man race between Valeri Kharlamov and Teemu Selanne?

Edit: I typed this before seeing Edler's post.

So how did Selanne get the reputation? Everything after his best seasons - things that would be otherwise ignored had his teams gone deeper in the playoffs when he was a top-ten player - makes up a much bigger percentage of his playoff resume. Despite spending 37.2% of his regular season games as a top-ten scorer, Selanne played just 20.8% of his playoff games in those years. In addition to his seven top-ten finishes, Selanne had another four seasons above a point-per-game. He made the playoffs twice in those years: the 2006 and 2007 (Mighty) Ducks.

Yeah, always an issue that comes up when we look at a player's career playoff stats without looking at individual seasons - they are often skewed by playing a disproportionate number of playoff games in his best or worst years.

 

[Theokritos]

The Olympics are obviously a very small sample of games, but if you were going to pick the best men's ice hockey player of all-time at the Olympic Games, is it wrong to think it would be a two man race between Valeri Kharlamov and Teemu Selanne?

Difficult to say & I'm not sure it would even be telling since the Olympics had very different competition value over time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also, some kind of a 1970s USSR vs. 1980s USSR thread would be in order. My main question would be: are the 1970s Soviet teams & players overrated (except 1978-79) and are the 1980s Soviet teams & players (especially outside the Green Unit) underrated? The results were just clearly better in the 1980s, even though the 1970s teams had more 'big names' and were seemingly more balanced.

I think the 80s team is probably somewhat underrated. The 70s team has that mystique about them, with their players never playing in the NHL. While the stars of the 80s team are unfairly punished for playing in the NHL while they were clearly past their primes.

That said, I think that coaching was a big factor. I might be out to lunch here, but I'm under the impression that from Tarasov's dismissal in 1972 to Tikhonov taking the reins in 1978, Soviet coaching was a revolving door of guys who weren't very good, with various factions of the Communist party struggling for influence, rather than simply trying to choose the best guy.

 

[Theokritos]

As for the Olympics for example, I think there's a good reason I was always more impressed by his linemate Saku Koivu.

Yeah, I'm not even sure he was the best player on his own team really in best-on-best tournaments since 1996 (World Cup+Olympics). Saku Koivu (All-Star 2004, 2006), maybe Kimmo Timonen (All-Star 2004, 2006), and what about Jere Lehtinen (not always in the spotlight due to priorities other than scoring)?

 

[VMBM]

That said, I think that coaching was a big factor. I might be out to lunch here, but I'm under the impression that from Tarasov's dismissal in 1972 to Tikhonov taking the reins in 1978, Soviet coaching was a revolving door of guys who weren't very good, with various factions of the Communist party struggling for influence, rather than simply trying to choose the best guy.

Indeed. Tikhonov's arrival in 1977 obviously had a big impact and he got great results with the 'old squad' too (thus I excluded 1978-79); the Soviet team in the spring of '79 might be the best ever - certainly one of them. And heh, he may or may not be the coach who first introduced the idea of 4 forward lines to the hockey world (like he claims in his book; i.e. with Dinamo Riga in the late 1960s), but at least he established the 4th line in Soviet hockey in the late 1970s.
Of course Tikhonov should also take some of the blame for the loss in the 1980 Olympics*, but he learned his lesson well, and especially in 1981-84, the Soviets were as dominant as ever.

* one of the big reasons for the loss was that even though the aging Mikhailov, Petrov and Kharlamov were not quite 'pulling their weight' anymore in 1980, Tikhonov still trusted them to 'save the day' and gave them too much ice-time e.g. in the Miracle game

 

[unknown33]

Selanne doesn't look like a Top 4 threat this round and 'hockey people' prefer Dickie Moore over Geoffrion right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

how was Geoffrion without the puck? I thought I remembered reading or hearing a fairly long time ago that he was somewhat of a power forward, but you never really hear about it in the ATD, where his GMs would, and should push that if there's something to push. So is he more of an offense-only guy, or is there more to him? Sources please.

Well, "Boom Boom" referred to his slap shot (if he didn't invent it, he popularized it), not his physical game. A couple of quotes from the typical generic sources:

Legends of Hockey:

Bernie Geoffrion, nicknamed "Boom Boom," gained NHL fame for his hard shot and feisty temperament.

Joe Pelletier:

Geoffrion was more than just a heavy shooter. His all-out style of play and unquenchable desire to win enabled him to win the Calder Trophy in 1952 and the Hart Trophy in 1961

Canadiens official history site (which obviously has a vested interest in pumping up old Habs, but does a great job of describing skill sets):

Drive and desire were the key elements of Geoffrion’s game. He played with his heart on his sleeve and thrived on pressure, coming up with highlight performances when the stakes were at their highest. Throwing caution to the wind, he played an “all-out, all the time” game, the only way he knew how.

Of course, all that could just be flowery ways of saying that Geoffrion would do anything to score a goal, which would already be taken into account of by his stats (regular season and playoffs)

Selanne doesn't look like a Top 4 threat this round and 'hockey people' prefer Dickie Moore over Geoffrion right?

What do you mean by "hockey people?" The THN Top 100? They ranked Moore really high, IMO.

I prefer Geoffrion - I just can't get over how pretty much everything Dickie Moore accomplished was during the stacked mega-dynasty of the late 1950s while Geoffrion proved himself a star both before and after the dynasty. (I realize injuries were the reason Moore was cut down in his prime, however). Moore's playoff stats were very good, but Geoffrion's were outstanding. Moore was a much better all-round player though.

 

[unknown33]

What do you mean by "hockey people?" The THN Top 100? They ranked Moore really high, IMO.

Yeah for example.

Some 'traditional posters' also touted Moore ahead of 'Boom Boom' in the 2008/09 project.
Moore is also ahead in this book called 'Habs Heroes: The Greatest Canadiens Ever From 1 to 100'. It's affiliated with THN, but doesn't use the same order as the 1999 list though.

For players who played 1) for the same franchise 2) during the same timeframe 3) both as wingers; I would really care for that stuff.

 

[unknown33]

I'll probably have Ovechkin, Lindsay, and Kharlamov in my top 4. I guess that means Kharlamov was somewhat rehabilitated in my mind last round. No idea who I prefer for my other spot at this point.

Same here.

Ovechkin/Lindsay
Kharlamov