Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Sentinel]

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.

Can you post their relative stats again, please?

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.

I have addressed this issue a couple of times. 70s teams were overrated, and 80s underrated.

Also I think Maltsev was not a big game player. Yakushev owned him in this sense. Yakushev also heavily contributed to the 1976 Olympic gold.

 

[Sentinel]

I hope Selanne does well here. A class act and a true statesman. Also his last Olympic MVP over Ovechkin, Crosby, and Toews is truly amazing.

 

[Theokritos]

Also his last Olympic MVP over Ovechkin, Crosby, and Toews is truly amazing.

Amazing indeed, but also deserved?

 

[Merya]

Amazing indeed, but also deserved?

Yes, with same criteria as it's given in NHL. Most valuable player to their team.

ps. Where on earth is Kurri anyways in this wingerthingy?

 

[unknown33]

Err wut?

99/00 - 10/11

But well, Teemu hate has always been strong on HoH (except 2011 iirc), even more nowadays.

Eh what? In the past two years he went from being considered comparable to two players who aren't up yet (Kurri/Hull), to being undeniably better without actually doing much.

 

[Merya]

99/00 - 10/11

Scoring as in goals? (he scores!)

 

[MXD]

Yes, with same criteria as it's given in NHL. Most valuable player to their team.

ps. Where on earth is Kurri anyways in this wingerthingy?

Probably next round...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

99/00 - 10/11


Eh what? In the past two years he went from being considered comparable to two players who aren't up yet (Kurri/Hull), to being undeniably better without actually doing much.

Good point. Kurri and Hull Jr. aren't available yet, but I think it would be relevant if a Selanne proponent were to explain what he has on those two players if we are to consider him for top 4 this round.

 

[Merya]

Good point. Kurri and Hull Jr. aren't available yet, but I think it would be relevant if a Selanne proponent were to explain what he has on those two players if we are to consider him for top 4 this round.

I'm not one for long posts. But I do remember many here considering Kurri the best Finnish player of all time instead of Selänne. So I'm rather surprised that Kurri isn't in this list.
The crazy longevity of Selänne's career is what puts him on top of Kurri for me. I don't wanna say anything about Brett bcs I'd prolly get crucified.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Qualifier

Bernie Geoffrion in the playoffs

Geoffrion was the leading playoff scorer of the dynasty that won 5 Cups in a row from 1956-1960

Leading playoff scorers 1956-1960, sorted by points, points-per-game also listed

player|GP|G|A|P|PPG
Geoffrion|49|29|39|68|1.39
Moore|49|21|36|57|1.16
Beliveau|41|28|27|55|1.34
H Richard|49|13|34|47|0.96
M Richard|42|25|19|44|1.05
Harvey|49|8|32|40|0.82
Olmstead|51|11|28|39|0.76
MacKell|29|12|23|35|1.21
McKenney|29|12|18|30|1.03
Howe|25|7|20|27|1.08

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

In terms of individual seasons, Geoffrion led the playoffs in goals and points in 1957 (11 goals in 10 games!!!!) and in assists and points in 1960.

Geoffrion was a strong playoff scorer before the dynasty years

In the three years before the dynasty (1953-1955, Habs win 1 Cup, Detroit the other 2), Geoffrion was behind only Howe and Lindsay of the Red Wings dynasty in the playoffs. Only Alex Delvecchio of the Red Wings was close to these 3. (M Richard had an uncharacteristically weak playoffs in 1954 and was suspended for 1955). http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Overall, Geoffrion scored 10+ points in the playoffs for 8 straight seasons from 1953-1960, back when the playoffs were only two rounds long (his team went to the finals in every year of this time frame). He scored 3 points in 4 playoff games in 1961 (not great, but not terrible) after winning his only Hart Trophy, then declined rapidly in both the regular season and the playoffs.

If Geoffrion had enjoyed the same good health during the regular season that he enjoyed in the playoffs before 1961 his career may have been viewed differently but he did not. 1961 he missed two games and played injured.

 

[Batis]

Just FYI Finnish league was easily the 2nd best league in the world during the 90s. Check IFK roster from 98 for example or TPS from 95.

The results in European club tournaments throughout the 90´s does not suggest that the finnish league was easily the best league in Europe. One of the best sure. Maybe even the best but far from easily the best. Here are the numbers of wins by country in the European Cup for club teams.

European Cup 1990-1997
Sweden 3 wins
Finland 3 wins
USSR/Russia 2 wins

European Hockey League 1997-1999
Finland 1 win
Austria 1 win
Russia 1 win

Total
Finland 4 wins
Russia 3 wins
Sweden 3 wins
Austria 1 win

Both the swedish and the russian league was apparently pretty close to the finnish league if we judge by these results.

The soviet league on the other hand was easily the best league in Europe between 1969 and 1990 when a soviet team, most of the time CSKA of course, won the European Cup every year except one (1977).

Thats not to say that what Selanne did in Finland before coming over doesnt add any value to his career as it clearly should be taken into consideration. But leading the finnish league in goalscoring was a whole lot easier than doing the same in the soviet league in the 70´s and 80´s when the soviet league contained a considerate amount of players that were among the very best in the world. What really should be taken into consideration is of course his great play in both World Championship and Olympic play even before coming over which along with his instant success when coming over suggests that he was a world class player already in 91 and 92.

 

[Merya]

The results in European club tournaments throughout the 90´s does not suggest that the finnish league was easily the best league in Europe. One of the best sure. Maybe even the best but far from easily the best.

Those tournaments weren't taken seriously in Finland except sadly by my home team Jokerit. Same as the new Champions Hockey League is seen mostly as an annoyance.

I'm only speaking of nineties, perhaps bit into 2000s. The Finnish sm-liiga has declined pretty much since then, especially since KHL. Players do want to make some money before retirement. Finland never had top payment, but in mid 90s the toughness in the league attracted players with NHL goals, more than AHL...so much more. TBH mid 90's SM-Liiga was more exciting than NHL to watch.

ps. really go check that IFK team... you'll see very familiar names

 

[Canadiens1958]

League Strength

The results in European club tournaments throughout the 90´s does not suggest that the finnish league was easily the best league in Europe. One of the best sure. Maybe even the best but far from easily the best. Here are the numbers of win by country in the European Cup for club teams.

European Cup 1990-1997
Sweden 3 wins
Finland 3 wins
USSR/Russia 2 wins

European Hockey League 1997-1999
Finland 1 win
Austria 1 win
Russia 1 win

Total
Finland 4 wins
Russia 3 wins
Sweden 3 wins
Austria 1 win

Both the swedish and the russian league was apparently pretty close to the finnish league if we judge by these results.

The soviet league on the other hand was easily the best league in Europe between 1969 and 1990 when a soviet team, most of the time CSKA of course, won the European Cup every year except one (1977).

Thats not to say that what Selanne did in Finland before coming over doesnt add any value to his career as it clearly should be taken into consideration. But leading the finnish league in goalscoring was a whole lot easier than doing the same in the soviet league in the 70´s and 80´s when the soviet league contained a considerate amount of players that were among the best in the world.

CSKA was the best club team but beyond CSKA the Spengler Cup results do not support the claim that the Soviet league was the best pre 1990 or even in the 1969-90 era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler_Cup

 

[Batis]

CSKA was the best club team but beyond CSKA the Spengler Cup results do not support the claim that the Soviet league was the best pre 1990 or even in the 1969-90 era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler_Cup

But that still doesnt take away my main point that there were far more world class players to compete with in the soviet league that contained all the players of one of the two best national teams in the world, than in the finnish league of the early 90´s. And also Soviet teams winning 12 out of 22 Spengler cups between 1969 and 1990 seems at the very least pretty dominant to me.

And Soviet teams winning 14 and only losing 2 Super Series against NHL teams suggests that the league was pretty damn good. Especially the fact that only Dinamo Riga had a losing record against NHL teams. Yes I know that the Soviet teams sometimes borrowed some players from each other for these series and no im not saying that the Soviet league was close to being better than the NHL. But I am a firm believer that it was a alot more competitive league than many seem to believe. Even beyond CSKA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Series

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

So isn't being able to play the point on the power play a positive for Bathgate & Geoffrion?

Also consider that in a top-heavy 6 team league Geoffrion gets lots more opportunity than Bathgate at bad teams. That is, Bathgate didn't get to play against the Rangers and Boom Boom didn't have to face the Canadiens.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So isn't being able to play the point on the power play a positive for Bathgate & Geoffrion?

Point was that as QB of the PP, Bathgate was probably getting more assists and fewer goals than he would if he played up front. Geoffrion doesn't fit that profile, but he was more of the shooter up high with his innovative slap shot, while Harvey QBed the Montreal PP, so maybe that is why.

Also consider that in a top-heavy 6 team league Geoffrion gets lots more opportunity than Bathgate at bad teams. That is, Bathgate didn't get to play against the Rangers and Boom Boom didn't have to face the Canadiens.

Good point. The counter-point is that the entire Rangers offense ran through Bathgate. While Geoffrion had to share ice time at even strength with Maurice Richard for most of his prime.

I have no idea how those factors would balance out.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Everyone is interested in doing a fair and accurate comparison; you just have a different idea of what that is, and very few people want to buy into it to the degree you have.

that's obvious the question is why? the term quotas come to mind.

Actually, league size has a lot to do with that, but that also correllates reasonably well with the influx of talent and does exactly what YOU would like it to do - reward players who played more recently.

See you frame it as a question of what I like and that's not it at all and instead of addressing the actual observation ie. new talents streams and what impact it has this personal thing goes on instead..

It's the observation of increased elite talent from other non traditional sources, if all things stay equal then you are measuring 2 different thing
gs here some years.

actually, the fact that we're talking about top-end players is a good reason that we should disregard your way of thinking, not explore it more.

How so that has yet to be argued, it's been stated but not backed up.

if we were comparing the 20th best player from 1930 to 1990, absolutely the guy in 1990 is better. if we're talking about 2nd or 3rd best players from these dates (which we are) then pool size becomes a lot less relevant.

I'm not talking about pool size, i'm talking about the elite talent, ie top 20 in the league any year, the makeup has gone from a top 20 Canadians to close to half of the top 20 in goals, assists, points some years coming from a different stream that wasn't there before.

the VsX metric has a built in assumption that every year the same standard can be applied ie the 2nd best scorer in most years unless there is an outlier.

That works fine if the group one is studying stays the same but it hasn't so when it changes ie there needs to be some way to account for it otherwise it loses it's accuracy, even in ballpark like terms.

this is evident in the less prevailing view of top 10 scoring finishes being as important, but behind the scenes it still is evidently.

sure it does. The standard is always the 2nd best scorer in the NHL (give or take) - this also more or less represents the 2nd best scorer in the world (almost certainly, anyway). And all players are compared to that standard, no matter when it is.

This doesn't account at all for the changes in the elite talent group...period

For group A they are only competing against the best Canadians in the world, group B many years it really is the best in the world.

Those are 2 different measurements then right?

I mean, if your argument is that the 30-40 NHL-caliber european players in the 1970s were in the NHL and pushed 30-40 players down the pecking order, affecting their scores, I'd agree, but it has very little, if anything to do with the top end players.

Still once again I'm talking about the elite players here specifically, the argument above probably holds some merrit but it's not part of this discussion and the issue of fairness to the VsX metric.

The idea of "a more fair and accurate measurement for all players" is just a thin veil. Some of us have been here long enough to see that.

That's a load period, notes are made for WW2 guys for the context, same for the guys with their primes not in the NHL, yet no mention of when a non traditional talent stream guy affects the VsX model?

Selective is the operative word here.

That's really funny that you think vsx "punishes" modern players. It's literally funny. I don't even know what to say to it. My suggested formula for you was a bit of a joke, but I honestly wonder if you secretly loved it.

yes I put the punish in quotations because the prevailing view likes to bring this out and then totally contradicts themselves by punishing a set group.

My observations aren't about the modern player it's about the differences in the NHL over periods of time and the elite talent in the NHL.

it's quite simple really the vsX metric measure any player agasint the 2n best NHL player in any given year.

If for some reason hockey followed soccer and many of the non Canadian ie guys not in the traditional talent stream, went back home and played in home leagues and the NHL became like it once was, a Canadian only league, no one here would or could ever seriously argue that the 5th highest scorer in the Canadian NHL (in this hypothetical modern Canadian only league) has any claim to being as good as the 5th best player in a fully integrated league would they?

Yet dogma and defending the ark with the "world is still flat POV" is what prevails.

We can discuss as to how much of an adjustment but surely using the Canadian standard is going to get us closer to the "truth" than simply not accounting for changes right?

Once again all we need to do is just go look at the post season all star teams, the 6 forwards, 4 Dmen and 2 goalies and see the gradual shift from all Canadian to the influx of elite talent from non traditional sources but yet this is being denied in the VsX system or somehow accounted for?

Quite simply by not accounting for it, it weakens the value of the metric across time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Good point. Kurri and Hull Jr. aren't available yet, but I think it would be relevant if a Selanne proponent were to explain what he has on those two players if we are to consider him for top 4 this round.

Wouldn't it be more relevant as to how Selanne stacks up against players in this round?

I know there is some leeway around the warning in the first post in this thread but aren't we supposed to keep the discussions to players in the round available as much as possible?

selanne does quite well in this reguard going back to one of your original posts this round.

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..

Selanne also has the best, hands down it's a 7 year stretch, post age 35 stretch (in relation to his piers, and heck elite all time) in addition to his 5 year prime from 97-00 and that incredible rookie year as well.

Before we going knocking Selanne and his post 35 thing let's all remember what is part of the huge reason of Mr Howe being #1 as well.

 

[Theokritos]

CSKA was the best club team but beyond CSKA the Spengler Cup results do not support the claim that the Soviet league was the best pre 1990 or even in the 1969-90 era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler_Cup

Not sure what your argument is. It's pretty clear that the Soviet League was the best league in Europe pre 1990. Afterwards it's a toss-up between the leagues of Russia, Sweden (probably ahead 1991-1993) and Finland (probably ahead 1993-1996).

 

[Merya]

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIFK:n_jääkiekkojoukkue_1997–1998

 

[Merya]

CSKA was the best club team but beyond CSKA the Spengler Cup results do not support the claim that the Soviet league was the best pre 1990 or even in the 1969-90 era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler_Cup

You have never watched any European league games have you? I mean Spengler Cup. C'MON!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Wouldn't it be more relevant as to how Selanne stacks up against players in this round?

I know there is some leeway around the warning in the first post in this thread but aren't we supposed to keep the discussions to players in the round available as much as possible?

selanne does quite well in this reguard going back to one of your original posts this round.



Selanne also has the best, hands down it's a 7 year stretch, post age 35 stretch (in relation to his piers, and heck elite all time) in addition to his 5 year prime from 97-00 and that incredible rookie year as well.

Before we going knocking Selanne and his post 35 thing let's all remember what is part of the huge reason of Mr Howe being #1 as well.

Mr. Howe had 6 post season all-star selections (4 first team) after age 35. Selanne zip.

 

[Merya]

Mr. Howe had 6 post season all-star selections (4 first team) after age 35. Selanne zip.

Gordie had no back to back 40+ goal seasons at 35+ either.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Good point. Kurri and Hull Jr. aren't available yet, but I think it would be relevant if a Selanne proponent were to explain what he has on those two players if we are to consider him for top 4 this round.

Eligibility?

Or maybe because Kurri appeared on maybe one Hart ballot in his career, dropped off a cliff in his early 30s without a comeback, and has a lower 7-year VsX despite playing with Wayne Gretzky? They get compared to each other because they're Finnish. That's the only reason they ever get compared to each other. Kurri was the best Finnish player, and Selanne probably passed him. And then Selanne's lack of defense is magnified because he's perpetually being compared to a two-way player.

I don't see the relevance in comparing him to someone not eligible who played a completely different style. Same with Brett Hull who didn't make a big offensive splash outside of three years and wasn't nearly as good of a playmaker.

Just because we always compare him to them and Bure doesn't mean it's appropriate to compare them when they're not even up for vote.

 

[Theokritos]

Gordie had no back to back 40+ goal seasons at 35+ either.

Scoring was much lower in the 1960s. The number of players who had 40+ goals seasons at all can be counted with one hand. The same can't be said of the 2005-2007 period when 10 player did it per season.