Years that European players would have won NHL accolades

[jigglysquishy]

I could envision Fetisov winning 4 straight Norris' from 81-84. That's when he was at his best before that car crash affected his mobility.
The winners those years were Carlyle, Wilson and Langway (x2).

This is my guess too.
The weird any-offensive voting trend still exists, but it's a nice interplay between an all-timer at his peak and a low period in NHL defensemen.

I would guess Makarov 1980 too, but Fetisov is the only one I'm truly confident in.

 

[Overrated]

I could envision Fetisov winning 4 straight Norris' from 81-84. That's when he was at his best before that car crash affected his mobility.
The winners those years were Carlyle, Wilson and Langway (x2).

I haven't watched enough of Fetisov to tell whether the car crash had any effect on his play (and from what I've seen I haven't noticed) but the reason I doubt it is the fact that if you look at his scoring levels there wasn't any dip at all whatsoever (unlike let's say Kharlamov after his car crash in 76). It seems to me to be more of a trope used to explain his less than impressive performance in the NHL in the 1990s.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Hasek more than proved that he was an NHL goalie.
Fetisov winning four Norris trophies? That's pure fantasy, the only thing he proved was that he did not belong in the NHL.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hasek more than proved that he was an NHL goalie.
Fetisov winning four Norris trophies? That's pure fantasy, the only thing he proved was that he did not belong in the NHL.

What on earth are you talking about? Fetisov is one of the best defensemen in hockey history. He immediately came over and became one of the better d-men in the league (albeit briefly) despite being past the age when most Soviets wear down.

If anything, Hasek came over - in prime years - and struggled. It took him four seasons and two teams before he found a starting gig...

 

[MadLuke]

the only thing he proved was that he did not belong in the NHL.

A bit strange to say about someone that playing 18 minute a game in the nhl on a loaded Red Wings teams at 40 years old... Why would the 25 years old version would not be able to play in the nhl when the 40 years one did...

We do not even have to speculate here.

 

[Professor What]

I don't get the Fetisov hate. The guy's a top 10 all-time defenseman. I honestly think that the only thing that would have kept him from four Norrises is the voters getting fatigue with defensemen who put up big numbers winning and going with someone like Langway. But hey, if Fetisov had been in the NHL all along, maybe they would have seen him to be well-rounded enough that that wouldn't have been an issue. I do think it's fair to say that he was the best defenseman in the world for those four years.

 

[Dingo]

I'm going to keep trying some outside shots knowing that the Tretiak/Fetisov/Makarov type stuff is going to come out organically...

Johan Holmqvist for the 2009 Vezina. He won the Honken Trophy for Elitserien (Swedish) goalie of the year. 49 GP 27-18-2, 2.17 GAA, .917 save pct. 2 SO.

His backup was former first round pick Ari Ahonen, he had a 4-4-1, 2.86/.886 combo.

(Thomas's backups - a rookie in his fourth NHL game and an old journeyman - were 17-8-3, 2.50/.914, 2 SO.

We seem to generally realize now that the NHL was in the DPE 2.0 after the nuNHL settled down again while also becoming too fast for its own good. Thomas was useless when not under the Julien/Bergeron/Chara triumvirate.

Not taking questions at this time, thank you.

this is hilarious. absolutely hilarious.

 

[Dingo]

I don't get the Fetisov hate. The guy's a top 10 all-time defenseman. I honestly think that the only thing that would have kept him from four Norrises is the voters getting fatigue with defensemen who put up big numbers winning and going with someone like Langway. But hey, if Fetisov had been in the NHL all along, maybe they would have seen him to be well-rounded enough that that wouldn't have been an issue. I do think it's fair to say that he was the best defenseman in the world for those four years.

he woukd have to be widely regarded as much more of an all around dman than Carlyle, right? and also, likely Wilson, who was a good dman for a long time?

so, then, ya, they might nit have felt the need to go the Lang way..... who was a one dimensional player in his own right.

 

[MadLuke]

Johan Holmqvist for the 2009 Vezina. He won the Honken Trophy for Elitserien (Swedish) goalie of the year. 49 GP 27-18-2, 2.17 GAA, .917 save pct. 2 SO.

His backup was former first round pick Ari Ahonen, he had a 4-4-1, 2.86/.886 combo.

(Thomas's backups - a rookie in his fourth NHL game and an old journeyman - were 17-8-3, 2.50/.914, 2 SO.

This could be underselling Fernandez back as back up goes he was a good one, but the gap between starter and backup in those 2 scenarios is smaller than it could look at first.

.933 Thomas vs .914 duo, that letting 28.4% less goals in. (34% less than Fernandez .910 that year)
.917 Holmqvist vs Ari Ahonen, that letting 35% less goals in, about the same.
The closer you get to 1.00 save percentage, difference get exponential, a .990 would be twice as good as a .980 goaltender would those things exist, a .890-.880, much smaller difference

Ahonen was mediocre in the AHL, Fernandez was able to be an nhl journeyman with over 300 games in the league, good enough to share the starting role on some competent team and even be a starter some seasons and start games in the playoff.

 

[Dingo]

This could be underselling Fernandez back as back up goes he was a good one, but the gap between starter and backup in those 2 scenarios is smaller than it could look at first.

.933 Thomas vs .914 duo, that letting 28.4% less goals in.
.917 Holmqvist vs Ari Ahonen, that letting 35% less goals in.
The closer you get to 1.00 save percentage, difference get exponential, a .990 would be twice as good as a .980 goaltender would those things exist, a .890-.880, much smaller difference

Ahonen was mediocre in the AHL, Fernandez was able to be an nhl journeyman with over 300 games in the league, good enough to share the starting role on some competent team and even be a starter some seasons and start games in the playoff.

something happened between Mike and Tim....

good post, though. Well-explained.

 

[VanIslander]

Gretzky thinks everybody might have won a Hart.

Actually, what Gretzky said: Fetisov was the hardest defenseman he ever had to play against.

I assume from that: Gretz might think he'd have won a Hart or two in his prime.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

A bit strange to say about someone that playing 18 minute a game in the nhl on a loaded Red Wings teams at 40 years old... Why would the 25 years old version would not be able to play in the nhl when the 40 years one did...

We do not even have to speculate here.

It's also strange to claim that he might have won 4 norris trophies when he went 9 straight years
with ZERO Norris votes.

 

[The Panther]

I think it's clear that players like Fetisov, Makarov, and even Balderis and others could have been big NHL stars in their primes. But to start speculating about an alternate reality is kind of pointless -- I mean, it's exactly the same as saying, "if so-and-so had played on this team instead of that team, he could have scored 150 points a year". Yes, anything is possible when we're wildly speculating.

Take Makarov. Was he a world-elite level talent from around 1978 to 1990? Yes, absolutely. But speculating that he could challenge Gretzky in 1981 in scoring is based on... what, exactly?

At age 31, in his first NHL season, he scored an impressive 86 points. He was fourth in scoring on the League's #1 highest scoring team. Now, we can look at this two ways: (1), He was a first-year player, probably not given much 1st unit PP time, and he had to make his way into the Flames' pecking order. Thus, at the same age, if he'd already been an established player and was already familiar with the NHL and the system, etc., it's certainly based on realistic evidence to say he could have scored more points than that -- maybe, I dunno, 100 or 110 or something, at age 31? But we can also realistically say: (2) If he had started with a lower-scoring team with less talent (almost any team except Calgary in 1989), he might have scored less.

Now, we know Gretzky at age 30 scored at a 167-point pace, on a similar level offensive club (1991 Kings).

After Makarov was a bit more established, he scored 70 points in 68 games, at age 33, with a pretty-bad Flames' team (nevertheless, one that could score). That's an 84-point pace. At the same age, on a very similar offensive caliber-team (the '94 Kings, which also sucked), Gretzky scored at a 132-point pace.

So, we can always speculate about what could have been. Maybe Makarov learns English at night in his spare time during 1975-1978, comes to North America somehow in 1978-79, spends a year in the WHA, then joins the Bruins and scores 165 points in 1980-81. I mean, I can't say it's impossible. But I can also say there's absolutely no evidence suggesting it's realistic.

There are just too many intangibles related to playing in certain Leagues in certain styles, with certain teams. Maybe Makarov isn't the kind of player who'd excel in the long-season, physical grind of the 1970s/80s NHL (in 1989-90 he scored 21 points in October, and then scored at a 78-point pace the rest of the season). Or maybe he is. Who knows?

Look at Peter Šťastný. Yeah, the Nords knew he and his brothers were big talents on Slovan Bratislava, but who expected that he'd step into the NHL and immediately be a 130-point scorer for several years? Some guys just suit some environments and some don't.

 

[Overrated]

What on earth are you talking about? Fetisov is one of the best defensemen in hockey history. He immediately came over and became one of the better d-men in the league (albeit briefly) despite being past the age when most Soviets wear down.

If anything, Hasek came over - in prime years - and struggled. It took him four seasons and two teams before he found a starting gig...

I don't think we should repeat certain tropes that don't seem to really hold up to much scrutiny though. I am always rating the Soviet players (and other European players) much higher than most here. I also think the underwhelming performance of the first Soviet and Czech players within the NHL has an explanation beyond the lack of skill. My explanation is their poor utilization by the Canadian coaches who weren't willing to accept a different playstyle.

There are many examples corroborating this. Look at the Stastny brothers. Now compare them to Hlinka, Novy and Nedomansky. And it's not just Peter. Look at the oldest brother Marian. Prior to coming to the NHL he had not played for a full season and if we isolate for his two first seasons aged 28-30 he ranked 15th in PPG. Not bad for someone already post-prime in a league of 680 people. Someone who had not even been a superstar at his very peak back in Europe by the way. Marian represented the CSSR since 75. These are the numbers for the WCs from 75 to 79. He was miles away from the top Soviet players with his 0.93 PPG only to come out of retirement to become one of the best players in the NHL. All he needed was to be allowed to play his "European style" with his brothers.

Another example somewhat less known is the example of Petr Ihnacak and Frycer who despite putting up decent numbers in the significantly weaker CSSR league never did so well internationally. The two combined scored 18 points (7goals) in 25 games as juniors and just 6 points (2 goals) in 19 international pro games. Now if you compare that to the big stars of junior hockey in the same years:

Sure their NHL career wasn't the greatest but especially Frycer was from what I have heard quite impressive.

The best example of course are the Red Wings. Both Larionov and Fetisov had less than impressive NHL careers but once they could play their game they all of a sudden started to produce respectable numbers at 35 and 37 respectively. And Larionov was quite lucky in this regard even before getting to play first with Bure and then Makarov.

This also goes against the idea of some crazy wear and tear specifically among the Soviet players. Larionov has had some of the greatest longevity in the history of the game. Mikhailov too. Fetisov had great longevity as well. Nothing seems to indicate that the Soviet system somehow made everyone washed up way younger.

Same goes for the car accident. This is from a Russian website I just found when googling:

Anatoly died in the hospital, his older brother did not receive serious injuries. The captain of the national team and CSKA claimed that he was sober. Viktor Tikhonov later said that he saved him from prison.

Statistically Fetisov did not seem to decline either. Save to say he got out more or less unscathed.

The car accident trope seems to be used to explain things about other players too. I remember someone saying something about Suchy's car accident and how it impacted his hockey abilities. In reality Suchy ran over and killed someone drunk driving and was in prison back when the CSSR won their gold against the USSR at WC 72.

 

[Overrated]

I think it's clear that players like Fetisov, Makarov, and even Balderis and others could have been big NHL stars in their primes. But to start speculating about an alternate reality is kind of pointless -- I mean, it's exactly the same as saying, "if so-and-so had played on this team instead of that team, he could have scored 150 points a year". Yes, anything is possible when we're wildly speculating.

Take Makarov. Was he a world-elite level talent from around 1978 to 1990? Yes, absolutely. But speculating that he could challenge Gretzky in 1981 in scoring is based on... what, exactly?

At age 31, in his first NHL season, he scored an impressive 86 points. He was fourth in scoring on the League's #1 highest scoring team. Now, we can look at this two ways: (1), He was a first-year player, probably not given much 1st unit PP time, and he had to make his way into the Flames' pecking order. Thus, at the same age, if he'd already been an established player and was already familiar with the NHL and the system, etc., it's certainly based on realistic evidence to say he could have scored more points than that -- maybe, I dunno, 100 or 110 or something, at age 31? But we can also realistically say: (2) If he had started with a lower-scoring team with less talent (almost any team except Calgary in 1989), he might have scored less.

Now, we know Gretzky at age 30 scored at a 167-point pace, on a similar level offensive club (1991 Kings).

After Makarov was a bit more established, he scored 70 points in 68 games, at age 33, with a pretty-bad Flames' team (nevertheless, one that could score). That's an 84-point pace. At the same age, on a very similar offensive caliber-team (the '94 Kings, which also sucked), Gretzky scored at a 132-point pace.

So, we can always speculate about what could have been. Maybe Makarov learns English at night in his spare time during 1975-1978, comes to North America somehow in 1978-79, spends a year in the WHA, then joins the Bruins and scores 165 points in 1980-81. I mean, I can't say it's impossible. But I can also say there's absolutely no evidence suggesting it's realistic.

There are just too many intangibles related to playing in certain Leagues in certain styles, with certain teams. Maybe Makarov isn't the kind of player who'd excel in the long-season, physical grind of the 1970s/80s NHL (in 1989-90 he scored 21 points in October, and then scored at a 78-point pace the rest of the season). Or maybe he is. Who knows?

Look at Peter Šťastný. Yeah, the Nords knew he and his brothers were big talents on Slovan Bratislava, but who expected that he'd step into the NHL and immediately be a 130-point scorer for several years? Some guys just suit some environments and some don't.

The Soviets and other European players would have to be allowed to play their style preferably with compatible (other European) players. Then it's possible.

 

[MadLuke]

It's also strange to claim that he might have won 4 norris trophies when he went 9 straight years
with ZERO Norris votes.

Subban would have went that long would he have been able to play, it is at least a bit less strange because obviously possible.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The Soviets and other European players would have to be allowed to play their style preferably with compatible (other European) players. Then it's possible.

Huge adjustment... ice dimensions, play style, rules, culture shock, for that first group that came over well into adult years. Nothing at all comparable to the current Russian/Czech players that come over as teenagers and develop within the NHL system, and obviously the very tippy top don't struggle to fit within amongst the best players overall. Presumably, if the best were all coming over in a similar situation, they would develop their NHL game pretty well. The fact that players that came over so late with so many factors stacked against them and did have any amount of success at all is fairly remarkable in my opinion, speaks to their abilities.

I dunno why so many are so quick to always neg the Soviets. The 1987 team played in a Canadian sponsored tournament in Canada with Canadian rules and Canadian refs and was more or less even with an NHL All-Star team (12 future Hall of Famers) that only managed to win by the narrowest of margins with Gretzky and Lemieux putting in a Herculean effort. Not just a one-off, but through 4 games (Tie, 6-5 OT win for Soviets, 6-5 Double OT win for Canada, 6-5 win for Canada with clincher scored with about a minute and a half left). The Soviets obviously had a lot of very talented players in their own right.

 

[carjackmalone]

86-87 if not for being Homesick according to Glen Sather Tony Hand would of been a star playing with the oilers

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think Tony Hand would have done **** in the NHL...there's film of him available, it's not at all compelling...

 

[Dingo]

I don't think Tony Hand would have done **** in the NHL...there's film of him available, it's not at all compelling...

slow?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Tony Hand is a neat story and the British stats pop off the page.

200 points was common in the British league though. In 1986-87 he had 216 points in 35 games. League leader Rick Fera had 232 is 34 games.

The league was extraordinarily low quality. In 1993-94 Tony Hand put up 222 points. Crazy right? League leader put up 319.

He couldn't even create separation from players who wouldn't be good enough to make an ECHL roster.

 

[Overrated]

slow?

He was routinely outscored by Canadian minor league players who would spend a season or two in England. The thing about him was that he was stat padding their shitty league for 20 years straight.

 

[Dingo]

Tony Hand is a neat story and the British stats pop off the page.

200 points was common in the British league though. In 1986-87 he had 216 points in 35 games. League leader Rick Fera had 232 is 34 games.

The league was extraordinarily low quality. In 1993-94 Tony Hand put up 222 points. Crazy right? League leader put up 319.

He couldn't even create separation from players who wouldn't be good enough to make an ECHL roster

when i have poked around before, some of the top guys in Hand's league did play ECHL and even a little AHL... unless i am remembering wrong... which is very possible.

Poking around just now - his team, the Murrayfield Racers, scored 288 goals that year that he had 222!, like..... that's a pretty good percentage, lol.

In NO way do i think Hand would have done anything more than chip in 30 points on that stacked Oilers team, IF he were lucky enough to get some PP time.

I think the cool historical thing about Hand is that a SCOT got even that good. Like, iron sharpens iron and he grew up playing ....... mud?

Wayne Naka, who coached Hand in Victoria for his 3 NA junior games, thought VERY highly of him. I think, woukd he have stayed and been exposed to real hockey, maybe, just maybe, he would have had a journeyman career... which is insane for someone from there, imo.

 

[Michael Farkas]

slow?

Just...everything technical really. I don't see how he could have played in the NHL. I'm not even that convinced he would have been a decent AHL player. But I'm not as well versed in the AHL at that time, that's more of a feel thing.

Even if you don't want to subject yourself to the 80's and 90's British Leagues (which are repugnant, with all due respect)...look at the international play...

1993 World Championships Div B. Britain advances to promotion against
Poland by 1
Denmark by 4
Japan by 1
Bulgaria by 10
Netherlands by 1
Romania by 6
China by 14

Hand is 2 points per game (4th on the team). The bus is driven by Kevin Conway and Rick Fera (19 in 7, each).

Conway toiled in the IHL for a bit. Wasn't all that close to a point per game player in any full season there.

Fera left for Britain right from the OHL, so I can draw even less from that...

Ok, so Hand can produce against those countries.

Now, Britain gets promoted in 1994. They're in a group with Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, and Canada.

They go 0-5, 7 GF, 44 GA. Then lose an 11th place game (Jesus, that's cruel...) to Norway 5-2. So, 0-6...9:49 as a team.

Hand is shutout in six games and is a -17.

Conway had three points, was just a -2, he sort of held his own in a tough spot. But not Hand, he's one of four forwards on the team who played every game and didn't score. He was a team-worst -17.

It's a small sample and you can play around all day with the "well, Player A had this in League X, but Player B..." I know. But it matches up exactly with the film. He wasn't close to good enough to play in the NHL or near the NHL for my money.

 

[Dingo]

Hand has come into my life in a 'its a small world' way, three times. wait, maybe just 2

My parents bought Wayne Naka's house when he was off to Victoria

My buddy, later in life, was coached by Naka, who told him that Hand was the best player he had ever coached and would have won them the Memorial Cup had management tried to keep him there.

And a guy I work with who played with Hand in his last year in Manchester - 'he was a good player, but pompous and never stopped talking about how he could have been an NHLr"