Zubov vs Gonchar vs Andrei Markov

[CHGoalie27]

I will disagree and put Zubov below Markov in all-around play. He was a turnover machine. Markov and late era Gonchar were better defensively. Zubov was better than them offensively and not as injury-prone, but he also played on some loaded squads. When other blueliners on your team are Leetch and Hatcher and your goalies are Richter and Belfour, you're not gonna get exposed as much as others. So overall

Zubov = Markov
Gonchar

I think of this game totally backwards lol

 

[Hobnobs]

I will disagree and put Zubov below Markov in all-around play. He was a turnover machine. Markov and late era Gonchar were better defensively. Zubov was better than them offensively and not as injury-prone, but he also played on some loaded squads. When other blueliners on your team are Leetch and Hatcher and your goalies are Richter and Belfour, you're not gonna get exposed as much as others. So overall

Zubov = Markov
Gonchar

Which isnt true at all. An aging Zubov averaged the same amount of giveaways as as an aging Gonchar, aging Hatcher and prime Markov.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Well, 09 coincides with Markov's first injury AND Chara winning the Norris. Both were on par WHEN PLAYING...At worse (for Markov).
And I'm really adamant about that.

Then he was injured, and that was that.

I don't think Markov was at all close to Chara in the 07-09 period. He was a good but not spectactular number 1 at even strength and probably the best PP defenseman after Lidstrom.

Markov's teams at the time were hugely dependant on him because Montreal was an awful 5 on 5 team that depended on him to carry their powerplay to have offensive success. But he wasn't that dominant of a player in the normal run of play unlike the very best defensemen in the league. PK Subban in his rookie season was probably a better ES player than Markov was at any point in his career.

 

[MXD]

I think you forgot how off Chara off looked as a Bruin at first (and now that I think about it, I also greatly ****ed up my years and I realize how my initial statement was misleading).

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think Markov was at all close to Chara in the 07-09 period. He was a good but not spectactular number 1 at even strength and probably the best PP defenseman after Lidstrom.

Is the second sentence in reference to Markov?

 

[MXD]

Is the second sentence in reference to Markov?

I pretty sure it was, and I'm pretty sure I've seen numbers to that effect.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's much more believable for Markov than Chara at least...

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Is the second sentence in reference to Markov?

In reference to Markov yes. Chara was a generally pretty dominant player at that time in both Ottawa and Boston.

 

[GoStars]

Indeed. I mean you could easily have a discussion about hhof when it comes to Zubov. Not saying he should get in or not but atleast there is grounds for a discussion about it. The other two, not so much. Gonchar is miles ahead of Markov offensively and I dont know if Markov defense makes up for it.

I'm biased, but the fact that Zubov was in contention for the Norris makes him worthy of HOF consideration. He played in a non-traditional market that east coast writers didn't even pay attention to. He was easily the second best player on a Stanley Cup Champion. (Some here in Dallas thought he was even better than Modano.)
He did it all before and after the rules changed. All this while having a smoke between periods.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm biased, but the fact that Zubov was in contention for the Norris makes him worthy of HOF consideration. He played in a non-traditional market that east coast writers didn't even pay attention to. He was easily the second best player on a Stanley Cup Champion. (Some here in Dallas thought he was even better than Modano.)
He did it all before and after the rules changed. All this while having a smoke between periods.😜

Why do you think that east coast writers didn't pay attention to Dallas? Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, and St. Louis were the only western teams anyone in the east paid attention to.

 

[Hobnobs]

Why do you think that east coast writers didn't pay attention to Dallas? Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, and St. Louis were the only western teams anyone in the east paid attention to.

Well, lets add that he was a russian in a non-traditional market. That usually doesnt bothe well. He also had that " european component to his game"

 

[trentmccleary]

Average of ten best era-adjusted season (selected by points):

Gonchar = 75-16-47-63
Zubov = 76-12-50-62
Markov = 77-11-40-51

I wanted to see if there was something to the few people who said Zubov was the best offensively, despite Gonchar leading d-men in scoring twice during the DPE (Zubov never led d in scoring).

Zubov had the highest Norris finish, but Gonchar probably had the better voting record. Markov comes in a distant 3rd in both of these categories.

Gonchar
Zubov
Markov

 

[MXD]

I'm biased, but the fact that Zubov was in contention for the Norris makes him worthy of HOF consideration. He played in a non-traditional market that east coast writers didn't even pay attention to. He was easily the second best player on a Stanley Cup Champion. (Some here in Dallas thought he was even better than Modano.)
He did it all before and after the rules changed. All this while having a smoke between periods.��

In other words, players whose resume don't scream HHOF at first glance are HHOF material since they played for your team?

Don't get me wrong : Zubov is clearly the best player in that group and was a tad underated as a whole. The idea that a canyon, as opposed to a channel, separes Zubov and Niedermayer is ludicrous.

On the other hand, the perception of Zubov is that he's significantly better than Eric Desjardins, and I don't have any rational explanation for that.

 

[MXD]

Average of ten best era-adjusted season (selected by points):

Gonchar = 75-16-47-63
Zubov = 76-12-50-62
Markov = 77-11-40-51

I wanted to see if there was something to the few people who said Zubov was the best offensively, despite Gonchar leading d-men in scoring twice during the DPE (Zubov never led d in scoring).

Zubov had the highest Norris finish, but Gonchar probably had the better voting record. Markov comes in a distant 3rd in both of these categories.

Gonchar
Zubov
Markov

In other words : points points points points points points points.

Besides, if the question is which of those three players had the better career, then it's quite clearly something like :

Zubov
Gonchar

Markov

Something like that is bound to happen when the games played tally between age 31 and 33 look like this :

239
235
65

And that's without considering the fact that Markov was a late bloomer for a myriad of reasons.
But, with regards, it wasn't the question being asked.

 

[shadow1]

You have to use the word "superstar" rather inflationary if you want to apply it to Sergey Zubov.

He was a top-5 defenseman in his prime, and is at least borderline Hall of Famer. Doesn't that classify as a Superstar? Serious question.

 

[MadLuke]

He was a top-5 defenseman in his prime, and is at least borderline Hall of Famer. Doesn't that classify as a Superstar? Serious question.

Zubov was more a star than a superstar.

On is own team (depending on the season), Modano, Hull, Belfour were bigger star.

 

[Hobnobs]

Zubov was more a star than a superstar.

On is own team (depending on the season), Modano, Hull, Belfour were bigger star.

So there cant be a 4th superstar? Please tell me the 3 only superstars on Red Wings 02 roster so I know which ones are only "stars". :p

 

[MadLuke]

Well the distinction on who is a star and who is a superstar and who is not a star at all would be hard to define.

One possible good way could be to define superstar player's that are known even by people that do not follow hockey at all, the Crosby/Ovechkin/etc...

Star are players that everyone that follow hockey just a little bit know, regardless of the team they follow and who really just watch is own team during the playoff seriously and not half of all the regular season games, that often goes to the all stars game and so on, someone like Zubov.

What would be your definition of superstar and of star ?

 

[Hobnobs]

Well the distinction on who is a star and who is a superstar and who is not a star at all would be hard to define.

One possible good way could be to define superstar player's that are known even by people that do not follow hockey at all, the Crosby/Ovechkin/etc...

Star are players that everyone that follow hockey just a little bit know, regardless of the team they follow and who really just watch is own team during the playoff seriously and not half of all the regular season games, that often goes to the all stars game and so on, someone like Zubov.

What would be your definition of superstar and of star ?

I have no definition but nice deflection.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Agree with the idea that Zubov was a star and not a superstar...for whatever it is worth...there is no number limit, it's just a feeling...

 

[MadLuke]

I have no definition but nice deflection.

There is obviously no limit of superstar on a specific team, but if Zubov was not a star player I wonder who was. There is such a gap in stardom between him and someone like Bret Hull on is own team that it was an example to show a need for a distinction between those 2 level of stardom.

 

[Hobnobs]

There is obviously no limit of superstar on a specific team, but if Zubov was not a star player I wonder who was. There is such a gap in stardom between him and someone like Bret Hull on is own team that it was an example to show a need for a distinction between those 2 level of stardom.

Which difference was that? I can sort of agree with Modano but Hull?

 

[Johnny Engine]

Which difference was that? I can sort of agree with Modano but Hull?

Hull was a "star" all the way up to the very end for what he did in the early 90s. He was always one of the most visible players on his team, but he wasn't significantly more important, if at all, to the Stars than Zubov was.

You could easily say that Rick Nash is a bigger "star" on the Rangers than Ryan McDonagh, but that's a dumb way to judge them as players.