ATD2011 Sam Pollock Semi: (2) Gwinnett Gladiators vs. (3) Chicago Steelers

[Reds4Life]

This is an interesting conversation, but can you please explain it's relevance to this series? Thanks.

This is related to the Fedorov - Boucher "overmatched" comparison Sturminator made on the first page. Not really important here, I agree.

 

[Sturminator]

Everyone knows hockey grew bigger over time, not only NA players compete in the NHL anymore, and there are more people (and hockey players) in general. Bigger talent pool means better competition, that is just common sense. And I do not mean only top end players, I do mean average players as well, since they do ADD to the competition. Citing top end talent and stating that THAT is an actual competition is just plain wrong, you gotta account for a lot more than that.

Elite players aren't competing against average players for their scoring placements. You are again veering off into "modern players are just better" never-never land with the assertion that having a higher average talent level in the league somehow makes the elite players better. There is a small "flash in the pan" effect from expanding the league and raising the average, but at the end of the day, the elite scorers are still competing amongst themselves.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is related to the Fedorov - Boucher "overmatched" comparison Sturminator made on the first page. Not really important here, I agree.

Well, even if you assume it was twice as hard for Fedorov to finish in the top 10 in scoring in his era (which is reasonable), Boucher still has a vastly superior regular season offensive record. As for playoffs, I agree with you that Feds was outstanding, but sturm made a very good case that Boucher was also outstanding.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sturm is also correct that the argument which draws Fedorov closer to Boucher based on playoffs also draws Foyston closer to Ovechkin. The counterargument would be that we have specific reason to believe that Fedorov stopped trying in the regular season while maintaining his effort level in the playoffs, but reactions to such an argument among the GMs will surely be mixed.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I assume you're not comparing this unit to their counterparts for a reason. Gwinnett's second line is easily the better unit, offensively and defensively.

Agree that your 2nd line is better, but that's going to happen when you put your 2nd, 4th, and 5th drafted forwards on the 2nd line. This gives you an advantage on the 2nd line, but a large disadvantage on the 1st line. The gap between the 1st lines where we have the advantage is bigger than the gap between the 2nd lines where you have the advantage.

Don McKenney is an excellent third line center - one of the best in the ATD this year. He was one of my bread and butter players from ATDs #10 and #11. He is definitely better than Thomas Steen, though it's not a landslide. Steen was a very strong two-way player in his own right. Lonsberry vs. Balon is an easy win for Gwinnett. As much respect as I have for Lonsberry as a hockey player, he is nothing but a checker at this level, and not even that good defensively. He's the worst player on either third line. Dave Balon was an excellent checker at even strength (back when "even strength specialists" were part of the league makeup) and a very dangerous goalscorer, as well. MacLean vs. Paiement is pretty much as wash in terms of overall value. Paiement was the better scorer while MacLean was better defensively. Both were quite physical. Overall, I think the third lines are basically a wash, with Chicago's advantage at center nullified by Gwinnett's advantage on the left wing and the right wingers being of equal value.

You are way understating the difference between McKenney and Steen here. McKenney was finishing in the Top 10 in scoring 4 times while being one of the better defensive centers in the league. Steen was an all around player who barely cracked the Top 20 once. Agree with Balon over Lonsberry overall, but Lonsberry is the better defensive player of the two. Not sure why you don't think he's "that good?" His bio has several quotes attesting to his checking abilities and showing that he was called on to shut down the league's top wingers. When Fred Shero calls someone MVP of the Flyers Cup winning season, you know he brings something extra that doesn't show up on the stat sheet.

When comparing 3rd lines, McKenney over Steen is the biggest mismatch.

I don't buy Talbot as an above-average #3. His top-10 scoring placements among defensemen are: 1, 7, 7, 9. This is a player who was basically a "pretty good" puckmover throughout his career, with a one season high peak. At the ATD level, he's below average for a second pairing puckmover, and is nothing special defensively. Tsygankov is a lower-end #4, in my opinion, with nothing much distinctive about him.

I think you are making these statements because you are used to a 30 team ATD...Talbot was about the 86th defenseman taken, which is the area he usually gets taken in the ATD. With 40 teams, the first 80 are #1's or #2's. Unless you can name 15 or so guys that went after him which should be considered better I think it's fair to call him above average.

I disagree about Tsygankov as well, we have evidence that he was 2nd Team All Star caliber in the Soviet League (limited records make it impossible to determine how many times, but we know in the 3 years we do have them he was on their twice), a mainstay on the National Team, and consistently voted to be one of the top players in the Soviet League (lists he appeared on ranged from top 18-40 with no specific rankings) and all this while being strictly a defensive player.

but I'm not really sure Gregg belongs in the ATD.

Obviously we're going to need more than that.

Gwinnett's power play is considerably better than Chicago's. The Steelers have Ovechkin, but beyond him, the advantages are all on Gwinnett's side, especially on the points, where the comparison is not even close, and among the second unit forwards. Yes, Chicago's second unit PP forwards are very soft, and I can't really see them having much success around the net against Boucher / Tinordi, both of whom were very strong defensively and physically. MacLean is "ok" as a band-aid on your second unit, but he's a good deal worse in the role than the other MacLean, his counterpart here. John MacLean placed top-10 once in powerplay goals and top-20 twice. Paul MacLean placed top-5 once, top-10 three times and top-20 five times.

I agree that Gwinnett has the better PP, but we have the better PK. PP units don't go up against each other. You have to look at PP's vs. PK's. The way I see it, your PP may be better, but it is going up against a more difficult PK than ours is, so that edge is negated. I see no distinct advantage either way here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As far as I know, it was never determined that any of the 2nd and 3rd team All Star nods in the Soviet League were official. Chidlovski and hockeyarchives apparently list them, but comprehensive Russian language sources apparently do not.

 

[Sturminator]

Agree that your 2nd line is better, but that's going to happen when you put your 2nd, 4th, and 5th drafted forwards on the 2nd line. This gives you an advantage on the 2nd line, but a large disadvantage on the 1st line. The gap between the 1st lines where we have the advantage is bigger than the gap between the 2nd lines where you have the advantage.

Ah...but if that were true. Chicago's only substantial advantage at forward is in Ovechkin vs. Foyston, and Frank Foyston was a hell of a hockey player and one of the best playoff performers in history. Boucher is quite a bit better than Fedorov and Alfredsson vs Guerin is not nearly as different as you'd like it to be. On the second units, only Thompson vs. Heatley is close. Fredrickson / Smith vs. Roenick / Recchi is a laugher. Chicago will have to lean very heavily on Ovechkin because he is the only clear advantage the Steelers have, while Gwinnett will control the center of the ice on both scoringlines, and is easily superior at second line right wing. I'm not really sure of the wisdom of hanging so much of your team's fortunes on a player with such limited playoff experience.

You are way understating the difference between McKenney and Steen here. McKenney was finishing in the Top 10 in scoring 4 times while being one of the better defensive centers in the league. Steen was an all around player who barely cracked the Top 20 once.

Steen actually cracked the top-20 in points per game three straight seasons, but because he missed about 15 games in the 2nd and 3rd of those years, narrowly missed the top-20, overall. He was not on McKenney's level offensively, but the gap is smaller than you make it out to be. McKenney was also a first unit powerplay player during his heyday in Boston, while Steen never got more than second unit time in Winnipeg. Steen was also considerably tougher than McKenney, who, while good defensively, was a Lady Byng winner. The difference here is not all that great. Alex Steen is one of the most underrated players of his generation.

Agree with Balon over Lonsberry overall, but Lonsberry is the better defensive player of the two.

Really? Here's what Emile Francis had to say about Dave Balon:

"Davey was one of the most versatile players I ever coached," said Emile Francis, the Rangers' longtime coach and general manager. "He was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, great in the corners and excellent on the power play."

Balon was also far better than Lonsberry offensively - like not in the same league. Balon was a top-10 scorer in the NHL three times, four times top-10 in even strength goals. He was nearly as good offensively as Don McKenney, actually.

Not sure why you don't think he's "that good?" His bio has several quotes attesting to his checking abilities and showing that he was called on to shut down the league's top wingers. When Fred Shero calls someone MVP of the Flyers Cup winning season, you know he brings something extra that doesn't show up on the stat sheet.

Because I saw him play. Lonsberry was a very good checking winger, but I don't think he's all that special in an all-time sense - not enough to make up for the almost complete lack of offense. To be honest, I view him as an inferior player to Brian Rolston.

Obviously we're going to need more than that.

The simple fact that Gregg was never a top pairing defenseman in the NHL should tell you something. Hell, he was a third pairing guy for a few years in Edmonton behind Coffey, Lowe, Smith and Huddy. Gregg was a really good third pairing guy (the defensive depth of those Oilers teams is often underrated) in the real NHL, mind you, but in the ATD even third pairing guys were generally #1 defensemen for their respective teams. Gregg was never more than a #3 and was never a top unit special teams player, either. I can think of a number of undrafted defensemen who I consider better.

I agree that Gwinnett has the better PP, but we have the better PK. PP units don't go up against each other. You have to look at PP's vs. PK's. The way I see it, your PP may be better, but it is going up against a more difficult PK than ours is, so that edge is negated. I see no distinct advantage either way here.

Eh? Chicago has a small advantage on defense on the first unit, but Gwinnett's top unit penalty killing forwards are actually rather easily the better. Do you really think Fedorov - MacLean are as good as Rolston - Smith? Brian Rolston is an absolutely elite PKer, and Hooley Smith was probably the best defensive forward of his generation. On the second units, Boucher is better than McKenney at everything, while Lonsberry is defensively better than Carpenter. But the defensemen on Gwinnett's second unit PK are much better. Mark Tinordi was one of the best penalty killing defensemen in the league during his prime, and George Boucher is just a far superior player to either of Chicago's second pairing guys.

If anything, Gwinnett has the better penalty kill.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You are way understating the difference between McKenney and Steen here. McKenney was finishing in the Top 10 in scoring 4 times while being one of the better defensive centers in the league. Steen was an all around player who barely cracked the Top 20 once.
.
.
.
When comparing 3rd lines, McKenney over Steen is the biggest mismatch.

You're right about the finishes, of course, but Steen is a very underrated player - in my opinion. His numbers don't do him justice.

Also considering both of these guys were primarily 2nd line centers (I think? I am not all that familiar with McKenney) and one of these players played in the O6 and one in a league with 21 teams: what do the placings really mean in context?

Being top 10 in the O6 if we consider that maybe the top two lines get enough ice time and offensive opportunities to have a real shot at placing.. we're talking about being in the top 10 out of 36 players in the O6 and being in the top 10 out of 126 in the 21 team league.

So where does Steen need to finish to be roughly equivalent offensively to lower top 10s in the O6? Top 25?

Just throwing it out there.

It is a constant debate around here but I think relying strictly on finishes, particularly with O6 players is kind of a minefield because there are only 36 front line and second line players in the whole league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In the other hand, the best offensive players in the world USUALLY would have found themselves on a scoring line even at 6 teams.

 

[Reds4Life]

Elite players aren't competing against average players for their scoring placements. You are again veering off into "modern players are just better" never-never land with the assertion that having a higher average talent level in the league somehow makes the elite players better. There is a small "flash in the pan" effect from expanding the league and raising the average, but at the end of the day, the elite scorers are still competing amongst themselves.

I did not say that. What I said is that overall competition level is higher. And it does matter, to me at least.

And frankly I am really tired of your continuous efforts to put "modern players are just better" into all of my posts. I may have a different view on players ranking than you (and who's to say YOUR approach is the correct one, by the way? You should realize that not everyone must share your opinions or views.), but I'd never claim players from era XYZ suck, while players from ABC era are the best. So I'd recommend you to stop with your pathetic accusations.

Well, even if you assume it was twice as hard for Fedorov to finish in the top 10 in scoring in his era (which is reasonable), Boucher still has a vastly superior regular season offensive record. As for playoffs, I agree with you that Feds was outstanding, but sturm made a very good case that Boucher was also outstanding.

I have no doubt that Boucher is also outstanding. As I said before, my point is that which player is actually better playoff performer is arguable, which means I strongly disagree with Sturminator's statement that Fedorov is overmatched.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Ah...but if that were true. Chicago's only substantial advantage at forward is in Ovechkin vs. Foyston, and Frank Foyston was a hell of a hockey player and one of the best playoff performers in history. Boucher is quite a bit better than Fedorov and Alfredsson vs Guerin is not nearly as different as you'd like it to be. On the second units, only Thompson vs. Heatley is close. Fredrickson / Smith vs. Roenick / Recchi is a laugher. Chicago will have to lean very heavily on Ovechkin because he is the only clear advantage the Steelers have, while Gwinnett will control the center of the ice on both scoringlines, and is easily superior at second line right wing. I'm not really sure of the wisdom of hanging so much of your team's fortunes on a player with such limited playoff experience.

Not sure how we got back to Boucher is "quite a bit" better than Fedorov. It's already been established that Fedorov was one of the best playoff performers of his generation and proved it over a much larger sample size and on a team that played a defense first system that rolled 4 lines. Another poster also pointed out that in a regular season comparison Fedorov is a "special case" because he visibly cared less about the regular season after a certain point. These two are closer than you are making it out to be.

You proved that Alfredsson vs. Guerin is closer than we thought when only considering ES, but it is still a fairly significant edge for Alfredsson. He has much better longevity, a pretty large edge on defense, and had played with some pretty terrible linemates some years. The only edge Guerin has is physically and it's not like Alfie is a cream-puff. Not to mention a player's defensive game is a much more important factor than their physical game.

As far as the 2nd liners go, Smith is a 1st line player and clearly the best player on either team's 2nd line. Thompson is better than Heatley by a large margin defensively, a smaller margin offensively, and does not bring the attitude problems Heatley does. The same type of comments can be said of a Recchi-Heatley comparison, although they are closer than Thompson-Heatley. IMO Fredrickson is somewhere in the Thompson-Recchi range, but his PCHA years/the time period he played in makes it difficult to compare.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sturm, you really need to insert the word "arguably" in front of "best defensive player of his generation" when talking about Hooley Smith. This is the same generation as Pit Lepine and Frank Finnigan.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The simple fact that Gregg was never a top pairing defenseman in the NHL should tell you something. Hell, he was a third pairing guy for a few years in Edmonton behind Coffey, Lowe, Smith and Huddy. Gregg was a really good third pairing guy (the defensive depth of those Oilers teams is often underrated) in the real NHL, mind you, but in the ATD even third pairing guys were generally #1 defensemen for their respective teams. Gregg was never more than a #3 and was never a top unit special teams player, either. I can think of a number of undrafted defensemen who I consider better.

All of the bolded are on an ATD 1st or 2nd pairing this year (although Huddy should be on a 3rd), so it is not much of a knock that Gregg was sometimes behind them. Gregg isn't playing on any of our special teams, so the fact that he wasn't a top unit player shouldn't be much of an issue (again consider the depth that was on his team). Gregg also played on the 84' Canada Cup Team. He was there because of Sather bias and did not belong on the team over some of the players that were left off, but the fact that he could play on that team, at that level, and contribute to a championship says something. I think he is fine as #6 in the role of big defensive defenseman with good hockey sense and tons of championship experience.


No time for anything else right now. Try to get to some other stuff later.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

One more quick issue that should be brought up in the Frank Boucher - Sergei Fedorov comparison is that Frank Boucher got to play with an elite goal scoring winger in Bill Cook for almost his whole career. He does not have that weapon to work with on this team, so it is a fair assumption to expect his production to be lower.

 

[Sturminator]

Thompson is better than Heatley by a large margin defensively, a smaller margin offensively, and does not bring the attitude problems Heatley does.

You're joking, right? You consider Paul Thompson a better offensive player than Dany Heatley? By looking uncritically at his top-10's, I suppose. Here are the two players' respective scoring peaks:

Thompson: 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 10th, 10th

Heatley: 4th, 4th, 9th, 15th, 15th

I shouldn't have to tell you how different the levels of scoring competition are here. Thompson's three best seasons all came starting in 1935-36 in a weak NHL after the 1920's greats had passed their primes. The best scorer during Paul Thompson's peak was Sweeney Schriner. Given how close their scoring credentials actually are, and how far apart the leagues were at the time they competed, I consider Heatley's scoring finishes unconditionally better. Given his predilections, your partner would have to do some real gymnastics to argue that old-timer Thompson was on Heatley's level as a scorer, much less superior.

Heatley was the better offensive player, Thompson the better defensive player. In a vacuum, I'm not really sure who was the better player.

IMO Fredrickson is somewhere in the Thompson-Recchi range, but his PCHA years/the time period he played in makes it difficult to compare.

Have you paid attention to any of the information on Fredrickson? The guy was probably the second best western league forward after Taylor, and is up there with Cy Denneny as the best offensive forward of his time. Using my favored notation (with percentage gap to next best scorer on team in [brackets]), here are Denneny and Fredrickson's respective peaks (1920-21 to 1926-27):

Denneny: 100 [130] - 126, 100 [83] - 117, 98 [74] - 113, 100 [48] - 110, 100 [44] - 109, 104 [4] - 105, 100 [-18] - 96, 79 [-27] - 74

Fredrickson: 136 [108] - 158, 100 [75] - 115, 91 [114] - 114, 100 [60] - 112, 96 [32] - 102, 86 [29] - 92*, 57 [41] - 65

*indicates consolidated NHL totals*

It should be noted that the brief "three league effect" catches both players equally, as both were at their primes at the time, so there is no distortion here for the players relative to one another. It is up to the reader to decide what he thinks of the relative strength of the NHL vs western leagues during the period.

 

[Reds4Life]

Given his predilections, your partner would have to do some real gymnastics to argue that old-timer Thompson was on Heatley's level as a scorer, much less superior.

Heatley was the better offensive player, Thompson the better defensive player. In a vacuum, I'm not really sure who was the better player.

Given Thompson's better all-around game, it is pretty clear who was the better player. IMHO Heatly is better offensively, but the defensive gap between the two players is much bigger.

Have you paid attention to any of the information on Fredrickson? The guy was probably the second best western league forward after Taylor, and is up there with Cy Denneny as the best offensive forward of his time. Using my favored notation (with percentage gap to next best scorer on team in [brackets]), here are Denneny and Fredrickson's respective peaks (1920-21 to 1926-27):

Denneny: 100 [130] - 126, 100 [83] - 117, 98 [74] - 113, 100 [48] - 110, 100 [44] - 109, 104 [4] - 105, 100 [-18] - 96, 79 [-27] - 74

Fredrickson: 136 [108] - 158, 100 [75] - 115, 91 [114] - 114, 100 [60] - 112, 96 [32] - 102, 86 [29] - 92*, 57 [41] - 65

*indicates consolidated NHL totals*

It should be noted that the brief "three league effect" catches both players equally, as both were at their primes at the time, so there is no distortion here for the players relative to one another. It is up to the reader to decide what he thinks of the relative strength of the NHL vs western leagues during the period.

Hence the "IMO Fredrickson is somewhere in the Thompson-Recchi range, but his PCHA years/the time period he played in makes it difficult to compare."

 

[Sturminator]

One more quick issue that should be brought up in the Frank Boucher - Sergei Fedorov comparison is that Frank Boucher got to play with an elite goal scoring winger in Bill Cook for almost his whole career. He does not have that weapon to work with on this team, so it is a fair assumption to expect his production to be lower.

Heh...yes but with Cook on his wing, Boucher scored the same as Howie Morenz over their respective peaks. It is only after we correct for the help Cook and Boucher got from one another than they fall behind Morenz, at all. Here is the relevant post. Even adjusting for the effect skating with Cook had, Boucher is still well ahead of Fedorov offensively.

 

[Sturminator]

Hence the "IMO Fredrickson is somewhere in the Thompson-Recchi range, but his PCHA years/the time period he played in makes it difficult to compare."

You would have to hate on the western leagues hard to put Fredrickson in the Thompson/Recchi range. Given how well the western stars performed when they came to the consolidated NHL (including specifically both Cooks, Boucher, Shore, Irvin, Hay, Gardiner, Dutton, Oliver, Keats and Fredrickson, himself), downgrading the western leagues vs the NHL/NHA would seem like a fairly nonsensical position.

 

[jarek]

I think it's dangerous to start calling pre-merger players (and some post merger too?) the "greatest playoff performers ever". Remember that these guys played the entire game. No line changes, no subs (for the most part), so if a goal was scored, they had a pretty high chance of being involved in it. I don't know if this applies to Boucher, but it certainly applies to Foyston (and one of the reasons why I think Foyston is a GREAT playoff performer.. but one of the best ever, I don't think so).

I would really like to know the breakdown for those Rangers teams in terms of how often each line played. I know it's probably impossible, but being on the ice more means you're going to be involved in more of the scoring, it's as simple as that.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think it's dangerous to start calling pre-merger players (and some post merger too?) the "greatest playoff performers ever". Remember that these guys played the entire game. No line changes, no subs (for the most part), so if a goal was scored, they had a pretty high chance of being involved in it. I don't know if this applies to Boucher, but it certainly applies to Foyston (and one of the reasons why I think Foyston is a GREAT playoff performer.. but one of the best ever, I don't think so).

If we start down that road and add in the low number of games that the oldtimers played (where one hot streak could see you putting up crazy numbers because of the sample size), things are going to get awfully complicated around here.

 

[Sturminator]

I don't know if this applies to Boucher, but it certainly applies to Foyston (and one of the reasons why I think Foyston is a GREAT playoff performer.. but one of the best ever, I don't think so).

Of course you know it doesn't apply to Boucher's Ranger years, which are by far the biggest part of his playoff legacy.

As far as Foyston goes...the Cup Finals of the east vs. west era involved both leagues. In that sense, they were consolidated, and did not have the split league effect that you get during the regular season. It was specifically these serieses that Foyston dominated. In regards to the Finals from this period, you can think of the NHL and western leagues as having simply been seperate conferences in modern terms. Foyston was the dominant playoff performer of this era - an era which includes Taylor, Nighbor, Lalonde, et al. among the other brights lights of the postseason. You can completely ignore everything he did except for in the Finals, and this is still true.

I see no reason why dominating the "consolidated" Cup finals in the pre-merger era is any different than dominating them in the post-merger era. Removing an entire strong era of players from consideration among the greatest postseason performers of all-time because they played their regular season schedules seperately is silly.

 

[Reds4Life]

Boucher is still well ahead of Fedorov offensively.

In a regular season, perhaps. But as mentioned before, Fedorov was a different player in the playoffs.

You would have to hate on the western leagues hard to put Fredrickson in the Thompson/Recchi range. Given how well the western stars performed when they came to the consolidated NHL (including specifically both Cooks, Boucher, Shore, Irvin, Hay, Gardiner, Dutton, Oliver, Keats and Fredrickson, himself), downgrading the western leagues vs the NHL/NHA would seem like a fairly nonsensical position.

Well, you have to project their western league(s) records into NHL of their time AND then again to "modern" NHL. And how do you account for rule changes? Roster sizes etc.?

Comparing/adjusting topX or topY scorers just doesn't cut it as far as I am concerned. Which is why I agree with JohnnyD that it is difficult to rank players like that. Frank Fredrickson is a big unknown to me, and no post I've read about him was helpful/useful, so I won't go around and claim he's this or that good. So while it may seem like a "hatred" to you, it is merely a cause of insufficient relevant data/facts that would go one way or the other. Although I wonder what makes you think you got it 100% right (the Fredrickson - Recchi/Thompson comparison).

 

[Dreakmur]

Boucher and Foyston were among the best playoff performers of their era. Fedorov was also one of the best in his era. I'd be hard pressed to say one was better thab the other in the playoffs, but I've always just added playoff accomplishments onto their base of regular season play, so I'd tame Boucher before Fedorov and both before Foyston.

 

[Sturminator]

If we start down that road and add in the low number of games that the oldtimers played (where one hot streak could see you putting up crazy numbers because of the sample size), things are going to get awfully complicated around here.

The problems of sample size and statistical significance aren't an issue for guys from this era who appeared in the playoffs more than once or twice. Frank Foyston, for example played 25 games in the Cup Finals, alone - 46 total over all top league hockey leagues. This is not a number of games where you run into problems of statistical significance.

 

[Sturminator]

Well, you have to project their western league(s) records into NHL of their time AND then again to "modern" NHL. And how do you account for rule changes? Roster sizes etc.?

Great...because it's an inexact science, we just downgrade them all, then, eh?

Comparing/adjusting topX or topY scorers just doesn't cut it as far as I am concerned. Which is why I agree with JohnnyD that it is difficult to rank players like that. Frank Fredrickson is a big unknown to me, and no post I've read about him was helpful/useful, so I won't go around and claim he's this or that good. So while it may seem like a "hatred" to you, it is merely a cause of insufficient relevant data/facts that would go one way or the other. Although I wonder what makes you think you got it 100% right (the Fredrickson - Recchi/Thompson comparison).

Considering that Fredrickson was as good a scorer as any player of his era, you are essentially saying that the very best offensive players of that era were no better than Mark Recchi. What about Fredrickson's Hart finalist season in the consolidated NHL (1926-27 - which was a better era than Thompson's peak) is insufficient to you? We know how he performed at his peak against the best in the world in a consolidated league, and he was dominant. This "I just don't know" argument is just a means of concealing your dislike of old-timers.