Bryan Trottier vs Stan Mikita

[Dark Shadows]

I saw Mikita play live several times both in MLG and at the old Olympia so I have some first-hand knowledge of what he was as a player. As much as I loved Stosh's play, which was smart, slick, courageous, belligerent and down right nasty at times. I truly believe the Bryan Trottier was a better hockey player, he was a much stronger skater and exhibited those same attributes I listed for Mikita, in fact I'd take Trotts over Bobby Clarke as well.

Again I'm basing my opinion on what I saw of both players, the stats are so close that they are almost negligible. I do realize that there is a certain romaticism when one looks into the past and certainly I feel that way looking back on Mikita somewhat, but I'm not going to let that fool me into thinking he was better because he played in a 6 team league.

By the time Trotts started in the NHL, Europe was already feeding the NHL in a big way as was the US system. So much so in fact, that it was taking jobs from good ol canadian kids as Don likes to say. The truth is though, the best players in the world were playing in the NHL at that point, not so in Mikita's time. Many people don't remember but Canadas best amateurs were getting beaten on a fairly regular basis by the Russians and Swedes by the end of the 50's and the balance was totally tipped by the mid-sixties. So the NHL while it was still very good did not feature the best in the world, a lot of them yes but not all.

Back in the 50's and 60's, some players who were actually better than the guys in the NHL were whiling away in the minors either a victim of numbers or maybe a vindictive coach/GM and because of limited player movement would never see the bigs.

Was Mikita great? Absolutely, but so was Trotts who possessed a better shot, better wheels and was maybe just a touch nastier!

somebody mentioned Mikitas' Harts..............he had less competition with only 126-140 players to compete against, Trotts was compteing against double that plus

The vast majority of this post has already been addressed and debunked in this thread.

 

[therealkoho]

The vast majority of this post has already been addressed and debunked in this thread.

someone once said that the law was an ass, they obviously had no idea what they were talking about

what was addressed, the fact that I've seen both play, the fact that I'm old enough to have seen both and have the in depth knowledge to be able to form an opinion on what I've seen and what it means.......was the fact addressed that there was a great influx of europeans introduced into the league making the game better by adding a lot of skill and new concepts, was that what was de-bunked?


opinions are neither right nor wrong because they are opinion, what is it you don't understand about that.........are you the great moderator of who can speak and who cannot, if you think you are I'm here to debunk that myth.................

Jerry Jeff said once that pissin in the wind makes a mess of your friends...nice try ace

 

[Trottier]

Easy Trotts.

Not to worry DS.

As you know, Al Arbour stating that he would choose Bryan Trottier over any other player in starting a team was a perfectly reasonable comment in the context of the time which it was made, circa 1980.

Of course, one would had to have been alive and capable of critical thought at the time, to appreciate that fact...which is clearly not a threshold met by some here. Which, in turn, is what leads some to make insufferable and silly remarks about great hockey minds.

Though we may disagree on the topic, I respect fully your and Phil's and several others' opinions re: Mikita v. Trottier.

However, I place no equivalence, no equal weight, between your point of view and those of a few others....For reasons that need no further explanation, except to say that your eyewitness opinions on players is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than shallow stat and award "facts" provided by others.

PS - Personally, this discussion is moot at this point. What's troublesome is the idea that if one shares a differing opinion, s/he is "wrong," and the naive, boorish notion that "my opinion" = fact. One comes to the HOH board precisely to avoid such mindset, and it has never been the case here...until recently, with the appearance of a few who come here with their stack of stats, a lot of unjustifed and laughable self assuredness...and absolutely nothing else. Heaven help us if that becomes the norm. I would hope you share that sentiment.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I saw Mikita play live several times both in MLG and at the old Olympia so I have some first-hand knowledge of what he was as a player. As much as I loved Stosh's play, which was smart, slick, courageous, belligerent and down right nasty at times. I truly believe the Bryan Trottier was a better hockey player, he was a much stronger skater and exhibited those same attributes I listed for Mikita, in fact I'd take Trotts over Bobby Clarke as well.

How much is "several"? Can you really get a full degree of a players ability by watching a few games?

Again I'm basing my opinion on what I saw of both players, the stats are so close that they are almost negligible. I do realize that there is a certain romaticism when one looks into the past and certainly I feel that way looking back on Mikita somewhat, but I'm not going to let that fool me into thinking he was better because he played in a 6 team league.

To the bold: No they aren't.

Dreak listed the vast differences in playmaking. Why don't swe show the rest of the top-10 finishes?

Goalscoring

Mikita- 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

Trottier- 5th, 5th, 8th

Points

Mikita- 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th

Trottier- 1st, 2nd, 6th, 5th, 8th, 10th

The offensive gap is big

Aaa yes, as for the 6th teams thing- that doesn't really play a factor when you are talking about the best of the best, the highest finishes, because really, you think someone wasn't playing in the NHL could do better than Mikita in his points years? It plays a factor when you get into good but not-elite finishes, but it doesn't do much to Mikita.

By the time Trotts started in the NHL, Europe was already feeding the NHL in a big way as was the US system. So much so in fact, that it was taking jobs from good ol canadian kids as Don likes to say. The truth is though, the best players in the world were playing in the NHL at that point, not so in Mikita's time. Many people don't remember but Canadas best amateurs were getting beaten on a fairly regular basis by the Russians and Swedes by the end of the 50's and the balance was totally tipped by the mid-sixties. So the NHL while it was still very good did not feature the best in the world, a lot of them yes but not all.

Russia didn't have many guys in the 60s though- NHL still had by far the most in the world. The best guys Russia had in the 60s were Firsov and Starshinov- do you think they could have userped Mikita and his many high finishes?

These factors do not do much damage to Mikita, if any at all. And the gap is big offensively either way.

Back in the 50's and 60's, some players who were actually better than the guys in the NHL were whiling away in the minors either a victim of numbers or maybe a vindictive coach/GM and because of limited player movement would never see the bigs.

Again, this has somewhat of an effect on good but not elite player finishes. Why don't you name me some of the guys who were supposedly in the minors in Mikita's time that could have outproduced Mikita?

Was Mikita great? Absolutely, but so was Trotts who possessed a better shot, better wheels and was maybe just a touch nastier!

So why didn't Trottier's better shot, better wheels, and better team translate to better offense than Mikita?

Trottier hwas an intangible edge- but Mikita is a great intangible guy as well, and it doesn't really come close to making up the offensive gap.

somebody mentioned Mikitas' Harts..............he had less competition with only 126-140 players to compete against, Trotts was compteing against double that plus

Again, the big-little league factor you are painting is not a real factor when you are talking about the best of the best here. Who outside the NHL in Mikita's time could have possibly taken one of his Harts? Who had a good chance of doing so? Name me a player better than Mikita outside of the NHL at the time that could have been more valuable than his amazing all-around ability.

 

[Dark Shadows]

such as what the record lies, such as I've seen both play, such as I'm old enough to have seen both and have the in depth knowledge to be able to form an opinion and in doing so i'm offering that opinion

it is neither right nor wrong because it is an opinion, what is it you don't understand about that.........are you the great moderator of who can speak and who cannot, if you think you are I'm here to debunk that myth

Oh you can offer your opinion all you want. I am happy to see another kindred spirit who was lucky enough to have seen both posting in this section.

My problem lies in some of the details you posted which I already addressed.

The Amateur Canadian teams that Russia beat for example, were filled mostly with players who could not make the NHL. The top Russian talent was not truly on par with top Canadian talent until the mid 60's, and the top Swed/Czech talent not until the 70's.(There have been large studies on this topic in this section that you should take a look at)

If you feel nostalgic, I posted a few

In either case, Trottier faced very few of them in his prime in the NHL.

Trottier facing a larger number of Europeans and a stronger league? Some of his best years were spent during the splintered WHA league times, when the talent was dispersed and diluted between two leagues. I consider the league with only 6 teams, yet the majority of the talent condensed making most of them competitive to be stronger competition than a league that had 20-25% strong teams and the rest middling/weak teams.

And in the end, after some quick checking, Mikita's numbers against the dynasty Habs and Toronto teams were stellar. Those teams certainly cannot be considered easy competition. They were loaded with hall of fame players.

When I look at the list of players Mikita was frequently in the running with in the scoring races...... Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Mahovlich, Bathgate, Ullman, Keon, Esposito, Ratelle, Richard etc etc

To me, the top 15-20 scorers in one era = the top 15-20 in any era. After that, it gets much hazier and your point does start to have merit.

What do you say about them? Were they also products of their time?

The comment about Europeans feeding the NHL in a big way is one I consider to be false during Trottier's best years. Other than Stastny(And Salming, but I am focusing on forwards who were top of the league in scoring here here), can you specify who these Euro's were that were giving the top Canadian competition a run for their money? Kent Nilsson comes to mind, but IMO he would not have lasted 5 minutes in the much rougher era Mikita played in.

Those are just some of the points that get thrown around here continually, yet I feel have been properly addressed over and over. I did not mean to single you out, but after you are here awhile, you will likely get tired of seeing many of the same things come up over and over.

 

[canucks4ever]

How much is "several"? Can you really get a full degree of a players ability by watching a few games?



To the bold: No they aren't.

Dreak listed the vast differences in playmaking. Why don't swe show the rest of the top-10 finishes?

Goalscoring

Mikita- 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

Trottier- 5th, 5th, 8th

Points

Mikita- 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th

Trottier- 1st, 2nd, 6th, 5th, 8th, 10th

The offensive gap is big

Aaa yes, as for the 6th teams thing- that doesn't really play a factor when you are talking about the best of the best, the highest finishes, because really, you think someone wasn't playing in the NHL could do better than Mikita in his points years? It plays a factor when you get into good but not-elite finishes, but it doesn't do much to Mikita.




Russia didn't have many guys in the 60s though- NHL still had by far the most in the world. The best guys Russia had in the 60s were Firsov and Starshinov- do you think they could have userped Mikita and his many high finishes?

These factors do not do much damage to Mikita, if any at all. And the gap is big offensively either way.



Again, this has somewhat of an effect on good but not elite player finishes. Why don't you name me some of the guys who were supposedly in the minors in Mikita's time that could have outproduced Mikita?



So why didn't Trottier's better shot, better wheels, and better team translate to better offense than Mikita?

Trottier hwas an intangible edge- but Mikita is a great intangible guy as well, and it doesn't really come close to making up the offensive gap.



Again, the big-little league factor you are painting is not a real factor when you are talking about the best of the best here. Who outside the NHL in Mikita's time could have possibly taken one of his Harts? Who had a good chance of doing so? Name me a player better than Mikita outside of the NHL at the time that could have been more valuable than his amazing all-around ability.

Exactly, some of Trottier's best years were 1980, 81, 82 and 84. During those seasons, guys that are not even in the hall of fame were outpointing him. While Mikita was always in the scoring race with legends like Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe and Beliveau. Trottier was too busy getting outpointed by the likes of Kent Nilsson, Mike Rogers, Denis Maruk and Barry Pederson.

Trottier's intangibles are the only reason some people rank him in the mid to late 20's. His offense alone isnt good enough to rank that high, and he was playing with Mike Bossy for gods sakes.

 

[Trottier]

Trottier's intangibles are the only reason some people rank him in the mid to late 20's. His offense alone isnt good enough to rank that high, and he was playing with Mike Bossy for gods sakes.

Ummm, cuing Dark Shadows.

Time for you to share some of your wisdom and ensure that a few stragglers pass Hockey History 101 class this semester, don't you think?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Ummm, cuing Dark Shadows.

Time for you to share some of your wisdom and ensure that a few stragglers pass Hockey History 101 class this semester, don't you think?

I gave up on certain posters long ago.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'll answer that Dreak and wager 10,000...............Who is Bobby Orr?

My point was that even Trottier doesn't rank Bryan Trottier at the top player in history.... and that means he disagrees with Al Arbour... and that means he's a hypocrite.

 

[seventieslord]

By the time Trotts started in the NHL, Europe was already feeding the NHL in a big way as was the US system. So much so in fact, that it was taking jobs from good ol canadian kids as Don likes to say. The truth is though, the best players in the world were playing in the NHL at that point, not so in Mikita's time. Many people don't remember but Canadas best amateurs were getting beaten on a fairly regular basis by the Russians and Swedes by the end of the 50's and the balance was totally tipped by the mid-sixties. So the NHL while it was still very good did not feature the best in the world, a lot of them yes but not all.

You've got it backwards, koho.

Go back to 1967 and look at how many players not in NHL would have been, if it truly contained all the best players in the world. How many of them would have starred?

Then look at 1977. How many players not in the NHL (this includes the WHA and europe) could have taken spots away from NHLers but didn't? How many of those could have been stars?

Like you said, in the 60s, the Russians were beating our amateurs. Amateurs. In the 70s, the Russians were beating our pros. They were way better by then; there were more of them that were NHL-caliber and certainly more that were capable of starring.

The NHL was way more watered down in the 70s. Easily.

Back in the 50's and 60's, some players who were actually better than the guys in the NHL were whiling away in the minors either a victim of numbers or maybe a vindictive coach/GM and because of limited player movement would never see the bigs.

There were definitely some of these, but not that many, and if any of them were truly good enough to be full-fledged stars they'd have found their way to the NHL somehow.

somebody mentioned Mikitas' Harts..............he had less competition with only 126-140 players to compete against, Trotts was compteing against double that plus

How do those extra 100+ players given jobs via expansion make it harder to win the Hart?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

As should a "born yesterday" type who denigrates a hall of fame coach, multiple times.

Following the Soviet/Isles game, Winter '80, Toe Blake was walking the corridor with Torrey. He told Torrey that in all of his years, he never saw a better forward than #19 on NYI that day. This story has been told by Torrey on numerous occasions.

Does it "prove" anything? Of course not. But consider those sources. Then consider that 29 years later, some genius on a PC is demeaning those greats of the game simply because they had the audacity to disagree with his informed mind.

Show some respect for the game and those who made it. I don't think you'd disagree, NP.

I agree with you. I just wanted to point out when biased quotes are being used. I've stayed away from posting an actual opinion because I can see both sides of the coin, but can't use personal experience to differentiate.

 

[therealkoho]

My point was that even Trottier doesn't rank Bryan Trottier at the top player in history.... and that means he disagrees with Al Arbour... and that means he's a hypocrite.

Who's a hypocrite Dreak, Trotts, Arbour or the other dude?

___________________________________________________________


Listen up. I saw Mikita live in the flesh in the Olympia 3 times and I saw him in MLG at least another 30 or more times and once in the old Chicago stadium when I played in a tournament in Oak hill @69 or so.......so I've had the pleasure more than a few times, not to mention numerous times on the box.

I'm very familiar with the records, Mikitas 2nd Hart was won in the 12 team league, for those who want to use the old "watered down league" argument against Trottier.

Trottier, was surrounded in his days by guys named Dionne and Gretzky who owned those awards pretty well for the rest of the 80's. while they are hugely important awards only one guy wins them.

all in all I'd have a tough time picking either guy over the other, but when it comes down to it I'd take Trottier just because I liked his game better. I have no doubt that he would have been hugely successful in the old 6 team league, just as Stosh would've been a premier guy in Trotts' primarily 21 team league

 

[Leafs Forever]

Who's a hypocrite Dreak, Trotts, Arbour or the other dude?

___________________________________________________________


Listen up. I saw Mikita live in the flesh in the Olympia 3 times and I saw him in MLG at least another 30 or more times and once in the old Chicago stadium when I played in a tournament in Oak hill @69 or so.......so I've had the pleasure more than a few times, not to mention numerous times on the box.

I'm very familiar with the records, Mikitas 2nd Hart was won in the 12 team league, for those who want to use the old "watered down league" argument against Trottier.

Trottier, was surrounded in his days by guys named Dionne and Gretzky who owned those awards pretty well for the rest of the 80's. while they are hugely important awards only one guy wins them.

all in all I'd have a tough time picking either guy over the other, but when it comes down to it I'd take Trottier just because I liked his game better. I have no doubt that he would have been hugely successful in the old 6 team league, just as Stosh would've been a premier guy in Trotts' primarily 21 team league

Of course sight is never the be all and end all- because for every person like you, who thinks Trottier is better based only upon what he saw, there is at least one otherl ikely to disagree based on what he saw.

And although you saw a fair amount of him, you can never see it all, every game he played.

And Mikita had guys like Hull, Beliveau, and Howe to deal with. Trottier did not have better Hart competition than Mikita did, overall. And isn't Trottier better than Dionne anyway? Why couldn't he win Harts over him? Of course, we do have hart voting records availble- surely Trottier must have a ton of 2nds and 3rds if Gretzky and Dionne were the only reasons he wasn't winning, right? Why don't you show us the hart voting record.

But if they switched situations, Mikita would likely still come out the better.

A lot of people prefer more balanced, two-way games more than purely offensive games- that doesn't mean they are going to rank, say, Doug Wilson over Paul Coffey. A bigger diffeence than these two, perhaps, but the point is clear- you have to value intangibles A LOT, and have to value it a lot more than offence to possibly give Trottier the edge, especially with how bigt the gap is offensively and that Mikita is a great intangible player as well.

 

[Dreakmur]

Who's a hypocrite Dreak, Trotts, Arbour or the other dude?

The poster named Trottier.

 

[Dreakmur]

Of course sight is never the be all and end all- because for every person like you, who thinks Trottier is better based only upon what he saw, there is at least one otherl ikely to disagree based on what he saw.

And although you saw a fair amount of him, you can never see it all, every game he played.

And Mikita had guys like Hull, Beliveau, and Howe to deal with. Trottier did not have better Hart competition than Mikita did, overall. And isn't Trottier better than Dionne anyway? Why couldn't he win Harts over him? Of course, we do have hart voting records availble- surely Trottier must have a ton of 2nds and 3rds if Gretzky and Dionne were the only reasons he wasn't winning, right? Why don't you show us the hart voting record.

But if they switched situations, Mikita would likely still come out the better.

A lot of people prefer more balanced, two-way games more than purely offensive games- that doesn't mean they are going to rank, say, Doug Wilson over Paul Coffey. A bigger diffeence than these two, perhaps, but the point is clear- you have to value intangibles A LOT, and have to value it a lot more than offence to possibly give Trottier the edge, especially with how bigt the gap is offensively and that Mikita is a great intangible player as well.

Here are the Hart voting records:

Trottier = 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th
Mikita = 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

Trottier got a 1st and 2nd before Gretzky arrived. Mikita went against Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, etc.....

 

[therealkoho]

Of course sight is never the be all and end all- because for every person like you, who thinks Trottier is better based only upon what he saw, there is at least one otherl ikely to disagree based on what he saw.

And although you saw a fair amount of him, you can never see it all, every game he played.

And Mikita had guys like Hull, Beliveau, and Howe to deal with. Trottier did not have better Hart competition than Mikita did, overall. And isn't Trottier better than Dionne anyway? Why couldn't he win Harts over him? Of course, we do have hart voting records availble- surely Trottier must have a ton of 2nds and 3rds if Gretzky and Dionne were the only reasons he wasn't winning, right? Why don't you show us the hart voting record.

But if they switched situations, Mikita would likely still come out the better.

A lot of people prefer more balanced, two-way games more than purely offensive games- that doesn't mean they are going to rank, say, Doug Wilson over Paul Coffey. A bigger diffeence than these two, perhaps, but the point is clear- you have to value intangibles A LOT, and have to value it a lot more than offence to possibly give Trottier the edge, especially with how bigt the gap is offensively and that Mikita is a great intangible player as well.

.......do you really think that Trottier didn't play a two-way game? you really shouldn't be involved in this convo if you don't know the players, anybody can open up a book of stats and misconcieve what the player was by looking at his numbers......numbers only tell a part of a story, they don't tell the whole thing

Here are the Hart voting records:

Trottier = 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th
Mikita = 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

Trottier got a 1st and 2nd before Gretzky arrived. Mikita went against Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, etc.....

......and Trottier had guys like Coffey, Gretzky, Lafleur, Bourque, Robinson, Dionne, Bossy, Denis Savard, Nilsson, Clarke, Stastny, Smith and the list goes on

his competition during his time will be looked at with as much reverence as you're giving Mikita's competition now.............although none are seen that way as yet but make no mistake these were great players, as good as the so called all time guys of the 6 team league

Gordon Howe

By the mid 60's Gordies best days were behind him, while he was still a somewhat feared competitor and a highly dangerous opponent. He no longer dominated at his will, he was nothing like the Gordie of the 50's and early 60's. He had compacted his game by 65 or so and was no longer the relentless forechecker he had been and by the end of the decade, really no longer back-checked on a consistent basis, he was tenacious in the 50's. As sentimental as I am for Howe, (my favourite player till Orr came along) I'm a realist about it too!

 

[Leafs Forever]

......do you really think that Trottier didn't play a two-way game? you really shouldn't be involved in this convo if you don't know the players, anybody can open up a book of stats and misconcieve what the player was by looking at his numbers......numbers only tell a part of a story, they don't tell the whole thing

Erm..where did I say I didn't think Trottier didn't have a two-way game? Did you read the rest of the post? The point I was trying to make is that although Trottier does have better intangibles (and two-way play), you shouldn't rank him over Mikita because of those intangibles, well-rounded, two-way play, particularly considering the vast offensive gap and that Mikita also has superb intangibles.

......and Trottier had guys like Coffey, Gretzky, Lafleur, Bourque, Robinson, Dionne, Bossy, Denis Savard, Nilsson, Clarke, Stastny, Smith and the list goes on

his competition during his time will be looked at with as much reverence as you're giving Mikita's competition now.............although none are seen that way as yet but make no mistake these were great players, as good as the so called all time guys of the 6 team league

Denis Savard? Nilsson? Stastny? Smith?

They will be looked at that way? Why? You think Nilsson is going to be looked at..ever?..like any of the names I am about to mention?

Well since you seem to want to look at all hart competition, I guess I'll do that for Mikita too..

Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, Phil Esposito, Andy Bathgate, Frank Mahovlich, Norm Ullman, Pierre Pilote, Tim Horton, Glenn Hall, Jacques Plante, the list goes on..

Trottier did not have a harder time of it in hart competition than Mikita did.

Gordon Howe

By the mid 60's Gordies best days were behind him, while he was still a somewhat feared competitor and a highly dangerous opponent. He no longer dominated at his will, he was nothing like the Gordie of the 50's and early 60's. He had compacted his game by 65 or so and was no longer the relentless forechecker he had been and by the end of the decade, really no longer back-checked on a consistent basis, he was tenacious in the 50's. As sentimental as I am for Howe, (my favourite player till Orr came along) I'm a realist about it too!

Of course Mikita played in the early 60s when Howe was dominant, and..from 65-70 onwards, he places 3rd, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, and then 9th in points...still darn good.

 

[therealkoho]

Erm..where did I say I didn't think Trottier didn't have a two-way game? Did you read the rest of the post? The point I was trying to make is that although Trottier does have better intangibles (and two-way play), you shouldn't rank him over Mikita because of those intangibles, well-rounded, two-way play, particularly considering the vast offensive gap and that Mikita also has superb intangibles.




Denis Savard? Nilsson? Stastny? Smith?

They will be looked at that way? Why? You think Nilsson is going to be looked at..ever?..like any of the names I am about to mention?

Well since you seem to want to look at all hart competition, I guess I'll do that for Mikita too..

Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, Phil Esposito, Andy Bathgate, Frank Mahovlich, Norm Ullman, Pierre Pilote, Tim Horton, Glenn Hall, Jacques Plante, the list goes on..

Trottier did not have a harder time of it in hart competition than Mikita did.

Gordon Howe



Of course Mikita played in the early 60s when Howe was dominant, and..from 65-70 onwards, he places 3rd, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, and then 9th in points...still darn good.

and so are Trottiers

Now on to where you said it in your post

A lot of people prefer more balanced, two-way games more than purely offensive games- that doesn't mean they are going to rank, say, Doug Wilson over Paul Coffey.

Inferring that one or the other had only a 1 way game and since you're arguing Mikita's side, one would infer that your saying Trottier was the Paul Coffey in your comparison!

A bigger diffeence than these two, perhaps, but the point is clear- you have to value intangibles A LOT, and have to value it a lot more than offence to possibly give Trottier the edge, especially with how bigt the gap is offensively and that Mikita is a great intangible player as well.

again you have absolutely no idea what your arguing here!

Intangibles? Trottier was and is one of the all time greats, he was a great skater, better than Mikita possibly, he was a slick puck-handler and again possibly better than Mikita, he had a mean streak a mile long as did Mikita, Mikta had a better slap shot but Trotts had a laser beam pinpoint wrist shot, they were both great set-up men, Mikita made both Mohns(converted Dman) and Wharram all-star wingers, but Trottier helped put Gillies in the HoF and dug pucks and found Bossy enough to allow him all those 50 and 60+ goal seasons, was Bossy supposed to score in the NHL? yep fer sure but nobody saw those numbers coming

why is it d'you think that in the 67-68 season Mikita got that Hart...steady scoring was expected from Wharram but everybody figured that the Mohns thing would die on the vine but Stosh wouldn't let it and kept it going with him, without the "Scooter line" Chicago would've dried up and disappeared early in the season. As it was they stayed good enough long enough to get the Hawks to the Eastern final and that was all on Mikita and hence the Hart, was he the best player in the league, maybe, maybe not but he was sure the most valuable to his team which is what the Hart is supposed to be awarded for

the #1 line in chicago with Hull-Martin and Maki/Nesterenko did not produce as it should've and probably cost the Hawks a cup!

 

[Leafs Forever]

Inferring that one or the other had only a 1 way game and since you're arguing Mikita's side, one would infer that your saying Trottier was the Paul Coffey in your comparison!

I meant to infer you don't always go with the better-intangible player. Took it to more of an extreme comparison however.

again you have absolutely no idea what your arguing here!

Intangibles? Trottier was and is one of the all time greats, he was a great skater, better than Mikita possibly, he was a slick puck-handler and again possibly better than Mikita, he had a mean streak a mile long as did Mikita, Mikta had a better slap shot but Trotts had a laser beam pinpoint wrist shot, they were both great set-up men, Mikita made both Mohns(converted Dman) and Wharram all-star wingers, but Trottier helped put Gillies in the HoF and dug pucks and found Bossy enough to allow him all those 50 and 60+ goal seasons, was Bossy supposed to score in the NHL? yep fer sure but nobody saw those numbers coming

I don't? That Mikita's offensive edge more than makes up for Trottier's intangible one?

Shots, skating, puckhandling etc.. for the most part I don't look at those things individually. they show itself in offensive stats and intangible play.

Gilles and Bosy>>>>>>> McDonald, Mohns, and Wharram. Trottier had a lot more to work with in that regard. You think Trottier contributed more to the success of his linemates than Trottier to his? Don't really think so. Either way though, Mikita's linemates plae in comparison to Trottier's, and it has been shown and explained already that Mikita is the better goalscorer, playmaker, and point producer.

why is it d'you think that in the 67-68 season Mikita got that Hart...steady scoring was expected from Wharram but everybody figured that the Mohns thing would die on the vine but Stosh wouldn't let it and kept it going with him, without the "Scooter line" Chicago would've dried up and disappeared early in the season. As it was they stayed good enough long enough to get the Hawks to the Eastern final and that was all on Mikita and hence the Hart, was he the best player in the league, maybe, maybe not but he was sure the most valuable to his team which is what the Hart is supposed to be awarded for

the #1 line in chicago with Hull-Martin and Maki/Nesterenko did not produce as it should've and probably cost the Hawks a cup!

Ok..what's your point here exactly?

 

[Dark Shadows]

.......do you really think that Trottier didn't play a two-way game? you really shouldn't be involved in this convo if you don't know the players, anybody can open up a book of stats and misconcieve what the player was by looking at his numbers......numbers only tell a part of a story, they don't tell the whole thing

The poster you are quoting made it clear he thought Trottier had the slightly better two way game, but that the offensive edge Mikita possessed was more valuable.

......and Trottier had guys like Coffey, Gretzky, Lafleur, Bourque, Robinson, Dionne, Bossy, Denis Savard, Nilsson, Clarke, Stastny, Smith and the list goes on

his competition during his time will be looked at with as much reverence as you're giving Mikita's competition now.............although none are seen that way as yet but make no mistake these were great players, as good as the so called all time guys of the 6 team league

Gordon Howe

By the mid 60's Gordies best days were behind him, while he was still a somewhat feared competitor and a highly dangerous opponent. He no longer dominated at his will, he was nothing like the Gordie of the 50's and early 60's. He had compacted his game by 65 or so and was no longer the relentless forechecker he had been and by the end of the decade, really no longer back-checked on a consistent basis, he was tenacious in the 50's. As sentimental as I am for Howe, (my favourite player till Orr came along) I'm a realist about it too![/QUOTE]
....What? The Gordie Howe I saw was just phenomenal during that timeset, still backchecked consistently and had the tenacious forechecking game. His best days were behind him true, but he was still ridiculously good. Granted I was quite young during his really huge years of the early 50's, but I remember seeing the same player from the start of the 60's to the start of the 70's.

Mikita's competition pool at the top end was just as rich, if not richer than Trottier's. Mentioning guys like Savard and Nilsson just weakens your case.

and so are Trottiers

Now on to where you said it in your post

Inferring that one or the other had only a 1 way game and since you're arguing Mikita's side, one would infer that your saying Trottier was the Paul Coffey in your comparison!

You need to go back and read a bit and I think you will find it.
The poster you are quoting made it clear he thought Trottier had the slightly better two way game, but that the offensive edge Mikita possessed was more valuable.


again you have absolutely no idea what your arguing here!

Intangibles? Trottier was and is one of the all time greats, he was a great skater, better than Mikita possibly, he was a slick puck-handler and again possibly better than Mikita, he had a mean streak a mile long as did Mikita, Mikta had a better slap shot but Trotts had a laser beam pinpoint wrist shot, they were both great set-up men, Mikita made both Mohns(converted Dman) and Wharram all-star wingers, but Trottier helped put Gillies in the HoF and dug pucks and found Bossy enough to allow him all those 50 and 60+ goal seasons, was Bossy supposed to score in the NHL? yep fer sure but nobody saw those numbers coming

Mike Bossy was scoring like that with or without Trottier.
Mike Bossy. In the year 1984-85, Trottier was recovering from a string of injuries which required surgery, and as a result, was relegated to lower line duties. Gillies at this point, was ready to retire and was no longer what he was. Sutter was moved to Bossy's line all year, along with Tonelli. Both Sutter and Tonelli had career years in which they never came close to matching ever again, while Bossy scored around the exact same clip he would have with Trottier/Gillies on his line. He never missed a beat without his superstar linemates and 2nd liners replacing them.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I meant to infer you don't always go with the better-intangible player. Took it to more of an extreme comparison however.



I don't? That Mikita's offensive edge more than makes up for Trottier's intangible one?

Shots, skating, puckhandling etc.. for the most part I don't look at those things individually. they show itself in offensive stats and intangible play.

Gilles and Bosy>>>>>>> McDonald, Mohns, and Wharram. Trottier had a lot more to work with in that regard. You think Trottier contributed more to the success of his linemates than Trottier to his? Don't really think so. Either way though, Mikita's linemates plae in comparison to Trottier's, and it has been shown and explained already that Mikita is the better goalscorer, playmaker, and point producer.



Ok..what's your point here exactly?

With superstars of this caliber, it really doesn't matter. In some instances, its easier for superstars to score when they are the go to guys. But Superstars like Mikita and Trottier would have put up the points no matter who they were playing with.

 

[Big Phil]

Exactly, some of Trottier's best years were 1980, 81, 82 and 84. During those seasons, guys that are not even in the hall of fame were outpointing him. While Mikita was always in the scoring race with legends like Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe and Beliveau. Trottier was too busy getting outpointed by the likes of Kent Nilsson, Mike Rogers, Denis Maruk and Barry Pederson.

Trottier's intangibles are the only reason some people rank him in the mid to late 20's. His offense alone isnt good enough to rank that high, and he was playing with Mike Bossy for gods sakes.

To be fair though ushvinder (and as you know we're civil to one another) if you were a GM you'd never pass up Trottier for Nilsson, Rogers, Maruk or Pederson even in the seasons where he got outpointed by them. Rogers outpointed him twice by a combined total of 4 points I believe. Maruk and Nilsson had those freak singular years and Pederson was a good player but his reputation even before his injury is a lot like what I consider Turgeon-like, just a point collector with no other substance.

And yeah no doubt about it his intangibles rate him even higher than he would normally be, but I also consider that to weigh into a player's worth on the ice. If you needed to tie or prevent a tie game do you have Nilsson or Trottier on the ice?

 

[canucks4ever]

To be fair though ushvinder (and as you know we're civil to one another) if you were a GM you'd never pass up Trottier for Nilsson, Rogers, Maruk or Pederson even in the seasons where he got outpointed by them. Rogers outpointed him twice by a combined total of 4 points I believe. Maruk and Nilsson had those freak singular years and Pederson was a good player but his reputation even before his injury is a lot like what I consider Turgeon-like, just a point collector with no other substance.

And yeah no doubt about it his intangibles rate him even higher than he would normally be, but I also consider that to weigh into a player's worth on the ice. If you needed to tie or prevent a tie game do you have Nilsson or Trottier on the ice?

Yeah I would have Trottier over them, but they weren't the only ones. Marcel Dionne outpointed Trottier by a fairly large chunk in both 80 and 81.

 

[Big Phil]

Yeah I would have Trottier over them, but they weren't the only ones. Marcel Dionne outpointed Trottier by a fairly large chunk in both 80 and 81.

In the regular season yes he did. In fact in the regular season Dionne has a better track record even beating out Trottier for the Pearson (but not the Hart) in Trottier's best season in 1979. I think it's fair to say that. But the postseason is what separates the two of them. Granted Dionne didn't have the team to win the Cup but he should have led his team further than he did. He had the best line in the NHL which that alone should have propelled them to greater heights. Defense, all around play and the postseason is what separates the two of them. But yes Dionne would regularly outplay him in the regular season which is not a knock since it's Dionne we're talking about

 

[therealkoho]

The poster you are quoting made it clear he thought Trottier had the slightly better two way game, but that the offensive edge Mikita possessed was more valuable.

he was arguing out of both sides of his mouth, perhaps the poster might want to add clarity and concisness to his convoluted style!

....What? The Gordie Howe I saw was just phenomenal during that timeset, still backchecked consistently and had the tenacious forechecking game. His best days were behind him true, but he was still ridiculously good. Granted I was quite young during his really huge years of the early 50's, but I remember seeing the same player from the start of the 60's to the start of the 70's.

he was still one of the best wingers in the game I really didn't say any different than that nor take anything away from Gordie.

Clarity, the Howe of the the 50's and early 60's was an overwhelmingly dominant NHL player of impeccable physical gifts and a blazingly fast skater, who like Bobby Orr after him could take control of a game with sheer will. The Howe of the mid 60's till the mid 70's was still a very good physically punishing winger, but who had slowed down somewhat and became merely a very good skater with average speed.

In the 50's it was a rare day indeed that Mr Howe was ever out-skated, by the late 60's that Gordie Howe was rarely seen. He became a different hockey player by then, still somewhat of a battle-ship but no longer the best.

Mikita's competition pool at the top end was just as rich, if not richer than Trottier's. Mentioning guys like Savard and Nilsson just weakens your case.

How in the world do you figure that, Denis Savard was dangerous almost every shift he was on the ice, creating chances as if by magic and who had the dispostion of a pit viper. Seems to me you don't remember this guy too well.

As far as Kent Nilsson goes while he did have an abbreviated career of 550 games or so due to injury, this guy was poetry on ice, they didn't call him Magic Man for nothing. Had he been able to play 15+ years like the others were speaking about Nilsson would be a HHoF member right now

again you have absolutely no idea what your arguing here!

flattery won't get you anywhere, again though nice try ace

....Mike Bossy was scoring like that with or without Trottier.

Mike Bossy. In the year 1984-85, Trottier was recovering from a string of injuries which required surgery, and as a result, was relegated to lower line duties. Gillies at this point, was ready to retire and was no longer what he was. Sutter was moved to Bossy's line all year, along with Tonelli. Both Sutter and Tonelli had career years in which they never came close to matching ever again, while Bossy scored around the exact same clip he would have with Trottier/Gillies on his line. He never missed a beat without his superstar linemates and 2nd liners replacing them.

Thanks for the history lesson, most appreciated.

Did Bossy elevate those guys is that what your saying?

How so? Bossy wasn't a set-up man or playmaker, Bossy wasn't a puck mover who could wow you with his moves. Bossy was an in-out kind of guy who had a knack of making himself invisible to the opposition until it was too late and he'd be snapping home the one timer from 25 feet, or the guy who took the first pass out of the zone and head manned it and then followed in behind the play. When you play with a guy like that, winning the puck on the cycle and getting it into the slot gets you a point 1 out of 3 times.