George Armstrong Is he really a HHOF player?

[Canadiens1958]

Easier

This explains the second part of the question, but not the first, which is what I was really interested in.

Wouldn't it be easier for a RHS center to pass to his left? Passing to his left would be on the forehand, and to his right would be on the backhand.

(Especially in Oates' era...by this time curved sticks had been around for a while and the role/art of the backhand had diminished from what it was in the straight blade days)

In hockey and other sports what is easier for most does not translate into easier for all.

That said, centers be they RHS or LHS do not all play the same way. Some have a more open body position, others are more closed, some carry the puck closer to the body than others, others carry it more forward,some favour a lane to the left of center, others favour a lane to the right,for some it does not matter. Some play equally well against LHS and RHS shooting centers, others do not.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You claimed to want to "objectively" assess his career and one of your complaints is his point totals. I just showed you how he essentially lead a team en route to four Stanley Cups. That's without factoring in all his intangibles.

You then go on to compare him to Butch Goring, who you describe as complimentary yet better than Armstrong. How about we analyze Goring's "objective" contributions to those 4 Stanley Cups in comparison to Armstrong's.

Goals Per Game Played

Mike Bossy 0.85
Bryan Trottier 0.49
Bob Bourne 0.42
Bob Nystrom 0.37
Denis Potvin 0.35
Butch Goring 0.35
John Tonelli 0.33
Clark Gillies 0.30
Wayne Merrick 0.19
Stefan Persson 0.12

Points Per Game Played

Mike Bossy 1.54
Bryan Trottier 1.43
Denis Potvin 1.09
Bob Bourne 1.00
John Tonelli 0.83
"Butch" Goring 0.79
Bob Nystrom 0.73
Clark Gillies 0.71
Stefan Persson 0.69
Wayne Merrick 0.52

The entire objective of playing in the NHL is to win the Stanley Cup. I'd be very interested in seeing you provide me with the following list (in the interest of only judging objectively):

How many players can you name in the history of the NHL who have won 4 or more Stanley Cups and in doing so, were top 2 on their team for goals and points? Heck, I'll be nice and lower the bar to top 5.

Off the top of my ehad to your question Bossy, Trottier, Potvin were 1,2,3 in scoring for all 4 cup except for the alst one were Potvin was 5th and 1 point out and pretty sure gretzky was tops for his 4, Lafluer probably top 5 in his Cups..not sure what the point is here though.

Funny you forgot to mention Goring's Conn Smythe and his numbers are "down" as he became much more of a defensive Center during the last 2 cups NYI had.

Of Goring's 27 goals in those 4 years exactly 6 came on the PP. (Nystrom was truly amazing with all 27 of his goals at even strength).

Back to Armstrong and his playoff stats, he actually did lead the Leafs one year in playoff scoring, albeit not in a Cup year with 6 points in 5 games so I guess that makes him a lock now, in some peoples eyes.

That was Armstrong's peak season by the way stat wise as he was 2nd in the regular season to the infamous Ted Sloan in Leaf scoring and 15th overall in league scoring in the 06 league.

Maybe I'm wrong here and he was Bob Gainey like defensively and showed it against really great competition like Gainey did or maybe the Hall committee just liked him and that's the real reason that he is in and not on merit.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In hockey and other sports what is easier for most does not translate into easier for all.

That said, centers be they RHS or LHS do not all play the same way. Some have a more open body position, others are more closed, some carry the puck closer to the body than others, others carry it more forward,some favour a lane to the left of center, others favour a lane to the right,for some it does not matter. Some play equally well against LHS and RHS shooting centers, others do not.

all of this may be true, but i honestly never noticed oates being better at passing to one wing than the other. and your first post made it seem like it had something to do with his RHS, which it apparently doesn't now?

i say this not to call you out but because i'm genuinely curious. do you have any evidence other than the fact that he played with three 50 goal scorers on his RW that oates couldn't pass left?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I tend to recognize that the top 120 players of the O6 season for any given season had clearly defined roles which impacted their offensive numbers. Example the Canadiens had three quality centers Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Ralph Backstrom. Could not have all three playing first line minutes with the best RW or LW while enjoying #1 PP unit time. Rather obvious. Today the top 120 NHL players are spread amongst all thirty teams so the top forwards get to play on the #1 line with the top linemates and get #1 PP unit time.Very rare that you will see a team with depth - 2 #1 quality players at the same position. So overall their offensive stats of the top 120 will be higher. Also rather obvioius.

Comparing Armstrong out of context to where he would fit offensively with modern players - top 120 removes any semblance of historic context. Today such a player could simply concentrate on his offensive skills and put up nice numbers that would impress those that are impressed by things that glitter but could not aprreciate a complete hockey player.

Oates is far from a top 10 playmaker all time. He was a RHS at center, who had the good fortune to play with snipers at right wing - Brett Hull, Cam Neely,Peter Bondra. Ask the rather obvious question how did his LWs do? The answer will give you an idea about his overall playmaking skill. He could make a good pass to the RW while an elite playmaker has more varied passing skills, evidenced by some of the great centers who could feed RW and LW equally well - see Lemaire with Shutt and Lafleur,Abel with Lindsay and Howe,Boucher with the two Cooks, Larionov with Krutov and Makarov, etc plus feed the point.

Gilmour was not that solid defensively. Compare the job Guy Carbonneau did on Gretzky in 1993 to Gilmour in 1993.

The fundemental issue with your comparison besides the cross era comparison which puts everything out of context is that you are also comparing across positions. Goring, Oates, Gilmour were centers. Armstrong was primarily a RW - different roles, responsibilities and expectations.Comparing Armstrong to modern RWs would at least have a semblance of apples to apples.

On Oates, it must just be a coincidence that Hull enjoyed his best years with Oates and Neely had his 50 goals in 49 games with Oates as well?

Oates has 6 of the top 156 adjusted seasons with assists.

Counting stats he does pretty ok as well.

Brave Canadian does have a point as Oates had an excellent backhand and preferred setting up his RW's which makes him an oddity but he is still one of the top play makers of all time IMO and in the top 10 on my list.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Repeating..........

all of this may be true, but i honestly never noticed oates being better at passing to one wing than the other. and your first post made it seem like it had something to do with his RHS, which it apparently doesn't now?

i say this not to call you out but because i'm genuinely curious. do you have any evidence other than the fact that he played with three 50 goal scorers on his RW that oates couldn't pass left?

Please - never posted that Oates could not pass left as you suggest.

Saw virtually all his games against the Canadiens and he definitely favoured the RW as his first option. His stats and linemate results definitely support this view.

Other RHS centers turned various underperforming or pedestrian LW into scorers - H. Richard with Dickie Moore, Yzerman with Gallant and Probert, Denis Savard with Al Secord and later for awhile Gilbert Dionne,Mario Lemieux with various fringers who played LW with him.

Oates simply does not have such a track record.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Off the top of my ehad to your question Bossy, Trottier, Potvin were 1,2,3 in scoring for all 4 cup except for the alst one were Potvin was 5th and 1 point out and pretty sure gretzky was tops for his 4, Lafluer probably top 5 in his Cups..not sure what the point is here though.

Funny you forgot to mention Goring's Conn Smythe and his numbers are "down" as he became much more of a defensive Center during the last 2 cups NYI had.

Of Goring's 27 goals in those 4 years exactly 6 came on the PP. (Nystrom was truly amazing with all 27 of his goals at even strength).

Back to Armstrong and his playoff stats, he actually did lead the Leafs one year in playoff scoring, albeit not in a Cup year with 6 points in 5 games so I guess that makes him a lock now, in some peoples eyes.

That was Armstrong's peak season by the way stat wise as he was 2nd in the regular season to the infamous Ted Sloan in Leaf scoring and 15th overall in league scoring in the 06 league.

Maybe I'm wrong here and he was Bob Gainey like defensively and showed it against really great competition like Gainey did or maybe the Hall committee just liked him and that's the real reason that he is in and not on merit.

While I'm too lazy to look it up, assuming you're right, you've named what, 6 players in the history of the game to achieve what Armstrong did?

Hmmmm.....I wonder what my point could be.....

 

[overpass]

Back to Armstrong and his playoff stats, he actually did lead the Leafs one year in playoff scoring, albeit not in a Cup year with 6 points in 5 games so I guess that makes him a lock now, in some peoples eyes.

I think you missed the point on Armstrong's playoff stats. While he didn't lead the Leafs in playoff scoring in any individual year they won the Cup, his 34 playoff points in the 62, 63, and 64 playoffs combined led the team.

Other leading playoff scorers on dynasties:

Toronto 47-49, 51 - Ted Kennedy
Detroit 50, 52, 54-55 - Ted Lindsay
Montreal 56-60 - Bernard Geoffrion
Toronto 62-64 - George Armstrong
Montreal 65-66, 68-69 - Jean Beliveau
Montreal 76-79 - Guy Lafleur
Islander 80-83 - Mike Bossy
Edmonton 84-85, 87-88 - Wayne Gretzky

Armstrong is clearly the worst player there, but he's in very impressive company.

 

[Hardyvan123]

While I'm too lazy to look it up, assuming you're right, you've named what, 6 players in the history of the game to achieve what Armstrong did?

Hmmmm.....I wonder what my point could be.....

well when I have a ton of time to waste I could look it up but lets get seom facts straight here.

How many players can you name in the history of the NHL who have won 4 or more Stanley Cups and in doing so, were top 2 on their team for goals and points? Heck, I'll be nice and lower the bar to top 5.

Armstrong was tied for 1st in goals in the 1st Cup and tied for 3rd in points.

Next 2 cups 2nd in points and for the 4th Cup in your criteria well he was 10th in points.

I'm sorry but 3 good playoffs on a very good team to get 3 cup in a 6 team league then be a bit player on a 4th cup in still a 6 team league is not going to be enough icing to make up for all that he didn't do in his career.

He looks more and more like a reputation pick than a merit pick the more you look at him.

Butch Goring and his Conn Smythe and more complete record make a better Hall arguement IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A Different Perspective

well when I have a ton of time to waste I could look it up but lets get seom facts straight here.

How many players can you name in the history of the NHL who have won 4 or more Stanley Cups and in doing so, were top 2 on their team for goals and points? Heck, I'll be nice and lower the bar to top 5.

Armstrong was tied for 1st in goals in the 1st Cup and tied for 3rd in points.

Next 2 cups 2nd in points and for the 4th Cup in your criteria well he was 10th in points.

I'm sorry but 3 good playoffs on a very good team to get 3 cup in a 6 team league then be a bit player on a 4th cup in still a 6 team league is not going to be enough icing to make up for all that he didn't do in his career.
He looks more and more like a reputation pick than a merit pick the more you look at him.

Butch Goring and his Conn Smythe and more complete record make a better Hall arguement IMO.

You seem to have a fixation that the number of teams in the NHL at a given time somehow translate to talent, merit, difficulty of accomplishment, etc.

This is not supported by history as evidenced by the various Team Canada teams since 1973 that competed in best vs best events or WCs

At no time did the composition of the various Team Canada teams reflect the complete gamut of NHL teams at the time. Likewise the roles and statistical results of the various players reflect their NHL roles and performance. Some stepped-up and ouyperformed expectations - John Tonelli, Dirk Graham, Bobby Clarke, while others floundered -Frank Mahovlich or were not picked - Steve Yzerman. Some succeeded in various roles, taking different responsibilities while others did not. The results are reflected in the recognition given such players.

Which brings us full circle to George Armstrong. Armstrong was required to fill specific roles within a very tight defensive system which he did better than any other player could or would over the course of a long and distinguished career.He was a leader who led by example every second of every shift.His teams achieved greater success than most, regardless of the size of the NHL during his career.

if george Armstrong is not a HHOFer then we might as well shut the door and shutter the building

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

well when I have a ton of time to waste I could look it up but lets get seom facts straight here.

How many players can you name in the history of the NHL who have won 4 or more Stanley Cups and in doing so, were top 2 on their team for goals and points? Heck, I'll be nice and lower the bar to top 5.

Armstrong was tied for 1st in goals in the 1st Cup and tied for 3rd in points.

Next 2 cups 2nd in points and for the 4th Cup in your criteria well he was 10th in points.

I'm sorry but 3 good playoffs on a very good team to get 3 cup in a 6 team league then be a bit player on a 4th cup in still a 6 team league is not going to be enough icing to make up for all that he didn't do in his career.

He looks more and more like a reputation pick than a merit pick the more you look at him.

Butch Goring and his Conn Smythe and more complete record make a better Hall arguement IMO.

There are exactly 148 players who have won the Cup 4 times or more going back to before the NHL was formed. If you like, I can provide you with a complete list of their names.

The poster in question wanted to debate only hard stats, which on the surface does a great disservice to any player who does a lot of things that don't show up on a scoresheet. Unfortunately, some people are impressed by flash over substance (see Pavel Bure or Ovechkin vs Crosby). Regardless, using his measures, I quite clearly showed that in the process of winning 4 Stanley Cups (which again has only been done by 148 players in history) he had the second highest goal production and second highest point production on his team. Seems rather obvious that for those 4 championships, he played a big role in the hard stats, let alone everything else he did. In fact what he did has I'd bet been done by less than 10 - 20 people in the entire history of the game.

All of this without factoring in the other attributes that made him a great player.

I might see the individual's point if we were talking a guy who was on a lot of good teams but didn't contribute much to their wins. Unfortunately, the numbers paint a much different picture in Armstrong's case (only 1 person outdid him over the course of those 4 runs).

I'm not sure why you would bring the Conn Smythe into the equation given he wanted to discuss things that are objective, when the Conn Smythe is the exact opposite of objective...it's a 100% opinion award.