Hasn't the league decided who is the greatest hockey player?

[Canadiens1958]

Waffling

Along with the forced parity and teams having to pick and choose what talent they can keep and what they have to move (see Chicago current edition), picking one team from one year Pittsburgh in this case, when we are talking over a period of years and the entire league is being shortsighted at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, take your pick but either way it does not further your point that the 3rd and 4th lines in the 70's would be top line players on any NHL teams today.

Further to that point, how about talking about an average 70's team like Buffalo or St. Louis or even Toronto instead of always cherry picking Montreal, Philly or Boston in their best years.

The bottom line is that the overall talent level ie. average player from the 70's to today has gone up considerably in terms of talent.

This has happened not only due to the influx of talent from areas that the NHL never tapped into before but also the rise of elite amateur programs especially after Canada had that horrible performance at the world Jr's in the late 80's but it was already happening in selected areas like Detroit which produced Pat Lafontaine in the early 80's.

Try sticking to specifics - which you obviously cannot handle since you throw around generalities. Your are more than welcome to breakdown any teams third/fourth lines from any era in question. The challenge has been out there for days and no one has stepped up.

If you had bothered to read previous posts you would see that I broke down teams like the Leafs, Blues, Rangers looking at center depth - 3 or 4 deep from the seventies which you simply do not have on todays average teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

More a factor of overpaying the Kunitz, Guerin, Fedotenko type players.

Perhaps, you are correct. Either way, under the economic conditions that existed throughout most of the NHL's lifespan (players were paid very little compared to profits and unrestricted free agency basically didn't exist), the elite teams didn't have to pick and choose weaknesses.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Start by taking apart your percentages and replacing them with real numbers.

1967 O6 NHL required a core of 120 players increased to 240 players after the 1967 expansion then to 420 players after the WHA was absorbed.Today with a thirty-team league and 23 player rosters you require a core of 690 players. How you managed only 43% over 30 years when the increase in core players went from 420 to 690 is beyond me. Fact of the matter is that today's NHL requires 450 more core players than it did for the 1967 - 68 season.

Taking an arbitrary season from the 1970's:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
could play the game at a high level. St. Louis had Ungar, Berenson, Sanderson, Pittsburgh had Larouche, Apps Jr, Shock, Chicago had Mikita, Martin, Boldirev.

Nice balance between offense and defense with well rounded games and skill sets.

Take it to the elite team level - Flyers had Clarke, MacLeish, Kindrachuk, Bridgeman. Take it to the weak team level, the non-playoff Rangers had Esposito, Dillon, Stemkowski and Tkaczuk. Again a nice blend of offense, defense,with well rounded games and skill sets.

Take a borderline playoff team from the 2009-10 season - Montreal. Pick of third line centers - Lapierre, Metropolit, Moore. Not one has anything that ressembles a complete NHL game.Put their skills together and they may make a serviceable third line center. Rather obvious why two were not retained while Lapierre is playing wing.
This is true for other teams at other levels as usual - Flyers have nice depth on their lines, so did the Hawks, Red Wings are getting old. Most of the other teams scramble like the Canadiens putting situational players in 3rd/4th line roles as dictated by circumstances.

As for Euros. There are perhaps 110-120 skaters who played 60 or more games last season. Factor out the d-men, the elite 1st / 2nd line players and it is rather clear that they do not directly impact 3rd/4th lines like you would like us to believe.

Actually the only absurdities stem from your loose use of percentages and failure to match real numbers to real players.

Okay looking at the St. Louis example were Sanderson only played there for 2 years. 75-76 Sanderson was still good as was Unger and Berensen was 36 and a bit role player at that point but to round out that team they had Chuck Lefley, the clubs leading scorer, Ted Irvine and Floyd Thompson. On the right side they had a good young Bob MacMillan, Jerry Butler who was a very good defensive player, Claude Larose and Pierre Plante. Not sure which 3rd or 4th liners on this team could have played on any top 6 unit in todays game.
Pretty much the same situation in Pittsburg , although the 3 centers listed did have a good year stat wise in 74-75 and not that much so in other years, the wingers on the 3rd line still are not top 6 players in todays games and the top line wingers might not make some NHL teams in today's game.
The best example of the depth of NHL teams today is last year in Chicago and this year in Detroit, Philly and Vancouver and even Edmonton.

The Montreal example given is more indicative of the times and style of coaching and cap conditions were most teams are looking for a defensive shutdown line for their 3rd line and an energy line for their 4th lines.

 

[AleksandarN]

curious if ANYONE who saw BOTH chooses 99? I don't seem to think so based on these posts.

I don't see how you can have a strong opinion unless you saw BOTH in their prime though. Makes no sense.

I admit not seeing Orr in his prime but I also think it's amazing that 99 isn't the clear choice. To me, the opinions of those who saw BOTH carry more weight.

See here is the thing. People who seen both tend to value Orr more because he was thier idol or was the best player in that era in which they grew up in. So ofcourse they are going to pick him. When Gretzky came along he became the new kid on the block. The old timers hated him for that. Hated Gretzky because of the hype that came with him and in a way threaten Orr's and Howe's Legacy.

 

[Rhiessan71]

See here is the thing. People who seen both tend to value Orr more because he was thier idol or was the best player in that era in which they grew up in. So ofcourse they are going to pick him. When Gretzky came along he became the new kid on the block. The old timers hated him for that. Hated Gretzky because of the hype that came with him and in a way threaten Orr's and Howe's Legacy.

It has nothing to do with resentment of Gretzky "ruining" Orr's and Howe's legacies.
It was Gretzky's unwillingness to engage physically or fight his own battles that turned a lot of the old school folk off of him.

There was something I remember said in the 80's along the lines of "Gretzky has to score enough for two players to make up for Semenko on his wing."

That's why you will always hear the argument from some that Gretzky was the greatest offensive player ever but not the best hockey player.

 

[BraveCanadian]

There was something I remember said in the 80's along the lines of "Gretzky has to score enough for two players to make up for Semenko on his wing."

But.. he did.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It has nothing to do with resentment of Gretzky "ruining" Orr's and Howe's legacies.
It was Gretzky's unwillingness to engage physically or fight his own battles that turned a lot of the old school folk off of him.
There was something I remember said in the 80's along the lines of "Gretzky has to score enough for two players to make up for Semenko on his wing."

That's why you will always hear the argument from some that Gretzky was the greatest offensive player ever but not the best hockey player.

I agree with this.

All those arguing in favor of Orr make the point that he was a complete player and Gretzky was not.

And its not just Gretzky. I think most of us old-timers rate Orr & Howe over Gretzky & Mario. To me, the fact that Gretzky & Mario are considered in the top 4, heads & shoulders above the rest, while playing little defense or having little contact in their game, is a recognition of their incredible offensive dominance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

Okay looking at the St. Louis example were Sanderson only played there for 2 years. 75-76 Sanderson was still good as was Unger and Berensen was 36 and a bit role player at that point but to round out that team they had Chuck Lefley, the clubs leading scorer, Ted Irvine and Floyd Thompson. On the right side they had a good young Bob MacMillan, Jerry Butler who was a very good defensive player, Claude Larose and Pierre Plante. Not sure which 3rd or 4th liners on this team could have played on any top 6 unit in todays game.
Pretty much the same situation in Pittsburg , although the 3 centers listed did have a good year stat wise in 74-75 and not that much so in other years, the wingers on the 3rd line still are not top 6 players in todays games and the top line wingers might not make some NHL teams in today's game.
The best example of the depth of NHL teams today is last year in Chicago and this year in Detroit, Philly and Vancouver and even Edmonton.

The Montreal example given is more indicative of the times and style of coaching and cap conditions were most teams are looking for a defensive shutdown line for their 3rd line and an energy line for their 4th lines.

You seem to be rather shy about actually naming players from 3rd or 4th lines from today's NHL. Some speculation and projection but nothing concrete.

The last paragraph tends to support my point if I get the general direction of where you are going. With 23 man rosters, the 3rd or 4th line players tend to be chosen from a pool of players available to the coach. The choice is a function of the specific opponent and/or game situation. Effectively you do not have stand alone talents with multiple skillsets available for the 3rd or 4th lines like you did in previous eras.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

You seem to be rather shy about actually naming players from 3rd or 4th lines from today's NHL. Some speculation and projection but nothing concrete.

The last paragraph tends to support my point if I get the general direction of where you are going. With 23 man rosters, the 3rd or 4th line players tend to be chosen from a pool of players available to the coach. The choice is a function of the specific opponent and/or game situation. Effectively you do not have stand alone talents with multiple skillsets available for the 3rd or 4th lines like you did in previous eras.

I'm hoping to find more time to reply at length but obviously teams pre-salary cap had some great 3rd and 4th lines, but it's not that rare to find nowadays either.

The challenge under a salary cap is maintaining it. Last year Chicago had great bottom lines but could not maintain it - GMs are still learning how to operate under the cap.

As a modern example, I'll detail Detroit:

Hudler - Modano - Cleary is a great third line.
Hudler last scored 20 goals and 57 Pts which is 1st line production, and he did it with third line minutes, and he is just entering his prime. Modano is on his last legs but 20 goals and 50 points is not out of question. Cleary is still young and scored 20 goals in his last injury free season.

On the 4th line you have former Selke winner Draper, young speedy and clutch Helm and young Abdelkader who won the championship leading Michigan State and scoring the tournament winner.

Detroit might not have the best forward depth in the league, and it certainly is not like they were pre-cap, but Ken Holland is one of the few GMs who has figured out how to maintain forward depth under the cap. Two years ago he had Samuelsson on the 3rd line, who then went on to become a first line player with Vancouver.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously...............

I'm hoping to find more time to reply at length but obviously teams pre-salary cap had some great 3rd and 4th lines, but it's not that rare to find nowadays either.

The challenge under a salary cap is maintaining it. Last year Chicago had great bottom lines but could not maintain it - GMs are still learning how to operate under the cap.

As a modern example, I'll detail Detroit:

Hudler - Modano - Cleary is a great third line.
Hudler last scored 20 goals and 57 Pts which is 1st line production, and he did it with third line minutes, and he is just entering his prime. Modano is on his last legs but 20 goals and 50 points is not out of question. Cleary is still young and scored 20 goals in his last injury free season.

On the 4th line you have former Selke winner Draper, young speedy and clutch Helm and young Abdelkader who won the championship leading Michigan State and scoring the tournament winner.

Detroit might not have the best forward depth in the league, and it certainly is not like they were pre-cap, but Ken Holland is one of the few GMs who has figured out how to maintain forward depth under the cap. Two years ago he had Samuelsson on the 3rd line, who then went on to become a first line player with Vancouver.

Hudler. First line production? First liner has the ability to compete for the Art Ross but 57 points puts him half way to Ross contention.Samuelsson did not even have 57 points last season. Both are far from first liners.

Helm and Abdelkader couldn't score 20 goals between them playing a total of 125 games last year and supported by Lidstrom they were still defensive liabilities.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/2010.html

Modano is legit - similar to the 1974-75 Leafs whose centers were three future HHOFers - Keon, Ullman, Sittler. Cleary is basically a solid career third liner as is Draper.

Eventually the GMs will figure out the salary cap just like the NFL GMs did. Part of the solution is in the expanded 23 man roster where you pay little for situational specialists and cobble together 3rd and 4th lines on a situational basis but that is a reflection on the lack of overall talent at that level.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Hudler. First line production? First liner has the ability to compete for the Art Ross but 57 points puts him half way to Ross contention.Samuelsson did not even have 57 points last season. Both are far from first liners.

Helm and Abdelkader couldn't score 20 goals between them playing a total of 125 games last year and supported by Lidstrom they were still defensive liabilities.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/2010.html

Modano is legit - similar to the 1974-75 Leafs whose centers were three future HHOFers - Keon, Ullman, Sittler. Cleary is basically a solid career third liner as is Draper.

Eventually the GMs will figure out the salary cap just like the NFL GMs did. Part of the solution is in the expanded 23 man roster where you pay little for situational specialists and cobble together 3rd and 4th lines on a situational basis but that is a reflection on the lack of overall talent at that level.

A 1st liner has to compete for an Art Ross? So there are maybe 10 legitimate 1st liners in the league??

In reality, there are 90 1st line players in the NHL and 57 pts placed 59th amongst forwards last year - well within 1st line production. Especially impressive for 3rd line minutes. 57 pts would be the top scorer on several teams each year.

I just do not have time to make the detailed post I would like to -- I'd especially like to explore bottom dwelling teams of each respective era in order to really look at the depth. Something tells me Edmonton with 62 points last year had a lot more depth than say, the Capitals of the 70s with their 20-odd points.

The talent is simply more widely dispersed nowadays, when in the 70s it was incredibly top heavy.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lowest Common Denominator

A 1st liner has to compete for an Art Ross? So there are maybe 10 legitimate 1st liners in the league??

In reality, there are 90 1st line players in the NHL and 57 pts placed 59th amongst forwards last year - well within 1st line production. Especially impressive for 3rd line minutes. 57 pts would be the top scorer on several teams each year.

I just do not have time to make the detailed post I would like to -- I'd especially like to explore bottom dwelling teams of each respective era in order to really look at the depth. Something tells me Edmonton with 62 points last year had a lot more depth than say, the Capitals of the 70s with their 20-odd points.

The talent is simply more widely dispersed nowadays, when in the 70s it was incredibly top heavy.

Basically you reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. First line talent is no longer a question of merit but a fact of a diluted league.Effectively the top 90 forwards today are the equal of the top 18 forwards of the O6 era and points in between.

I would hope that an established last place team from an era would have more talent than an expansion team from another era. First round draft picks from a period of five years or so have a greater talent level than rejects.

The issue is rather straightforward. There are app 12-14 forwards per NHL team, so regardless of how you distribute the 400 +/- forwards that play in the NHL you are looking at a serious talent lag between the top line and bottom line forwards. You may sneak a Gilbert Dionne season from the bottom 200 once in a while but that is the exception rather than the rule and very quickly such a player drops back to his level. They remain functional in limited and defined roles but that is a reflection of the fact that there is no better replacement.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You seem to be rather shy about actually naming players from 3rd or 4th lines from today's NHL. Some speculation and projection but nothing concrete.

The last paragraph tends to support my point if I get the general direction of where you are going. With 23 man rosters, the 3rd or 4th line players tend to be chosen from a pool of players available to the coach. The choice is a function of the specific opponent and/or game situation. Effectively you do not have stand alone talents with multiple skillsets available for the 3rd or 4th lines like you did in previous eras.

The players on the 4th line today are picked by the coaches primarily for reason other than scoring there are skilled players out there. you always hear about guys getting cut because they are a top 6 guy and can't play in the bottom 6.

Interesting tidbit today about the 72 series. A guy in this town David Pratt on the team 1040 was talking about how slow the series looks compered to the recent Olympic gold medal in Vancouver and that's been the focal point the entire way here.

The previous stars, in this case Orr, had way more time and space than the later stars like Gretzky or (name anyone after that).

The bottom line is that the skill set of the league as a whole has gotten better over time, Our eyes tell us that, and it is harder to dominate in a better league than in the past where the separation between the star and average player, or bottom players was greater.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shift Length and Roster Size

The players on the 4th line today are picked by the coaches primarily for reason other than scoring there are skilled players out there. you always hear about guys getting cut because they are a top 6 guy and can't play in the bottom 6.

Interesting tidbit today about the 72 series. A guy in this town David Pratt on the team 1040 was talking about how slow the series looks compered to the recent Olympic gold medal in Vancouver and that's been the focal point the entire way here.

The previous stars, in this case Orr, had way more time and space than the later stars like Gretzky or (name anyone after that).

The bottom line is that the skill set of the league as a whole has gotten better over time, Our eyes tell us that, and it is harder to dominate in a better league than in the past where the separation between the star and average player, or bottom players was greater.

Function of shift length. 1972 Summit was not played with 30-45 second shifts.

1972 the NHL was a a 14 team league expanding to 16, so you had the top 208 forwards playing. Today the NHL requires app 400 forwards to stock the team and as you get further into the second level, bottom 200 forwards, the skills are significantly weaker and limited.

Top six who cannot play bottom six. Beyond junior eligible draftees, name a few who got cut under such circumstances. Usually a politically correct comment that covers other issues - Sergei Kostitsyn comes to mind immediately.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The players on the 4th line today are picked by the coaches primarily for reason other than scoring there are skilled players out there. you always hear about guys getting cut because they are a top 6 guy and can't play in the bottom 6.

Interesting tidbit today about the 72 series. A guy in this town David Pratt on the team 1040 was talking about how slow the series looks compered to the recent Olympic gold medal in Vancouver and that's been the focal point the entire way here.

The previous stars, in this case Orr, had way more time and space than the later stars like Gretzky or (name anyone after that).

The bottom line is that the skill set of the league as a whole has gotten better over time, Our eyes tell us that, and it is harder to dominate in a better league than in the past where the separation between the star and average player, or bottom players was greater.

I have to agree with 1958 here, shift length was a huge factor.

Also, to say Gretzky didn't have as much room as Orr a mere 6-7 years later is kinda ridiculous.
If anything, there was more room in early/mid 80's than any other time in history imo.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Basically you reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. First line talent is no longer a question of merit but a fact of a diluted league.Effectively the top 90 forwards today are the equal of the top 18 forwards of the O6 era and points in between.

I would hope that an established last place team from an era would have more talent than an expansion team from another era. First round draft picks from a period of five years or so have a greater talent level than rejects.

The issue is rather straightforward. There are app 12-14 forwards per NHL team, so regardless of how you distribute the 400 +/- forwards that play in the NHL you are looking at a serious talent lag between the top line and bottom line forwards. You may sneak a Gilbert Dionne season from the bottom 200 once in a while but that is the exception rather than the rule and very quickly such a player drops back to his level. They remain functional in limited and defined roles but that is a reflection of the fact that there is no better replacement.

Don't change your argument to a much more sound one unless you're willing to admit your original is cracked!

The depth of the league is at it's best today than it has ever been since the 06 - and it is a lot deeper than it was in the 70s.... That was the discussion.

There are no expansion teams to pick today, because there has been •no• expansion in almost a decade. While back in the 70s 1/2 to 2/3 of the teams were expansion teams! Great point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Expansion Teams

Don't change your argument to a much more sound one unless you're willing to admit your original is cracked!

The depth of the league is at it's best today than it has ever been since the 06 - and it is a lot deeper than it was in the 70s.... That was the discussion.

There are no expansion teams to pick today, because there has been •no• expansion in almost a decade. While back in the 70s 1/2 to 2/3 of the teams were expansion teams! Great point.

Now you are stuck on the lowest common denominator of expansion teams.

Simple numbers clearly show that with the 1967 expansion you were still looking at app. the top 140 forwards playing in the NHL growing to app 270 by 1979 to app 400 today.


Your general comment does not take into account shift length and is based on some flawed assumptions - namely the Jiri Hudler assumption that a third liner or a swing forward given first line minutes will actually improve performance.The history of hockey is full of counter examples - Murray Wilson. Given more time resulted in his weaknesses being exposed which drastically reduced his effectiveness.Properly slotted a few minutes a game he was a solid contributer. Garry Aldcorn - playing with the Red Wings, Howe, Delvecchio at times fooled some into thinking he was a top line player. Traded to Boston for serviceable players he returned to his level - minors. Michael Ryder playing for Claude Julien at times, looks good - top two line talent but with time the weaknesses surface and GMs realize that he is far from worth the cap hit.

Again your position totally ignores the shift length issue which is in many ways parallel to the 1st vs 3rd/4th line minutes issue. Simply the longer that a player with weaknesses has to play the harder it is for him to sustain performance. 30 second shifts require the application of limited skills beyond skating on any given shift. They benefit the player who cannot think the game. Likewise 3rd and 4th line minutes especially when combined with short shifts. They quickly become interchangeable parts - the Cleary, Drapers, Maltbys Laperrieres etc are the exception. But very few of the 3rd or 4th liners reach their level.

Basically your point does not translate to hockey talent or depth. Having a large numbers of 100m sprinters does not mean that they are good all around runners - mid distance or marathoners.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I have to agree with 1958 here, shift length was a huge factor.

Also, to say Gretzky didn't have as much room as Orr a mere 6-7 years later is kinda ridiculous.
If anything, there was more room in early/mid 80's than any other time in history imo.

Agreed partially the time and space thing applies more to today but it really started in Gretzky's time with the influx, at 1st gradual then more so, of Players from Europe and the Us college ranks.

Also the gap between Orr and Wayne's best years are 7-11 years apart depending on which season of Wayne's one considers best.

As for shift length, I honestly am not sure how much impact it has, it has some but not as much as 1958 is making it out to be IMO.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Agreed partially the time and space thing applies more to today but it really started in Gretzky's time with the influx, at 1st gradual then more so, of Players from Europe and the Us college ranks.

Also the gap between Orr and Wayne's best years are 7-11 years apart depending on which season of Wayne's one considers best.

As for shift length, I honestly am not sure how much impact it has, it has some but not as much as 1958 is making it out to be IMO.

The 80's were the most wide open play in history, it was like a damned tennis match some nights. More goals were scored off the rush than ever before, Dmen joined the rush at the drop of a hat, wingers were all over the ice, not just going up and down their wings like robots anymore.
As far as defense in the 80's, it wasn't that teams weren't trying to play D, it just took a while to adjust to it all.

Shift length in relation to the speed of the game is pretty huge actually, especially for the forwards.
Now they all go hard for 30-60 seconds.
Back, even only as far back as the mid 70's players floated around more, waiting and the shifts could be as long as 2-3 minutes and unless you were a medical freak like Guy Lafleur, there's no way players could go that hard for that long.