HOH Top 60 Centers of All-Time: Round 1 Preliminary Discussion Thread

[Hawkey Town 18]

i assume he's just pointing out that the 00/10s guys he listed are on his list, not that they are necessarily behind all of the 90/00s guys.

but yeah, zero justification for lafontaine ahead of gilmour.

I find it pretty hard to justify Lafontaine over Modano as well.

 

[Sturminator]

I find it pretty hard to justify Lafontaine over Modano as well.

Unless one puts enormous weight on the best 100 games, or so, it is pretty much unjustifiable.

 

[VanIslander]

Laffy had more speed, better stickhandling, better play in the corners. That said, there are several reasons why I have Modano ranked eight slots ahead of him. Both are bottom tier Top-60 selections I expect.

 

[ted2019]

Laffy had more speed, better stickhandling, better play in the corners. That said, there are several reasons why I have Modano ranked eight slots ahead of him. Both are bottom tier Top-60 selections I expect.

Modano is at #60 for Me and LaFontaine is at #72.

 

[VanIslander]

Patrik Marleau - C/LW - played C normally, moved to LW to accommodate Thornton

For the record, I did not consider Marleau as a center for this project because I object stenuously to the designation. Yeah, he was a natural center for the first half of his career, but he has been a winger (mostly left wing except for parts of the last two seasons on right wing) for his six 30-goal seasons, the last 8+ seasons, including his third-in-ice-time Olympic gold tourney win with Canada in 2010. Moreover, since Clowe left, Marleau has been left wing on a different line than Thornton, except for occasional powerplay and late in game situations. He is arguably one of the top-60 left wingers in the history of the game, based on his accomplishments there ALONE (forget pre-2004 lockout young Marleau play). I am prompted to say this now as Marleau has a 5-game scoring streak to start this season (as he had four multiple goal games to set an NHL record last season) and he did it at wing, as he has for nearly a decade.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

For the record, I did not consider Marleau as a center for this project because I object stenuously to the designation. Yeah, he was a natural center for the first half of his career, but he has been a winger (mostly left wing except for parts of the last two seasons on right wing) for his six 30-goal seasons, the last 8+ seasons, including his third-in-ice-time Olympic gold tourney win with Canada in 2010. Moreover, since Clowe left, Marleau has been left wing on a different line than Thornton, except for occasional powerplay and late in game situations. He is arguably one of the top-60 left wingers in the history of the game, based on his accomplishments there ALONE (forget pre-2004 lockout young Marleau play). I am prompted to say this now as Marleau has a 5-game scoring streak to start this season (as he had four multiple goal games to set an NHL record last season) and he did it at wing, as he has for nearly a decade.

i don't think marleau played mostly wing until 2009. he definitely was 2nd line center behind thornton the first two years thornton was there. it was mostly michalek - marleau - bernier i'm totally certain of that, then the lines got switched up the second year thornton was there, but pretty sure marleau was still at center. third year thornton was there was the year marleau was terrible and cheechoo's career cratered. i think it was that year's playoffs where they moved marleau to the wing and pavelski took the second line center job. previously pavelski had shifted between third line center and top six RW.

a lot of what you say is true anyway, but marleau's first two 30 goal seasons/PPG years were at center.

 

[VanIslander]

a lot of what you say is true anyway, but marleau's first two 30 goal seasons/PPG years were at center.

Except on the powerplay and when trailing at times, then he was on left wing. To put him as a center instead of winger ignores his best several seasons for the most part. As for Michalek with Marleau, that wasn't often. Clowe yeah, and Michalek played both sides at times.

EDIT: on second thought, **** him.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Interested to know if you do the same to Orr when ranking Dmen? Orr played even less games than Lemieux although most would probably say at a higher level, but it's not a big difference

Orr is a tough case, I didn't ahve him #1 on my list for D, Lidstrom was there and Orr probably should slip down to 4 or 5ish behind some other longtime greats, ie guys who played at an extremely high level for a very long time.

But I think it's fair to say that Orr had a greater impact on the games he played in than Mario did and the difference was substantial which is very telling on how great Orr was.

Mario was more of a compiler, and probably the best of all time in that regard so it's not a slight, than a complete player so it depends if one value total offense or a complete player IMO.

Esposito also "dropped" on my list for similar reasons.

 

[Sturminator]

Orr is a tough case, I didn't ahve him #1 on my list for D, Lidstrom was there and Orr probably should slip down to 4 or 5ish behind some other longtime greats, ie guys who played at an extremely high level for a very long time.

But I think it's fair to say that Orr had a greater impact on the games he played in than Mario did and the difference was substantial which is very telling on how great Orr was.

Mario was more of a compiler, and probably the best of all time in that regard so it's not a slight, than a complete player so it depends if one value total offense or a complete player IMO.

Esposito also "dropped" on my list for similar reasons.

Even if one thinks modern players are just generally better, as you seem to, how do you rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Even if one thinks modern players are just generally better, as you seem to, how do you rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque?

I don't want to get too sidetracked on it but Lidstrom defense and aging was slightly better, when combined than Ray's (offensive advantage) was.

Ray started out better but part of his all star selections early on were circumstantial, ie reputation based and other guys either not being that great or injured.

But I could see either guy being # 1 actually.

I would also have Potvin and possibly Harvey ahead of Orr for similar reasons of elite longevity. Honestly it's very difficult to rank guys who one has never seen play.

Also I'll take a slight issue with one of your comments and put it in context.

I go out of my way not to talk about players being better generally now than in the past but I do recognize the different conditions that have existed and especially the impact of expansion, both with and without new talent pools and the evolution of goal tending (especially in the last 20 years or so) which along with an increased emphasis in defensive coaching has changed scoring rates, which seems to affect some of our views on talent being worse or something like that (it's not my view so I won't pretend to be able to argue it very well).

There are no exact answers on how to rate these factors and differences over time but I think it's really important that we question all our assumptions as we compare players from different times.

 

[ted2019]

Orr is a tough case, I didn't ahve him #1 on my list for D, Lidstrom was there and Orr probably should slip down to 4 or 5ish behind some other longtime greats, ie guys who played at an extremely high level for a very long time.

But I think it's fair to say that Orr had a greater impact on the games he played in than Mario did and the difference was substantial which is very telling on how great Orr was.

Mario was more of a compiler, and probably the best of all time in that regard so it's not a slight, than a complete player so it depends if one value total offense or a complete player IMO.

Esposito also "dropped" on my list for similar reasons.

You could also say that Bourque had a better start of His career then Lidstrom did.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't want to get too sidetracked on it but Lidstrom defense and aging was slightly better, when combined than Ray's (offensive advantage) was.

Ray started out better but part of his all star selections early on were circumstantial, ie reputation based and other guys either not being that great or injured.

But I could see either guy being # 1 actually.

I would also have Potvin and possibly Harvey ahead of Orr for similar reasons of elite longevity. Honestly it's very difficult to rank guys who one has never seen play.

Also I'll take a slight issue with one of your comments and put it in context.

I go out of my way not to talk about players being better generally now than in the past but I do recognize the different conditions that have existed and especially the impact of expansion, both with and without new talent pools and the evolution of goal tending (especially in the last 20 years or so) which along with an increased emphasis in defensive coaching has changed scoring rates, which seems to affect some of our views on talent being worse or something like that (it's not my view so I won't pretend to be able to argue it very well).

There are no exact answers on how to rate these factors and differences over time but I think it's really important that we question all our assumptions as we compare players from different times.

How does one win all-star selections based on reputation early in one's career?

Any examples of this?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Orr is a tough case, I didn't ahve him #1 on my list for D, Lidstrom was there and Orr probably should slip down to 4 or 5ish behind some other longtime greats, ie guys who played at an extremely high level for a very long time.

But I think it's fair to say that Orr had a greater impact on the games he played in than Mario did and the difference was substantial which is very telling on how great Orr was.

Mario was more of a compiler, and probably the best of all time in that regard so it's not a slight, than a complete player so it depends if one value total offense or a complete player IMO.

Esposito also "dropped" on my list for similar reasons.

So is Gretzky dropped also, at least behind Beliveau?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, at least one person.

Did this clown's list get rejected, and if so, when will I be notified?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did this clown's list get rejected, and if so, when will I be notified?

You should have received a PM several days ago. I just sent you a new one.

Everyone who submitted in September should have been notified already.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I also tend to favor complete players, but at a certain point the offense is just too great to overcome. Additionally, lost in this (overthought, or underthought, it matters not) is the usage of possession as a strong form of defense.

Examples: 2012 Devils. Obviously, it's been a long time since the Devils were this 1-2-2 dominated team. Instead, they utilized an aggressive three-man forecheck, proper puck support and cycle game to prevent opponents from gaining meaningful attack time. The opponent spends 45 seconds chasing them around and trying to loosen the puck from the boards that by the time they free it, the shift is over and they have to dump it in. Meanwhile, a properly executed cycle allows for players to filter off on a change "behind" the play ensuring fresh troops can continue possession or re-acquire it. Moral: possession time matters, and can be an effective way of keeping the puck out of your own net...what players were better at keeping the puck than 66 and 99?

While Lemieux wasn't going to get any Selke votes at any point in his career, he was just too dominant to ignore. Similar to the goalie project, I favor technique a lot because proper technique allows for adaptability and sustainability. But I still had Dominik Hasek at #1 because it was just too good to overlook. He didn't do it "right" but he was so amazing at doing it wrong in different circumstances that you can't ignore it. Mario was so good at dominating the play that you can't ignore it.

I just can't envision a reasonable scenario where Gretzky and Lemieux aren't 1-2 in some order, just my thoughts on it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Except on the powerplay and when trailing at times, then he was on left wing. To put him as a center instead of winger ignores his best several seasons for the most part. As for Michalek with Marleau, that wasn't often. Clowe yeah, and Michalek played both sides at times.

EDIT: on second thought, **** him.

agreed. it's patrick marleau; wgas?

 

[Hardyvan123]

How does one win all-star selections based on reputation early in one's career?

Any examples of this?

one usually doesn't but there was a bit of a hype machine, a lot deserved around him , and injuries to Potvin and a generally weaker class in 80 as well all help.

There is no doubt Ray had a better start though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

okay, everyone who wants it, can have one(1) more post about Lidstrom/Bourque/Orr/etc in this thread. No more.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

one usually doesn't but there was a bit of a hype machine, a lot deserved around him , and injuries to Potvin and a generally weaker class in 80 as well all help.

There is no doubt Ray had a better start though.

In 80 (you meant 1980, correct?) Bourque was +52 on a team that had only 2 other players above +30 (Middleton +31, Dick Redmond +37). 17 goals, 65 points. I think he deserved that all-star berth.

 

[seventieslord]

Does it even matter if one considers marleau a center or a winger? Is it even close to mattering?

 

[ted2019]

Does it even matter if one considers marleau a center or a winger? Is it even close to mattering?

Marleau was never a consideration for Me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Did this clown's list get rejected, and if so, when will I be notified?

You should have received a PM several days ago. I just sent you a new one.

Everyone who submitted in September should have been notified already.

I think this one is my bad... I thought I had emailed you a notification, DB. Sorry about that.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Marleau was never a consideration for Me.

Same I left him off either way

 

[seventieslord]

Same I left him off either way

That's good. But by that I mean, I can't imagine including him if we're moving on to listing our top-80 wingers after this.