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

[jigglysquishy]

Can anyone confirm they got my list? Id hate to miss out because of my stupidity

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Everyone who submitted by the original Oct 10 deadline will be notified tomorrow if you haven't been already

 

[seventieslord]

A HOH Wingers list is expected, if not a left winger list and then right winger list.

A lot of great role players will fall through the cracks: defensive defensemen and defensive forwards, third liners of renown, but so be it. The HOH Project is what it is: an all-star game-ish list hierarchy, not a reflection on the most influential or impact players in the history of the game. (The ATDs honor third liners and defensive-minded dmen more so, fits the team-first, playoff-oriented play of all-time greats in history hockey.) One project cannot be everything for everybody. There are many kinds of greatness in hockey history, and only some are being honored here.

I don’t think this is really an accurate representation of how the HOH projects are working compared to something like the ATD.
*
As far as the defensemen list is concerned, their overall impacts were always considered primarily, using criteria such as all-star votes which came from contemporaries and which were, except in the most recent years, based on overall impact and not simply offensive numbers. Most of the best defensive defensemen of all-time were already honoured in that project. What are we to do next? A list of the best defensive defensemen who couldn’t score to save their lives? How would we distinguish where to draw lines? Rod Langway made the HOH list already; is he eligible for a “role player†list? If so, what about Serge Savard? Or did he score too many points to be considered? Guys like Bill Hajt and Dave Burrows deserve credit for their play in one end of the rink. But we didn’t get down to someone like Eric Desjardins on the top-60 and he’s a better all-around player than those two; do we end up just ignoring him since he doesn’t quite make either list? The best defensemen have already been appropriately honoured and we demonstrated our commitment to overall impact over offense-based, all-star like hierarchies when the likes of Phil Housley, Sergei Gonchar and Sergei Zubov didn’t make the cut. It sounds like what you’re looking for is the ATD; have you heard of that?
*
With both forwards and defensemen, their overall impact as players can *be simply summed up by their offensive and defensive impacts. I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe with defensemen we tend to value defensive contributions as a larger part of the whole, and with forwards we value offense more. That is why the list of defensemen is full of players ranging from Harvey Pulford to Bobby Orr offensively, but none who weren’t at least passable defensively in their primes (and most were excellent). It’s to be expected that the forward lists will end up a mirror image: Mostly based on offensive skill, with defense an important but secondary consideration. It will be full of players who were excellent offensively, while ranging from Bill Cowley to Dave Keon defensively. I highly disagree with the notion that some lame all-star hierarchy will be employed. I trust that all my colleagues strive to consider a player’s overall impact; it’s just that with forwards that impact comes mainly from scoring. Just like I’ll have to demonstrate that a guy like Norm Ullman is more valuable overall than Peter Stastny, you’ll have the opportunity to argue for Brind’Amour over Sundin, or for Lepine over Federko or whoever else. I expect everyon’s viewpoints will be considered, and if Sundin beats out Brind’Amour I expect it will be because his overall impact was deemed greater and not just because “he scored more, therefore he’s betterâ€. *Give us some credit here.
*
I agree that whether we are talking about real life (Bolland vs. Versteeg?) or an all-time context (Ramsay vs. Mosienko), an elite role player can and does have more value than a middling scoring line player. But we’re not talking about any middling scoring line players here; we’re talking about the best of the best, all-time. Federko, Turgeon, Sedin, Nieuwendyk, Roenick? They’re likely not making it. The guys that are, they’re all so talented that, save for maybe Guy Carbonneau, no role player’s going to usurp them from this list. Again, if you want to honour checkers, there’s an ATD for that, and although it is a little more role-player centric, it’s not like anyone’s taking Bob Pulford over Mark Recchi there, either. The logistics of organizing a “best role player forwards of all-time†list would be mind boggling if you start to think about where to arbitrarily draw lines in efforts to determine who is and isn’t eligible. Mark Messier, for example, due to his size, toughness, faceoff ability, penalty killing, fighting, intimidation and leadership could be argued to be the best role player of all-time, if only he didn’t have all that blasted skill (that somehow takes away from all that other stuff?). Kirk Muller had great intangibles, but he was a star for the first half of his creer too, does that disqualify him or can we only go by his “grumpy old man†years? And so on. Mind boggling, I tells ya.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I can't say I will 100% rule out the possibility. But "6th in goals during his career" is a really weak stat because it is a period of time that included every game he's ever played, while only including the first or second half of the careers of many superior players..

How is it a weak stat? It's over a 15 season time period and he is the 2nd best Canadian scorer in goals in that time period if one wants to do the apples to apples comparison, which one really should consider to be fair right?

To be fair by the time we get to the wingers project his current season will also be part of his resume.

And points matter more than goals..

Sure that's a valid point but probably more so generally for centers than wingers who have a tendency to be better goal scorers than playmakers, .

Even so he is 11th in points and 6th among all other Canadian players over that same time period.

And we have a pretty clear picture of what kind of a scorer he is when he's not playing with a top-3 playmaker in the league... there are simply a lot more wingers in the history of hockey who have proven to be more able to generate their own offense..

It's the curse of the modern player, for other guys will little or 2d hand information they get the benefit of the doubt, our ability to watch and no like Patrick's game helps us to dismiss him too easily when his numbers suggest a very strong career performance.

There are a few wingers on your list that fall under the same category of being good scorers with great players as well.

He's also not particularly strong (in an all-time sense anyway) defensively or physically; in a lot of cases players with similar offensive resumes but better intangibles would have to get the nod over him.

This part is true but also of many wingers on the list that you have ahead of him as well.

Perhaps another very good season might change some minds but then again he is playing with some really good players again.

At some point his production should count for something right?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perhaps

I don’t think this is really an accurate representation of how the HOH projects are working compared to something like the ATD.

Perhaps, but the key question remains unanswered. How are the HOH projects and the ATD supposed to be working?

 

[seventieslord]

Perhaps, but the key question remains unanswered. How are the HOH projects and the ATD supposed to be working?

The whole cryptic thing is cute, but If you're trying to make a point... use more words please.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just so you guys know, screeners are being a lot more thorough/anal about pointing out potential accidental omissions this time, so don't feel like we think your list sucks just because you're asked (for example) if you knew players X and Y were centers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No Need

The whole cryptic thing is cute, but If you're trying to make a point... use more words please.

Just interested in your vision of the objective or purpose of the ATD format and the HOH Project format, regardless of position or overall approach. Twenty-five words would be more than sufficient for each.

Your long post #828 seems to suggest a lack of defined objective or purpose for each.

 

[seventieslord]

Just interested in your vision of the objective or purpose of the ATD format and the HOH Project format, regardless of position or overall approach. Twenty-five words would be more than sufficient for each.

Your long post #828 seems to suggest a lack of defined objective or purpose for each.

I think I made it clear that the HOH projects are meant to represent the best overall players of all-time.

The ATD is a competitive team building project. Since a full team includes role players, they are included along with the stars. ATD role players tend to be the very best role players of all-time, or lesser stars capable of playing lesser roles. When drafting for scoring line roles, offensive ability is of paramount importance, but when drafting for checking lines, one begins to look for other skills with offense taking somewhat of a backseat.

How is it a weak stat? It's over a 15 season time period and he is the 2nd best Canadian scorer in goals in that time period if one wants to do the apples to apples comparison, which one really should consider to be fair right?

No, I care where a player ranked in the world, not among Canadian players. At some points in history the two are the same, at other points they aren’t.

You want an apples and apples comparison, try your little exercise with a handful of other wingers on 2nd half of the list I provided. Use their whole career or, if they took a couple seasons to get going and/or had a sharp dropoff at the very end of their career, use their relatively productive years. Then take a look at where they rank in the league in goals or points over that time. This is why I say it’s a weak stat. You can make any player look just as good or better using this methodology that takes the period of time most favourable to them and cuts off the first half or second half of the careers of many significantly better players.

Sure that's a valid point but probably more so generally for centers than wingers who have a tendency to be better goal scorers than playmakers, .

Even so he is 11th in points and 6th among all other Canadian players over that same time period.

It’s no more valid for centers than for wingers.

All you have to do is look down the list at other forwards who show up below Marleau to realize that this stat is meaningless. Richards, Sakic, Recchi, Kovalchuk, Sedin, Sundin, Modano, Datsyuk, Sedin, Heatley, Naslund, Ovechkin, Kariya…. All better. And so on.

At some point his production should count for something right?

Of course his production counts! It’s 95% of his case like it is for a lot of forwards. But you’re making it sound like he’s in some sort of exclusive class with six 60+ point seasons (or era-comparable by whatever method you prefer). What he’s done and what he’s doing is not historically special.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank You

I think I made it clear that the HOH projects are meant to represent the best overall players of all-time.

The ATD is a competitive team building project. Since a full team includes role players, they are included along with the stars. ATD role players tend to be the very best role players of all-time, or lesser stars capable of playing lesser roles. When drafting for scoring line roles, offensive ability is of paramount importance, but when drafting for checking lines, one begins to look for other skills with offense taking somewhat of a backseat.

Thank you.

Agree with the distinction between the HOH projects and the ATD that you made.

One qualifier. The HOH projects are not defined by the number of participants. The ATD is defined by the number of participants(or teams). As an example, a six team ATD would define the player roles differently than a thirty team ATD draft.

This is where readers have to be careful when looking at posts about players from each.

 

[seventieslord]

Thank you.

Agree with the distinction between the HOH projects and the ATD that you made.

One qualifier. The HOH projects are not defined by the number of participants. The ATD is defined by the number of participants(or teams). As an example, a six team ATD would define the player roles differently than a thirty team ATD draft.

This is where readers have to be careful when looking at posts about players from each.

Absolutely. You may be agreeing with me without even realising it.

This is why someone like Joe nieuwendyk, a better player in a vacuum, might go after carbonneau in the ATD, because getting an elite 3rd liner i s likely a better strategy than getting a mediocre 2nd liner.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Recognition

Absolutely. You may be agreeing with me without even realising it.

This is why someone like Joe nieuwendyk, a better player in a vacuum, might go after carbonneau in the ATD, because getting an elite 3rd liner i s likely a better strategy than getting a mediocre 2nd liner.

No disagreement just recognition.

Work your analogy from another perspective. Ralph Backstrom, third line center yet one that did lead the Canadiens in scoring one season during the end of the O6 era. How is he viewed in a vacuum against centers from a twenty-one team league or a thirty team league? Much better overall than an Andrew Cassels or a Cliff Ronning. Throw in a late O6 era center with a twist - Sven Tumba. Somewhere between 60 and 100, +/- a few spots?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

No disagreement just recognition.

Work your analogy from another perspective. Ralph Backstrom, third line center yet one that did lead the Canadiens in scoring one season during the end of the O6 era. How is he viewed in a vacuum against centers from a twenty-one team league or a thirty team league? Much better overall than an Andrew Cassels or a Cliff Ronning. Throw in a late O6 era center with a twist - Sven Tumba. Somewhere between 60 and 100, +/- a few spots?

Backstrom is a player that really interests me and makes me wish this project was even larger than 60. He made my top 80 but I don't think he will really be a factor in round 2.

 

[seventieslord]

No disagreement just recognition.

Work your analogy from another perspective. Ralph Backstrom, third line center yet one that did lead the Canadiens in scoring one season during the end of the O6 era. How is he viewed in a vacuum against centers from a twenty-one team league or a thirty team league? Much better overall than an Andrew Cassels or a Cliff Ronning. Throw in a late O6 era center with a twist - Sven Tumba. Somewhere between 60 and 100, +/- a few spots?

Tumba is too difficult to even think of right now. Backstrom is not too hard. Determine where he tabled within his era. Was he the 8th best center of his time? 9th maybe? Then determine how that compares to a modern player in a larger league and deeper talent pool.

I think everyone agrees he is leagues ahead of a cassels or ronning. Closer to a brad Richards.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True

Backstrom is a player that really interests me and makes me wish this project was even larger than 60. He made my top 80 but I don't think he will really be a factor in round 2.

True. You touch on the advantage of a position specific project. The exposure it gives to previously overlooked players. Also the necessity of adding certain considerations to the mix. The value of flat line longevity for a depth player, 12 years from entry into the league. Apply to RW, Eric Nesterenko and so forth.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Tumba is too difficult to even think of right now. Backstrom is not too hard. Determine where he tabled within his era. Was he the 8th best center of his time? 9th maybe? Then determine how that compares to a modern player in a larger league and deeper talent pool.

I think everyone agrees he is leagues ahead of a cassels or ronning. Closer to a brad Richards.

How is Ralph leagues ahead of Cassels or ronning?

Someone had to be the 8th or 9th best player in a 6 team Canadian only league right?

What is 8th or 9th of around 20 guys?

Sounds like an average guy to me.

Seriously he has a 7th and 9th place finish in a 6 team league and that's about it? Does he ever reach in the top 20 in scoring in a 6 game league?

Look I'm a huge career guy but Ralph isn't even close to cutting the mustard here.

None of the 3 guys have any merit in a top 80 list IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How is Ralph leagues ahead of Cassels or ronning?

Someone had to be the 8th or 9th best player in a 6 team Canadian only league right?

What is 8th or 9th of around 20 guys?

Sounds like an average guy to me.

None of the 3 guys have any merit in a top 80 list IMO.

Ah yes, your theory that the talent pool magically doubled in size in 1967

 

[Hardyvan123]

No, I care where a player ranked in the world, not among Canadian players. At some points in history the two are the same, at other points they aren’t.

Does this really apply? I asked in the top 60 defenseman project on how a guy like Vasilev would have ranked in the NHL, even in ball park terms and the response was pretty much zip.

The how any player ranked in the world concept is usually only applied when the NHL is integrated, guys in pre integration are often assumed to have equal greatness in Russia and the NHL, for the 70's guys for instance.

You want an apples and apples comparison, try your little exercise with a handful of other wingers on 2nd half of the list I provided. Use their whole career or, if they took a couple seasons to get going and/or had a sharp dropoff at the very end of their career, use their relatively productive years. Then take a look at where they rank in the league in goals or points over that time. This is why I say it’s a weak stat. You can make any player look just as good or better using this methodology that takes the period of time most favourable to them and cuts off the first half or second half of the careers of many significantly better players.

Once again it takes more than being just any player to be the 2nd best scoring Canadian in the NHL over a 15 year period.

It's just one metric sure but guys don't reach that plateau without being extremely good...period. It's not a GP metric but probably the most important metric for a forward (scoring goals)

It’s no more valid for centers than for wingers.

All you have to do is look down the list at other forwards who show up below Marleau to realize that this stat is meaningless. Richards, Sakic, Recchi, Kovalchuk, Sedin, Sundin, Modano, Datsyuk, Sedin, Heatley, Naslund, Ovechkin, Kariya…. All better. And so on.

All better in absolute peaks sure but for their careers?

Of course his production counts! It’s 95% of his case like it is for a lot of forwards. But you’re making it sound like he’s in some sort of exclusive class with six 60+ point seasons (or era-comparable by whatever method you prefer). What he’s done and what he’s doing is not historically special.

Once again outside of the elite of the elite, maybe 10 wingers, the other 70 guys on any winger list aren't historically special either.

Look with different metrics his career doesn't shine as bright as other but there is no denying that he is the 2nd best Canadian goal scoring player during his time in the NHL.

To be fair to him at least compare that to other "great players" on any wingers list and we aren't talking small sample here it's over a 14 year period.

Is he going to be a top 10 winger? No, but lots of guys with a much lesser metric (against similar competition) make the grade easily and Marleau is just dismissed?

Me thinks maybe he is getting judged by a different standard here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ah yes, your theory that the talent pool magically doubled in size in 1967

What theory?

Did expansion happen or what, and what did it have to do with my post?

I have never stated or promoted the idea that the talent pool doubled in size after expansion (from 67 to 68), the number of teams did yes.

Ralph only hit top 10 in scoring 2 times in his 8 year (06 time period) and never hit top 20 in any of the other 6 seasons.

What he did after expansion didn't really help his already average or slightly above average resume did it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This post makes it clear that you think the talent pool is directly proportional to the size of the NHL:

Someone had to be the 8th or 9th best player in a 6 team Canadian only league right?

What is 8th or 9th of around 20 guys?

Sounds like an average guy to me.

By this logic, the 8th best player in 1967-68 is twice as good as the 8th best player in 1966-67.

 

[Killion]

How is Ralph leagues ahead of Cassels or ronning?... Look I'm a huge career guy but Ralph isn't even close to cutting the mustard here.

Hv, have you taken the time to read up on Ralph Backstrom beyond just the Stats? He was the 3rd line checking Center with the Habs right through the 60's. Broke into the line-up, almost unheard of in that era right out of Junior after leading his team to the Memorial Cup & won the Calder receiving twice as many votes as the closest runnerup in Carl Brewer. I believe 6 Stanley Cups. Became dissatisfied with his role in Montreal around 70/71 & wound up being traded in the deal that secured Guy Lafleur. Check out his profile page on the HHOF website. Im sure youll find it most edifying, may even alter your perception of the guy in terms of value, importance, comparisons & overall ranking.

 

[Syckle78]

What theory?

Did expansion happen or what, and what did it have to do with my post?

I have never stated or promoted the idea that the talent pool doubled in size after expansion (from 67 to 68), the number of teams did yes.

Ralph only hit top 10 in scoring 2 times in his 8 year (06 time period) and never hit top 20 in any of the other 6 seasons.

What he did after expansion didn't really help his already average or slightly above average resume did it?

I don't agree with the logic that being 8th or 9th out of 20 automatically makes someone an average player. Condensing talent on less teams doesn't lessen the competition. The best if the best are still there they aren't the ones being squeezed out the marginal players are.


Let's look at it like this. Team Canada only has 4 center spots to go around. Does that mean the talent pool of center among Canadian players is lessened and the fifth best center is suddenly less of a player?

You can also look at it like all star teams. There are what like 40 spots between the two teams? Someone has to be 20th best among those players it doesn't make them average.

If the league doubled in size tomorrow the top players in the league would remain the same. You would have more marginal.players filling the bottom rungs of the league not challenging for trophies and post season all star appearances in any meaningful way. Yeah they are there but they are basically filler for all intents and purposes in this context.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Average Players

How is Ralph leagues ahead of Cassels or ronning?

Someone had to be the 8th or 9th best player in a 6 team Canadian only league right?

What is 8th or 9th of around 20 guys?

Sounds like an average guy to me.

Seriously he has a 7th and 9th place finish in a 6 team league and that's about it? Does he ever reach in the top 20 in scoring in a 6 game league?

Look I'm a huge career guy but Ralph isn't even close to cutting the mustard here.

None of the 3 guys have any merit in a top 80 list IMO.

Average players tend to be replaced very quickly, within 500 games easily. True in a 6 team league or 30 team league.

The ability to beat-out competition for a defined spot on a team season after season and perform at the expected level while playing against elite players is what sets these players apart.

Teams that cannot compete against the elite lines, target the average lines to regain and take the advantage. When the opportunity arises such players become the difference makers that are required to produce. 1972 Summit Series, Paul Henderson and Ron Ellis amongst the forwards, Bill White and Gary Bergman amongst the defensemen being prime examples.

Also note that in international competition - 1974 Summit Series against the USSR, an aging Ralph Backstrom was tied for second in scoring with Alexander Yakushev behind Bobby Hull:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Summit_Series#Scoring_leaders

 

[Hardyvan123]

This post makes it clear that you think the talent pool is directly proportional to the size of the NHL:



By this logic, the 8th best player in 1967-68 is twice as good as the 8th best player in 1966-67.

No you are inferring that logic, not me.

I'm only talking about the fact that in a small number of players, around 20ish full time centers, maybe a bit more, the best case for Backstrom is 8th or 9th which really isn't that good is it?

Immediately after expansion nothing changed really except the dispersion of some of the talent over 12 teams instead of 6.

The infusion of new players came from the already existing talent pool, which in this case was from the minors for the most part.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hv, have you taken the time to read up on Ralph Backstrom beyond just the Stats? He was the 3rd line checking Center with the Habs right through the 60's. Broke into the line-up, almost unheard of in that era right out of Junior after leading his team to the Memorial Cup & won the Calder receiving twice as many votes as the closest runnerup in Carl Brewer. I believe 6 Stanley Cups. Became dissatisfied with his role in Montreal around 70/71 & wound up being traded in the deal that secured Guy Lafleur. Check out his profile page on the HHOF website. Im sure youll find it most edifying, may even alter your perception of the guy in terms of value, importance, comparisons & overall ranking.

Sure and I can find write ups that Nieds is one of the best 5 Dmen of all time but I don't take it at face value either.

Ralph was blocked by Jean and Henri because eh wasn't good enough to replace them, alot of his placing in the top 80, IMO is based on some notion of would've, could've and the infamous 6 SC argument.

Had a long career, might have been impacted by expansion as well, and in reality is a Montreal version of a Bob Bourne type of guy, a role player for the most part with slightly better offensive skills and 2 good seasons when put into a #1 center role.

Thanks but I'll take a guy like Bobby Smith and his resume 8 days a week.