HOH Top Centers - Round 2 Voting Results

[MadArcand]

That is the strength of the argument for both players right?

or is some quote about Frank from over 100 years ago and no way to compare how true it is from actual game play going to be considered more important of a factor now?

Something must make them not close (in your words) right?

Why would I repeat myself? A complete player considered the best in the world >>> one-trick pony that's not even close to the best in the world

What players from the same denominator world, ie parts of Ontario and Quebec are better players than Stamkos in that 4 year period?

You won't find any is my bet.

So now you narrow the area down in just the right manner as to exclude Crosby? Hilarious. And sad.

 

[MadArcand]

are you using 90-99 or 91-2000?

for reference points (or as a starting point)

90-99

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

91-00

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Point accumulation again? Each every one of the players I mentioned was better than Roenick, and their places on our list should prove that.

Wayne does very well on points but voters didn't think very highly of him in Hart voting for that decade.

Yet still much higher than of Roenick.

 

[ted2019]

I don't understand, where does 5 come from? Why not 6 or 7 or 4?

You could use whatever number You like. I'm giving an example.

 

[unknown33]

Ignorant argument is also ignorant. Thanks in no small way to those point totals, he was voted as having had a top 5 season at his position 3 or 4 times during said decade (depending on how you count '89/90 vs '99/00), on top of figuring into the Hart voting twice and the Selke voting twice as well. "Second-rate" centre my ass.

MadArcand has a point, count the Centers that are already on the list who are contemporaries of Roenick.
Pointing out that he has more points than Lindros, Fedorov or Lemieux in the 90s is indeed selective. We had this already.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There were more than 10 centers who were better in the 90s than Roenick - in no particular order - Lemieux, Messier, Gretzky, Lindros, Gilmour, Francis, Oates, Modano, Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov + a bunch of others who are at least arguable like Lafontaine or Sundin. That's obviously second-rate.

i don't disagree that roenick could plausibly be called a second rate center of the 90s. but a guy who is consistently at the top if the second tier and with a peak that borders on first tier.

but by that logic, lafontaine is a third rate center who had a two and a half season peak as a first rate guy.

nieuwendyk would be a third rate center at best.

 

[MadArcand]

i don't disagree that roenick could plausibly be called a second rate center of the 90s. but a guy who is consistently at the top if the second tier and with a peak that borders on first tier.

but by that logic, lafontaine is a third rate center who had a two and a half season peak as a first rate guy.

nieuwendyk would be a third rate center at best.

Do you think there's 10 90's centers' worth gap between Roenick and Lafontaine/Nieuwendyk?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

MadArcand has a point, count the Centers that are already on the list who are contemporaries of Roenick.
Pointing out that he has more points than Lindros, Fedorov or Lemieux in the 90s is indeed selective. We had this already.

"Second-rate" centre compared to Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, and Fedorov. So... like just about everyone else at the top of who's left over at the top, who have already been chosen in this top 60? Gotcha.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Do you think there's 10 90's centers' worth gap between Roenick and Lafontaine/Nieuwendyk?

nieuwendyk, yes definitely. non-90/92-93 lafontaine, also yes.

 

[MadArcand]

nieuwendyk, yes definitely. non-90/92-93 lafontaine, also yes.

Care to try naming them? Because I doubt there's that many.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Why would I repeat myself? A complete player considered the best in the world >>> one-trick pony that's not even close to the best in the world

Seriously, Frank played in a time when hockey and it's players and positions where much more specialized and Stamkos plays is a league where everyone is required to play both ways and team defense, some context on how complete and the field would help but we have an extremely incomplete picture of frank and even more so of his field.

So now you narrow the area down in just the right manner as to exclude Crosby? Hilarious. And sad.

Again some context is required about the feild hockey was generally a club team, ie guys working at the local bank was extremely common in the time frank played and hardly an international sport.

basically most of the players came from a very small pool and region back in Frank's day, in fact we have only 10 players in total that even appeared in an NHL game from Nova scotia (Sid's birth place) from 22 -50 in the NHL a period of 28 years and that included 3 guys who played in a single game and others in 12,13,33,53,62, 86, 208, 562

so that's its 2 guys with any sort of NHL career over a period of 28 years in the NHL

I don't have records from the early 1900's but the actual player pool was incredibly small and while lip service to accounting for era has been spoken of it hardly seems the case here with Frank and his incredibly small sample of 4 years.

 

[unknown33]

"Second-rate" centre compared to Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, and Fedorov. So... like just about everyone else at the top of who's left over at the top, who have already been chosen in this top 60? Gotcha.

Only four? Look at the Top 60 and recount please.

There got to be a cap somewhere how many (historically) first rate centers there are at the same time.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Only four? Look at the Top 60 and recount please.

Those were the names listed in the post I replied to, so yeah. How many guys from the '90s are on the list, and how many of them are actually "second-rate" compared to anyone except "the generationals"? That's where the ridiculousness is.

 

[unknown33]

Those were the names listed in the post I replied to, so yeah. How many guys from the '90s are on the list, and how many of them are actually "second-rate" compared to anyone except "the generationals"? That's where the ridiculousness is.

(mod)

my point was whether or not Roenick might be called a 2nd rate (there are already some who I wouldn't call 1st rate on the list) center, not if he deserves the 60th spot or not.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

(mod) But hey, if you think guys like Oates, Gilmour, and Francis also cause Roenick to measure up as "second-rate", then all the power to you. I think it makes sense to see more than just 3 or 4 names in the "first-rate" category between "generational talent" and "second-rate" in the context of the dozens of guys worth discussing over the entire decade, but you guys are obviously free to use whatever terminology suits you best.

 

[MXD]

I thought this part of HFBoards was mature enough to realize that English isn't everyone's first language. Or that some people are just typing from a cell phone.

I was apparently wrong.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Care to try naming them? Because I doubt there's that many.

if we rank guys numerically, then i have nieuwendyk 19th or 20th, depending on what you do with yashin's higher peak but only having played half the decade (and of course, playoff no-show in his MVP season). in some, totally non-scientific and off the top of my head, order--

top 10:

mario
gretzky
lindros
messier
yzerman
fedorov
sakic
oates
gilmour
forsberg

11-20

francis
modano
roenick
sundin
turgeon
lafontaine
brind'amour (mostly C)
damphousse (partial winger, but was C at his best)
nieuwendyk
yashin

guys you'd put in the 21 and later category:

carbonneau
muller (partial winger, but in the 90s was C at his best)
janney
buffalo hawerchuk
linden (mostly winger, but like early messier, was C when games mattered)
nicholls

so if we take the relatively arbitrary number of 10, nieuwendyk is farther down but in the same tier as roenick, and the separation is less than ten guys. but i think most of us can agree there's a natural break between roenick/sundin/turgeon/lafontaine and damphousse/brind'amour/nieuwendyk. which is what i meant by "third rate"-- the difference between a superstar center that never (or in lafontaine's case very rarely) in the conversation for best player in the world, and an excellent 2nd line center/very good 1b center.

as for lafontaine, other than his two MVP-type seasons and the partial season in '92, he's a damphousse-level offensive guy without the two-way game and intangibles. we put him in the second tier because of his extremely high peak, but he was only that guy for only 1/4 of his career, and it's not like he played beyond his prime.

---

but all that said, i mentioned in the last voting thread that it seems totally incongruous to me that the 15th best center of the 90s (whether that's roenick or lafontaine or turgeon or nieuwendyk) should really be in the top 60. i mean, 1/4 of the best 60 centers of all time shouldn't really be from the same 15 year period, even if that era is extraordinarily deep right?

but if i had to pick one post-lemaire guy to fill out the top 60, it would be roenick, not lafontaine, brind'amour, nieuwendyk, sedin, or stamkos.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Frank played in a pretty carefree and vastly changing era which was highly unstructured and were the Rover who set up the plays was usually considered the best or most important player on the teams and goal scoring wasn't considered as important as it would later become.

This is just a baseless assertion put forth to discredit Frank McGee. Please explain and demonstrate for us why goal scoring was not yet of great importance in the early 1900s.

I will ask Denis who had them 1,3 but he will probably answer that he is a pure peak guy, looking at his vote this round and others will help.

that being said he has stated that he is almost a pure peak guy, my biggest problem is a guy complaining about the shortness of a guys career (Malkin) and then also downplaying the extreme high consistency and lack of a really high peak for Sundin.

I don't agree with his 1 and 3 placing this round but at least he seems to be consistent in his thinking, not so for the other view which seems random at best, but then again it's a guess on comments here let's see the voting alter on.

Denis had both players ranked closely together, which is what you suggested somebody must do for the sake of consistency, not sure why you'd question him. At least on voter had Stamkos 4th and McGee 8th or lower. I would think this yet-unknown person would be the primary target of your McGee/Stamkos consistency witch-hunt.

Seriously, Frank played in a time when hockey and it's players and positions where much more specialized and Stamkos plays is a league where everyone is required to play both ways and team defense, some context on how complete and the field would help but we have an extremely incomplete picture of frank and even more so of his field.

That's an odd thing to say on the heels of your "hockey was carefree and highly unstructured" comment from above.

Players switched positions all the time in early eras, I would say there was much less specialization. Not sure if McGee ever played a game on defense, but it wouldn't have been unusual at all. Highly doubt we'll ever see Stamkos on the blueline for even one shift, save for a PP situation.

 

[sr edler]

Yes, there's definitely some specialists in the game today. Marc Andre Bergeron, or post slump Ovechkin. And all the 80s–90s goons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since we didn't reach anything close to a consensus on what to do about 60th place, I made a poll that will be open for the next 24 hours: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1622873

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is just a baseless assertion put forth to discredit Frank McGee. Please explain and demonstrate for us why goal scoring was not yet of great importance in the early 1900s.

Something I read recently in Stephen Harper's account of the early history of professional hockey, I don't have the exact quote here but that reading and some others indicates that a lot of the heavy lifting was done by gaining control of the puck by usually the rover in the opposition zone and goal scoring was the benefit of that hard work.

Also mentioned were the unusual ice conditions and player personal moves in the era, along with other very interesting differences, which was quite interesting.

I have never seen an actual game from then but form most accounts it sounds like it would resemble a shinny game more than an structured NHL hockey game with coaches miked up circa Stamkos.

Denis had both players ranked closely together, which is what you suggested somebody must do for the sake of consistency, not sure why you'd question him. At least on voter had Stamkos 4th and McGee 8th or lower. I would think this yet-unknown person would be the primary target of your McGee/Stamkos consistency witch-hunt.

I'm not sure how you could determine how a guy had Stamkos 4th and Frank much lower but one guy is statically a much better goal scorer against his Canadian competition in the same 4 year example doesn't seem as outrageous as the other way around IMO.

I'll go back to the Denis quote and ask him then.

That's an odd thing to say on the heels of your "hockey was carefree and highly unstructured" comment from above.

Players switched positions all the time in early eras, I would say there was much less specialization. Not sure if McGee ever played a game on defense, but it wouldn't have been unusual at all. Highly doubt we'll ever see Stamkos on the blueline for even one shift, save for a PP situation.

A good skater could have played anywhere in the early 00's, slow guys sometimes didn't even left their own zone, pretty hard to equate if frank even did lay a game at defense and Stamkos didn't as a plus or minus for either guy.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Players switched positions all the time in early eras, I would say there was much less specialization. Not sure if McGee ever played a game on defense, but it wouldn't have been unusual at all. Highly doubt we'll ever see Stamkos on the blueline for even one shift, save for a PP situation.

Yeah, that's a bizarre claim. Players shifted around much more freely at the time. McGee never played defence, he played some rover in intermediate but centre otherwise.

Newsy Lalonde played a number of game at cover-point, even in the NHL. Didier Pitre was a cover for the first bit of his career, Jack Laviolette moved around a lot; the number of players who played significant amounts of both defence and forward in their careers is far higher than it is today, even just in raw numbers much less proportionally. Both Frank and Lester Patrick were forwards early on but defencemen later.

The rover itself was a position without specialization. Rovers were expected to go wherever they were needed most on the ice. If the forwards needed help on the right side, he would go there. If the cover needed help stopping a rush, he would go there. While rovers were generally more offensively-inclined in the early days of the game, there were always players like Harry Westwick and Jack Brannen who were defence-first.

I can't see a claim of greater specialization in that era holding any water.

Edit: If forwards were not expected to backcheck at all then, you'll need to explain why Harry Smith was considered a lackluster player. Lots and lots and lots (and lots and lots) of goals, but little effort and no back-checking. This was recognized at the time, and was recognized by the Hall of Fame selection committee. Despite scoring as many goals as anyone, he was seen as replaceable.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Vote 16 - Lists received from 17 out of 23 possible voters

Player | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | Total Neil Colville | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 69
Frank Foyston | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 65
Jeremy Roenick | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 65
Henrik Sedin | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 56
Pat Lafontaine | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 53
Joe Primeau | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 49

Note: For this vote 6pts for a 1st place vote, 5pts for 2nd, and so on

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow, I thought Roenick, Sedin, Foyston, and Colville were a step above the other two, but between the four of them, I would have found Colville least likely to win it

 

[MXD]

Looks like quite a few people had a change of mind at some point -- I can't believe such a different result could only be attributed to taking off the head and the lees of last round.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Something I read recently in Stephen Harper's account of the early history of professional hockey, I don't have the exact quote here but that reading and some others indicates that a lot of the heavy lifting was done by gaining control of the puck by usually the rover in the opposition zone and goal scoring was the benefit of that hard work.

The rover may have been the key man on the ice, but surely the act of scoring the goal was still important. How could it not be? Given that forward passing was prohibited, it seems unlikely a center could score without contributing significantly to the play that created the goal. In a future era you could maybe argue they could stand around cherry picking but I've never heard anything that would suggest McGee was a cherry picker.

Also mentioned were the unusual ice conditions and player personal moves in the era, along with other very interesting differences, which was quite interesting.

I agree it's interesting, I'm reading the book as well. Never got the impression that goals weren't important though.

I have never seen an actual game from then but form most accounts it sounds like it would resemble a shinny game more than an structured NHL hockey game with coaches miked up circa Stamkos.

You don't say?

I too am curious as to what it would actually look like myself. Shinny has no assigned positions though, or any rules beyond the obvious don't whack your opponent with a stick type of thing. Organized hockey has had designated positions and written rules since the very beginning, it certainly wasn't just a free for all out there. You said yourself you felt players and positions were much more specialized in McGee's era. That would be a direct contradiction to shinny.

I'm not sure how you could determine how a guy had Stamkos 4th and Frank much lower but one guy is statically a much better goal scorer against his Canadian competition in the same 4 year example doesn't seem as outrageous as the other way around IMO.

Four people had Stamkos in the top four, only three had McGee in the top 7. Process of elimination.

A good skater could have played anywhere in the early 00's, slow guys sometimes didn't even left their own zone, pretty hard to equate if frank even did lay a game at defense and Stamkos didn't as a plus or minus for either guy.

Not a matter of assigning a plus or minus to either player. The statement was made in response to your statement that the game was much more specialized in the past. The frequent positional changes in the earlier eras would indicate less specialization, not more.