How does Prime Sergei Makarov compare to Gretzky and Lemieux?

[The Panther]

Using a player's 31 y/o season to evaluate their career is an incredibly dangerous game.

If you look at careers after age 31, Wayne Gretzky is no better than Ron Francis or Adam Oates. Denis Savard is garbage. Guy Lafleur is a nobody. Bryan Trottier, Dale Hawerchuk, Jari Kurri are average first liners for a year or two before falling off. And on and on. And those guys weren't dropped into a new culture at age 31.

I have little doubt that Makarov would have been putting up 150-point seasons in the early 1980s. Just watching him play, he was on a completely different level than the NHL stars of the time excluding Gretzky.

Do people actually read posts before responding?

In the post you're quoting, I already specifically referenced the fact that Makarov was older, under-used by Calgary, and then passed his prime around then or just after.

In the post you're quoting, I already specifically referenced Makarov's (and the other Soviets of that era) challenges of adjustment to a new lifestyle/culture.

150 point seasons, though? You're dreaming.

 

[MS]

Do people actually read posts before responding?

In the post you're quoting, I already specifically referenced the fact that Makarov was older, under-used by Calgary, and then passed his prime around then or just after.

In the post you're quoting, I already specifically referenced Makarov's (and the other Soviets of that era) challenges of adjustment to a new lifestyle/culture.

You gave his age a cursory mention and then proceeded to make a quite long post trying to figure out what his numbers that season meant in terms of how good he was in his prime. And the answer is : nothing. Same as comparing Gretzky and Oates after 1992 tells us nothing about which was actually better a decade earlier.

150 point seasons, though? You're dreaming.

I wonder if I'm actually being conservative.

Makarov in the early 1980s was an absolute monster. When you watch him play, guys like Trottier, Dionne, Hawerchuk aren't even close to as explosive or dominant. And those guys were hitting 130 points.

 

[The Panther]

You gave his age a cursory mention and then proceeded to make a quite long post trying to figure out what his numbers that season meant in terms of how good he was in his prime.

I said nothing whatsoever about "in his prime". I said, specifically, he was "passing his prime". Again, read more carefully.

I wonder if I'm actually being conservative.

Makarov in the early 1980s was an absolute monster. When you watch him play, guys like Trottier, Dionne, Hawerchuk aren't even close to as explosive or dominant. And those guys were hitting 130 points.

How guys like Trottier, Dionne, and Hawerchuk were doing against Makarov in small-sample tournaments or one-off games is hardly an intelligent way of guessing Makarov's NHL potential for scoring, anymore than the fact that Makarov (on the NHL's highest-scoring team) was out-scored by Pat Verbeek is an intelligent way of concluding his scoring potential.

To state the obvious: Small sample-sizes are too small to draw conclusions from. An NHL season is long and grinding, and not like a weekend tournament. Some athletes are more disposed to that kind of system, some are not.

Then, in international tournaments, players like Hawerchuk or Trottier were not playing the same role they were playing on their respective NHL teams. Hawerchuk was on an island in Winnipeg, while Trottier was his team's top-center and ate the big PP minutes, etc. None of those things applied when they played in international tournaments against the USSR. Makarov was his team's big scoring winger, who got the most ice-time of forwards and whose designated job it was to score. So, there's no point in making the scoring comparison you're suggesting.

Third, 150 points at the NHL level is really, really hard to achieve and basically never happens. Between 1971-72 and 1986-87 (sixteen years), one guy did it, and that guy was the greatest offensive player of all time.

 

[tazzy19]

Those are not the top 10 scorers in Canada Cup history....

Oh? It is according the link I googled and posted here. Feel free to post a more credible source if you have one.

 

[tazzy19]

Gretzky has one more goal than Makarov in 9 more games.

Makarov was +9 in his 22 games.

Comparison is not really a joke.

Gretzky may only have one more goal, but how many more points does he have? Almost double! His PPG average is 1.84 vs Makarov's 1.4 (like saying a 150 point season is the same as 114 point 82 game season). Even if Gretzky hadn't scored any of his career tournament leading 17 goals, he still would have beaten Makarov (and everyone for that matter) with his assists alone. So, yes, it's a bit of a joke and not close at all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Gretzky may only have one more goal, but how many more points does he have? Almost double! His PPG average is 1.84 vs Makarov's 1.4 (like saying a 150 point season is the same as 114 point 82 game season). Even if Gretzky hadn't scored any of his career tournament leading 17 goals, he still would have beaten Makarov (and everyone for that matter) with his assists alone. So, yes, it's a bit of a joke and not close at all.

Do you consider defensive play part of the game at all?

Gretzky scores many more points, yet Makarov has a higher plus/minus. And there is no argument for Gretzky being even close to Makarov defensively.

 

[scott clam]

Do you consider defensive play part of the game at all?

Gretzky scores many more points, yet Makarov has a higher plus/minus. And there is no argument for Gretzky being even close to Makarov defensively.

Anyone who has eyes can see that Makarov's puckhandling, footwork and hockey IQ were off the charts. Raw stats just do not do justice to players like that.

 

[Sentinel]

Krutov and Makarov ultimately were victims of their own system, which forced them to play in a lopsided bush league.

But of course that did help them in other ways. I always find it amazing that people ignore the reality in those international tournaments that the Soviet team was 90% the CSKA team i.e. their core played and trained together year round while the Canada team was a random mix of NHLers put together often with too little concern for team chemistry. Given the Soviet style that advantage was so massive that it is nearly impossible to overrate it.

As a result it is nearly impossible to get a fair judgment of those players..as their records come from lopsided competitions or small tournaments in which they had that edge over their main competitor. It is my deep suspicion that Canada at all times had a notable talent edge over the Soviets which the seasoned Soviet team play could however more than make up for.

How about CSKA decisively winning over mid-80s Oilers and other NHL clubs? Those teams trained and played together year round.

 

[Sentinel]

150 point seasons, though? You're dreaming.

So I guess Makarov was not as good as Bernie Nichols. Gotcha.

Makarov (on the NHL's highest-scoring team) was out-scored by Pat Verbeek is an intelligent way of concluding his scoring potential.

Judging a 31 y.o. accomplished megastar in a different country, without language, a fish out of water, against Pat Verbeek is anything BUT "intelligent way of concluding a scoring potential." This is borderline asinine.

 

[scott clam]

There's no way to know how many points prime Makarov would post in the NHL.

I think he would oprobably fit in best on a team like Montreal, where he would likely have less points, but have the greatest impact.

He was frustrated with Terry Crisp's coaching style in Calgary, so I can imagine a run and gun team like L.A or Detroit(pre-Bowman of course) driving him mad.

 

[The Panther]

How about CSKA decisively winning over mid-80s Oilers and other NHL clubs? Those teams trained and played together year round.

One-off games are hardly conclusive of anything.

(As to the 1985-86 Oilers, some players felt annoyed to have to play the CSKA "friendly" game. Paul Coffey went to the media to complain and say he didn't want to play the game at all. He did play, however... badly. I can't speak to whether the CSKA guys were motivated or not.)

 

[The Panther]

So I guess Makarov was not as good as Bernie Nichols. Gotcha.

If Makarov was right in his prime, on a really high-scoring team (like L.A. in 1988-89), was the most motivated / healthy / ready to go he'd ever been, and was playing on the PP with Gretzky (like Nicholls), I could see him scoring around 150 points, maybe, once. But a lot of things would have to go right.

Judging a 31 y.o. accomplished megastar in a different country, without language, a fish out of water, against Pat Verbeek is anything BUT "intelligent way of concluding a scoring potential." This is borderline asinine.

You didn't read my post carefully.

 

[Sentinel]

If Makarov was right in his prime, on a really high-scoring team (like L.A. in 1988-89), was the most motivated / healthy / ready to go he'd ever been, and was playing on the PP with Gretzky (like Nicholls), I could see him scoring around 150 points, maybe, once. But a lot of things would have to go right.

You are being awfully generous. Again, you are putting him below Bernie f***ing Nichols! Why WOULDN'T Makarov be motivated, healthy, and ready to go for a decade?

Gawd...

 

[MS]

I said nothing whatsoever about "in his prime". I said, specifically, he was "passing his prime". Again, read more carefully.

You did a long analysis of his 89-90 season, and then concluded it with, 'So, was he skilled enough to be a 110-point player in his prime?' The way you wrote the post, it seems pretty clear that you're trying to extrapolate based on a very past-his-prime performance.

How guys like Trottier, Dionne, and Hawerchuk were doing against Makarov in small-sample tournaments or one-off games is hardly an intelligent way of guessing Makarov's NHL potential for scoring, anymore than the fact that Makarov (on the NHL's highest-scoring team) was out-scored by Pat Verbeek is an intelligent way of concluding his scoring potential.

To state the obvious: Small sample-sizes are too small to draw conclusions from. An NHL season is long and grinding, and not like a weekend tournament. Some athletes are more disposed to that kind of system, some are not.

Then, in international tournaments, players like Hawerchuk or Trottier were not playing the same role they were playing on their respective NHL teams. Hawerchuk was on an island in Winnipeg, while Trottier was his team's top-center and ate the big PP minutes, etc. None of those things applied when they played in international tournaments against the USSR. Makarov was his team's big scoring winger, who got the most ice-time of forwards and whose designated job it was to score. So, there's no point in making the scoring comparison you're suggesting.

Third, 150 points at the NHL level is really, really hard to achieve and basically never happens. Between 1971-72 and 1986-87 (sixteen years), one guy did it, and that guy was the greatest offensive player of all time.

I'm not looking at Makarov's numbers in those tournaments (which are actually from a pretty decent sample size, and better than everyone except Gretzky) compared to others.

I'm looking at his level of play, his skillset, and his dominance. It is *very* clear watching those games that the guy is on a completely different level in terms of ability than guys like Hawerchuk and Trottier. Against the best players in the world, in a level of competition far about the NHL, his performance pops as a dominant player in virtually every game he plays.

And it should be noted that this evaluation is backed up by his results in the full-season Soviet league, where he mutilated the very good competition on a consistent basis. It isn't like Shepelov having a good 1981 Canada Cup but actually not being that great of a player when you take a deeper dive. Makarov was a Cadillac everywhere he played.

I'm quite convinced that from 1979-1981 or so that Makarov was the best hockey player in the world, and then probably 2nd best from 1981-87. And given scoring in the NHL at the time, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the best/2nd best player in the world would have been hitting 150 points.

 

[scott clam]

Makarov is obviously the superior player to Bernie Nicholls, but there were a lot of players who were better than Nicholls who never scored 150 points. And if I'm not mistaken, Bernie Nicholls was considered terrible on defense for most of his career.

Makarov on the other hand would be the best defensive forward in the league, hands down. And how many defensive forwards score that many points? Kurri topped out at around 130 so it's possible, but he was Gretzky's regular linemate. But since Nicholls is such a poor defensive forward, Makarov probably would be Gretzky's linemate in that fantasy scenario, so who knows?

 

[VMBM]

Makarov was well above Peter Stastny in Europe (both internationally and in their respective domestic leagues), and I would think that he would have been well above Peter Stastny in the NHL too... how does that translate into actual points, I don't know, but hitting 150 would not have been all that impossible.

Makarov is one of those players who just seemed to thrive everywhere, and whereas I might have some reservations about some non-NHL Soviet/European superstars, I don't have any concerning Makarov.

 

[tazzy19]

Do you consider defensive play part of the game at all?

Gretzky scores many more points, yet Makarov has a higher plus/minus. And there is no argument for Gretzky being even close to Makarov defensively.

Pretty much this entire thread has been about comparing Makarov offensively to Gretzky/Lemieux. So if we're talking offence, Makarov isn't even close to Gretzky in Canada Cup play. If you want to talk defense, and plus/minus stats, that's an entirely different topic. (Incidentally, Gretzky has the highest plus/minust stats of any forward in the history of the NHL, and 4th overall, including defenseman, all time I believe, but again, that's a different topic altogether.) Jari Kurri or Sergei Fedorov was better than Gretzky defensively, too. Maybe we should be comparing Makarov with a Jari Kurri or a Sergei Fedorov instead?

 

[scott clam]

Pretty much this entire thread has been about comparing Makarov offensively to Gretzky/Lemieux. So if we're talking offence, Makarov isn't even close to Gretzky in Canada Cup play. If you want to talk defense, and plus/minus stats, that's an entirely different topic. (Incidentally, Gretzky has the highest plus/minust stats of any forward in the history of the NHL, and 4th overall, including defenseman, all time I believe, but again, that's a different topic altogether.) Jari Kurri or Sergei Fedorov was better than Gretzky defensively, too. Maybe we should be comparing Makarov with a Jari Kurri or a Sergei Fedorov instead?

Fedorov won the Selke and finished second to 33 year old Gretzky. I think the question is could Makarov do the same against 23 year old Gretzky? Or how close could he get?

 

[tazzy19]

Fedorov won the Selke and finished second to 33 year old Gretzky. I think the question is could Makarov do the same against 23 year old Gretzky? Or how close could he get?

Yes, that would be a great question. Keeping in mind this is a post-herniated disc (post "Gary Sutered") Gretzky who won the Art Ross at age 33 with 130 points (10 points more than a 24 year old Fedorov playing at the same time). Gretzky at age 24 or 27 or even age 30 would have scored anywhere between 160-215 points. Again, not close at all.

 

[JackSlater]

Makarov is obviously the superior player to Bernie Nicholls, but there were a lot of players who were better than Nicholls who never scored 150 points. And if I'm not mistaken, Bernie Nicholls was considered terrible on defense for most of his career.

Makarov on the other hand would be the best defensive forward in the league, hands down. And how many defensive forwards score that many points? Kurri topped out at around 130 so it's possible, but he was Gretzky's regular linemate. But since Nicholls is such a poor defensive forward, Makarov probably would be Gretzky's linemate in that fantasy scenario, so who knows?

It looks like quite a leap to claim that Makarov would be hands down the best defensive forward in the NHL. He looks solid defensively in Canada Cup games but not hands down better defensively than every other forward. If there is anything that indicates that Makarov was the clear cut best defensive forward in the Soviet league, which is the minimum I'd expect for him if he would have been the hands down best defensive forward in the NHL, then I'd love to see it. That's without even getting into the differences between how Soviet players and NHLers defended.

 

[scott clam]

Yes, that would be a great question. Keeping in mind this is a post-herniated disc (post "Gary Sutered") Gretzky who won the Art Ross at age 33 with 130 points (10 points more than a 24 year old Fedorov playing at the same time). Gretzky at age 24 or 27 or even age 30 would have scored anywhere between 160-215 points. Again, not close at all.

yeah, but Makarov would "only" have to score between 135 and 150 points to finish second in scoring. at least until Lemieux enters his prime.

 

[scott clam]

It looks like quite a leap to claim that Makarov would be hands down the best defensive forward in the NHL. He looks solid defensively in Canada Cup games but not hands down better defensively than every other forward. If there is anything that indicates that Makarov was the clear cut best defensive forward in the Soviet league, which is the minimum I'd expect for him if he would have been the hands down best defensive forward in the NHL, then I'd love to see it. That's without even getting into the differences between how Soviet players and NHLers defended.

Soviets were better defenders in the 1980s though. The forwards for sure. The best on best series against Canada have enough evidence of that.

Look at the guys who were winning Selkes in the 1980s: grinders. Superstar players weren't winning them. Except for Bobby Clarke, who's high scoring days were long over. If you want to argue Guy Carbonneau, for example, was a better defender than Makarov you can, but each player has a completely different role with different responsibilities.

it's like comparing Manute Bol with Hakeem Olajuwon.

 

[tazzy19]

yeah, but Makarov would "only" have to score between 135 and 150 points to finish second in scoring. at least until Lemieux enters his prime.

Yes, yet I still don't think things changed that much between 1991 and 1994. 1993 was actually a higher scoring season than either 1991 or 1994. Gretzky missed most of that season with the herniated disc. He then came back to score 40 points in the playoffs (4th highest in history) -- let's see Makarov or Fedorov ever do something like that! But they are better defensively, I'll give them that... I'll still take Gretzky though and his all time leading game winning playoff goals and 20 scoring titles (10 Art Ross's, 6 playoff scoring titles, 4 Canada Cup scoring titles...and that's not even including the World Championship and World Junior scoring titles). Craziness. That's another thing: People can say Makarov or Lemieux had great international performances. But no one say these players won EVERY single international scoring title during their primes. It's laughable really that we are even discussing this.

 

[scott clam]

Yes, yet I still don't think things changed that much between 1991 and 1994. 1993 was actually a higher scoring season than either 1991 or 1994. Gretzky missed most of that season with the herniated disc. He then came back to score 40 points in the playoffs (4th highest in history) -- let's see Makarov or Fedorov ever do something like that! But they are better defensively, I'll give them that... I'll still take Gretzky though and his all time leading game winning playoff goals and 20 scoring titles (10 Art Ross's, 6 playoff scoring titles, 4 Canada Cup scoring titles...and that's not even including the World Championship and World Junior scoring titles). Craziness. That's another thing: People can say Makarov or Lemieux had great international performances. But no one say these players won EVERY single international scoring title during their primes. It's laughable really that we are even discussing this.

1993 was a high scoring season, but 1994 wasn't really. 1994 also has no Lemieux, practically speaking.

And I'm not trying to argue Makarov is better than Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[tazzy19]

1993 was a high scoring season, but 1994 wasn't really. 1994 also has no Lemieux, practically speaking.

And I'm not trying to argue Makarov is better than Gretzky or Lemieux.

Yes, it's funny how some seasons end up being higher or lower scoring. Sometimes it just needs someone like Lemieux there to set the bar perhaps? Gretzky was out half the season the year before, but Mario had 160 points in 60 games I believe. Would love to have seen what Gretzky would've done that season had he not been hit by Gary Suter and had his back destroyed. He might have had another 200 point season for all we know. My guess is at least 180 with a proper back considering he scored 163 in a lower scoring year in 1991. Man I miss watching Gretzky and Lemieux play. Sorry to go off topic.