Iginla vs. Dickie Moore and Yvan Cournoyer

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I saw this debate in the thread about the best player who wore what number, and Iginla was voted the best to wear #12 which is one of the few I agreed with because I really haven't heard of any player as dominant as Iggy who wore 12.

I had heard of Dickie Moore but had no idea he wore 12. I also know of Cournoyer. All I know is they both played for Montreal, and Dickie Moore has two Art Ross trophies and had scored the most points ever in the regular season for a decent chunk of time.

Can anyone educate me on how these guys stack up to Iginla? How would you rank them?

Click to read more...

 

[jkrx]

Dickie Moore was definitly a bigger star than Iginla in my honest opinion and thats not me trying to put Iginla down. Moore were just simply and skillfully better. You could however make an arguement for Iginla being better in leadership and physical play. Cournoyer is in my books behind both of them.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Dickie Moore has been compared to Peter Forsberg, among modern players - short, spectacular peak, gritty, excellent all-round player, injury shortened career, never really "the man" on his team.

Moore was also a very good playoff performer (though not the best on his stacked team).

Historical canon often has Moore as a Top 30 or 40 player of all time, but I don't see it. I personally think the Forsberg comparison is more apt.

Still, I think Forsberg / Moore were both at least one step up from Iginla.

Cournoyer? Historical canon might rate him up there, but I don't see it. Great playoff performer, but only top 10 in points in the regular season twice (6th and 8th), despite spending much of his career playing on Beliveau's wing, I believe. He was also a defensive liability for the first half of his career, and was used mainly as a PP specialist. I would rate Iginla over Cournoyer, but I'm not sure how much higher. Cournoyer does make up the gap somewhat with his playoffs.

 

[JackSlater]

I think the order is Moore, Iginla and then Cournoyer, mainly because I value peak much more than career contribution. The gap between Moore and Iginla is smaller than the gap between Iginla and Cournoyer as Cournoyer was never really in the discussion of best forward in the world while Moore and Iginla were. I suspect that had Iginla been surrounded by a talented supporting cast, as Cournoyer and especially Moore were, he would be considered basically the equal of a player like Moore.

 

[matnor]

Dickie Moore has been compared to Peter Forsberg, among modern players - short, spectacular peak, gritty, excellent all-round player, injury shortened career, never really "the man" on his team.

Moore was also a very good playoff performer (though not the best on his stacked team).

Historical canon often has Moore as a Top 30 or 40 player of all time, but I don't see it. I personally think the Forsberg comparison is more apt.

Still, I think Forsberg / Moore were both at least one step up from Iginla.

At the risk of hijacking the thread: I've always been a bit puzzled by the Moore/Forsberg comparison. I'll admit right away that I know very little of Moore and am a biased Forsberg-fan so I hope someone can educate me a bit.

top-10 finishes in points:

Moore: 1,1,8,8
Forsberg: 1,2,4,5,9

top-10 PPG finishes:

Moore: 2,2,2,3,8
Forsberg: 1,1,2,4,5,6,6,9

Moore seems to have been elite for around five seasons while Forsberg was elite for around eight seasons. If we remove all non-Canadian players to account for the increasing competition Forsberg's top-10 finishes become 1,1,2,3,4,6,10 and his PPG-finishes become 1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,7,9, both vastly superior to Moore. I know there's more to hockey than stats so was Moore superior defensively or a better clutch player or is there something else I'm missing?

 

[seventieslord]

At the risk of hijacking the thread: I've always been a bit puzzled by the Moore/Forsberg comparison. I'll admit right away that I know very little of Moore and am a biased Forsberg-fan so I hope someone can educate me a bit.

top-10 finishes in points:

Moore: 1,1,8,8
Forsberg: 1,2,4,5,9

top-10 PPG finishes:

Moore: 2,2,2,3,8
Forsberg: 1,1,2,4,5,6,6,9

Moore seems to have been elite for around five seasons while Forsberg was elite for around eight seasons. If we remove all non-Canadian players to account for the increasing competition Forsberg's top-10 finishes become 1,1,2,3,4,6,10 and his PPG-finishes become 1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,7,9, both vastly superior to Moore. I know there's more to hockey than stats so was Moore superior defensively or a better clutch player or is there something else I'm missing?

- I don't think Moore was superior defensively. As I understand it, he was good, but nothing special. Much like Forsberg.

- As for clutch play, individually, I don't see anything that would place Moore ahead of Forsberg. He had a lot of playoff points for a lot of years but so did a lot of guys on those Habs teams. Relative to era, I think Forsberg and Moore are equally heroic in the playoffs.

- Physicality and grit are about equal, IMO.

- You did a good job showing that Forsberg has had more elite seasons and that those elite seasons were generally stronger. However, removing non-canadian players from the scoring charts isn't proper since there was no one in Europe in the late 1950s who would have challenged Dickie Moore. The best in the NHL was simply the best in the world. This was not the case in the 70s and 80s but it was in the 50s.

- Forsberg was definitely better in his non-elite years than Moore was in his.

- Forsberg was 1st, 7th, 8th, 11th, and 13th in Hart voting. Moore was 5th and 8th in years that he won the scoring title.

You've actually got me thinking that Forsberg should be universally regarded as better than Moore.

 

[matnor]

Thanks for your input!

However, removing non-canadian players from the scoring charts isn't proper since there was no one in Europe in the late 1950s who would have challenged Dickie Moore. The best in the NHL was simply the best in the world. This was not the case in the 70s and 80s but it was in the 50s.

Well, this depends on what criteria you want to use for ranking players. I definitely agree that the best in Canada was the best in the world in the 50s so if we want to measure performance relative to peers you are absolutely right.

However, my point is that the quality of Canadian players produced today is comparable to the quality of Canadian players in the fifties. If that's the case than the competition is tougher today since there is a lot of elite non-Canadian players playing which there wasn't in the fifties. I think it's reasonable to take that into account.

 

[arrbez]

You've actually got me thinking that Forsberg should be universally regarded as better than Moore.

He absolutely should be, and I think he generally is isn't he?

 

[JackSlater]

- You did a good job showing that Forsberg has had more elite seasons and that those elite seasons were generally stronger. However, removing non-canadian players from the scoring charts isn't proper since there was no one in Europe in the late 1950s who would have challenged Dickie Moore. The best in the NHL was simply the best in the world. This was not the case in the 70s and 80s but it was in the 50s.

It shouldn't matter that there wasn't European or American competition at the time. Removing all but the Canadians shows Forsberg's dominance relative to basically the same competition Moore faced. If you just look at Forsberg's placements compared to the whole NHL you are punishing him for facing a deeper talent pool.

 

[seventieslord]

He absolutely should be, and I think he generally is isn't he?

Moore actually finished 2 spots ahead of Forsberg on the 2009 HOH top-100 revision, so I'd say no.

 

[seventieslord]

It shouldn't matter that there wasn't European or American competition at the time. Removing all but the Canadians shows Forsberg's dominance relative to basically the same competition Moore faced. If you just look at Forsberg's placements compared to the whole NHL you are punishing him for facing a deeper talent pool.

that's not the way I see it. I think that in the 50s, if you placed 10th in the NHL in points, you could claim to be the 10th-best point producer in the world in that particular season. Probably for most of the 60s too. But not necessarily in the 70s, with Nedomansky, Hull, Howe, Tardif, Petrov, Mikhailov, Kharlamov, Martinec and Stastny outside the NHL. And not necessarily in the 80s with Makarov, Krutov, Larionov, Bykov, Lukac, Hlinka, and maybe a couple others outside the NHL. By about 1993 it was safe to say again that a top-10 finish in the NHL was like a top-10 worldwide finish. Forsberg didn't start his career until 1995 so I see them playing in the same landscape. We're only comparing top-10 finishes here, not top-20 or top-30 (which I would agree don't trasfer from era to era smoothly) and a top-10 is pretty close to the same value no matter when.

 

[matnor]

that's not the way I see it. I think that in the 50s, if you placed 10th in the NHL in points, you could claim to be the 10th-best point producer in the world in that particular season. Probably for most of the 60s too. But not necessarily in the 70s, with Nedomansky, Hull, Howe, Tardif, Petrov, Mikhailov, Kharlamov, Martinec and Stastny outside the NHL. And not necessarily in the 80s with Makarov, Krutov, Larionov, Bykov, Lukac, Hlinka, and maybe a couple others outside the NHL. By about 1993 it was safe to say again that a top-10 finish in the NHL was like a top-10 worldwide finish. Forsberg didn't start his career until 1995 so I see them playing in the same landscape. We're only comparing top-10 finishes here, not top-20 or top-30 (which I would agree don't trasfer from era to era smoothly) and a top-10 is pretty close to the same value no matter when.

Then you are essentially saying that being the 10th best player is equally good regardless of whether there are one thousand, ten thousand or even one million players playing hockey.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I like this matchup. I'd say Moore definately #1 and i'd have to say that Iginla & Cournoyer are close

 

[seventieslord]

Then you are essentially saying that being the 10th best player is equally good regardless of whether there are one thousand, ten thousand or even one million players playing hockey.

Essentially. Why should I care how many players are playing hockey? I care how many are playing at the top levels, and how good compared to an average player, or average star player, that 10th-best player is. And over the course of history, it has been a pretty stable ratio.

 

[JackSlater]

Essentially. Why should I care how many players are playing hockey? I care how many are playing at the top levels, and how good compared to an average player, or average star player, that 10th-best player is. And over the course of history, it has been a pretty stable ratio.

If we assume for the sake of simplicity that the talent level in Canada is basically consistent, when you add the various talented players from outside of Canada the talent level of the average player, or the average star player, has grown. If player A plays against only Canadians and player B plays against those same Canadians plus various non Canadian players that are talented, player B has to be better than player A to have a comparable ratio compared to the average player or average star. To think otherwise is illogical.

If for some reason everyone on Earth dropped dead except for Slovenians, would Kopitar suddenly be the greatest player ever because the ratio comparing him to the second best player in the world would be better than that of Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux in their primes?

 

[seventieslord]

If we assume for the sake of simplicity that the talent level in Canada is basically consistent, when you add the various talented players from outside of Canada the talent level of the average player, or the average star player, has grown. If player A plays against only Canadians and player B plays against those same Canadians plus various non Canadian players that are talented, player B has to be better than player A to have a comparable ratio compared to the average player or average star. To think otherwise is illogical.

If for some reason everyone on Earth dropped dead except for Slovenians, would Kopitar suddenly be the greatest player ever because the ratio comparing him to the second best player in the world would be better than that of Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux in their primes?

That is an absurd example. Comparing to the #2 player in the world is a generally valid comparison to make because the #2 player in the world at any given time, has been at a pretty constant level. That would not be the case if there were suddenly only Slovenians playing hockey.

 

[JackSlater]

That is an absurd example. Comparing to the #2 player in the world is a generally valid comparison to make because the #2 player in the world at any given time, has been at a pretty constant level. That would not be the case if there were suddenly only Slovenians playing hockey.

Of course that example is absurd. The purpose was to demonstrate that yes, it does matter how many people in the world are playing hockey and playing it at a high level. In Moore's time it may as well have been only Canadians that existed.

If you assume that the level of talent in hockey has always been basically constant, you would have to assume that the quality of players produced by Canada has gone down drastically, since nearly half of the players in the NHL, and possibly even more of the star players, have been non Canadian since roughly the mid 90's. I don't really see how anyone can argue that it is more difficult for players today to separate from the pack than it was in Moore's time, considering the amount of talented players coming from outside of Canada.

Here are Iginla's top ten point finishes against only Canadians:

1, 1, 3, 7, 9

Turns out to be a little bit better than Moore, although injuries clearly hindered Moore much more than they did Iginla.

 

[sundinE5]

Iginla is the best #12 because he's part indian so he doesn't have to pay taxes !

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

-
- You did a good job showing that Forsberg has had more elite seasons and that those elite seasons were generally stronger. However, removing non-canadian players from the scoring charts isn't proper since there was no one in Europe in the late 1950s who would have challenged Dickie Moore. The best in the NHL was simply the best in the world. This was not the case in the 70s and 80s but it was in the 50s.

I dont' think I agree with this line of reasoning. You are basically saying that the quality of Canadian NHLers went down as Europeans started challenging Canada for supremacy.

I think it's a very good case that Forsberg was actually better than Moore, as much as they flies in the face of historical canon.

- Forsberg was 1st, 7th, 8th, 11th, and 13th in Hart voting. Moore was 5th and 8th in years that he won the scoring title.

To be fair, Moore was at "a bit" of a disadvantage in Hart voting playing on the super-stacked team that he played on.

You've actually got me thinking that Forsberg should be universally regarded as better than Moore.

Yeah, I'm starting to think that too after reading his post.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Iginla is the best #12 because he's part indian so he doesn't have to pay taxes !

Indians DO pay taxes....

As for the topic, less Forsberg and more on-topic please? I think me and everyone else on HF have had Forsberg's accolades stuffed down our throats that we have them memorized at this point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Of course that example is absurd. The purpose was to demonstrate that yes, it does matter how many people in the world are playing hockey and playing it at a high level. In Moore's time it may as well have been only Canadians that existed.

If you assume that the level of talent in hockey has always been basically constant, you would have to assume that the quality of players produced by Canada has gone down drastically, since nearly half of the players in the NHL, and possibly even more of the star players, have been non Canadian since roughly the mid 90's. I don't really see how anyone can argue that it is more difficult for players today to separate from the pack than it was in Moore's time, considering the amount of talented players coming from outside of Canada.

Here are Iginla's top ten point finishes against only Canadians:

1, 1, 3, 7, 9

Turns out to be a little bit better than Moore, although injuries clearly hindered Moore much more than they did Iginla.

Regardless, even if Iginla's regular seasons slightly trump Moore's (and I'm not totally sure I agree they do...), Moore has a huge edge in playoffs which I think gives him the edge.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Then you are essentially saying that being the 10th best player is equally good regardless of whether there are one thousand, ten thousand or even one million players playing hockey.

And why not? We can only compare amongst players who are actually playing the game. There may be a billion people not playing hockey today that would be better than Sidney Crosby. That's not his problem, and him being the best in the world today is worth the same as being the best in the world in 1950. Could some of the European counties that had yet to take up the game at a high level have produced better players than Gordie Howe? Maybe, but there's no way of knowing for sure, and you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who actually was playing.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Regardless, even if Iginla's regular seasons slightly trump Moore's (and I'm not totally sure I agree they do...), Moore has a huge edge in playoffs which I think gives him the edge.

What exactly is the huge edge?

Iginla has lead his team in playoff scoring 4 of the 5 times the Flames have been in the playoffs under his captaincy and was 2nd in scoring once. Iginla's PPG is also .90, and GPG of .51.

Moore meanwhile has a PPG of .81, and a GPG of a paltry 0.34. Moore lead his team in playoff scoring only 4 of 14 times.

The only huge advantage Moore had was he played for the Montreal Canadiens.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What exactly is the huge edge?

Iginla has lead his team in playoff scoring 4 of the 5 times the Flames have been in the playoffs under his captaincy and was 2nd in scoring once. Iginla's PPG is also .90, and GPG of .51.

Moore meanwhile has a PPG of .81, and a GPG of a paltry 0.34. Moore lead his team in playoff scoring only 4 of 14 times.

The only huge advantage Moore had was he played for the Montreal Canadiens.

A comparison of raw playoff points per game across eras is pretty worthless.

And "leading his team in playoff scoring" is giving Iginla bonus points for playing on a worse team. Dickie Moore was losing out guys like Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, and Bernard Geoffrion. When Beliveau and Richard were both injured in 1959, Moore stepped up and led the playoffs in scoring with 17 points in 11 games.

Dickie Moore had the 2nd most playoff points of any player in the 1950s. And regardless of the team he played on, that's pretty damn impressive.

 

[JackSlater]

Regardless, even if Iginla's regular seasons slightly trump Moore's (and I'm not totally sure I agree they do...), Moore has a huge edge in playoffs which I think gives him the edge.

I didn't say that Iginla's regular season results trump those of Moore. I was mainly showing that they were comparable, at least in terms of offensive production. As I said earlier I still consider Moore to be superior.

I don't know how much consideration I would give to playoff performance with these two players. Iginla generally played on middling Calgary teams, while Moore played on the greatest team in hockey history. As a result, Iginla only had one playoff run that extended beyond the first round while Moore had seven. That being said, Moore's playoff results were somewhat more impressive, though not hugely so. I believe a playoff comparison would be much more valuable when comparing Moore and Cournoyer.