Makarov vs. Beliveau

[Sentinel]

I could never quite understand everyone's love for the 50s Habs stars. Richard really dropped in my rankings lately. Now I'm trying to wrap my mind about Beliveau.

His numbers:

12x Top 10 Points: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9
10x Top 10 Goals: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9
11x Top 10 Assists: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10

11x Top 10 Points NHL Playoffs: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 9
9x Top 10 Goals NHL Playoffs: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 8
10x Top 10 Assists NHL Playoffs: 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7

Hart Trophy Voting: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4
All-Star Team Voting: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3

2x Hart Trophy winner (1956, 1964)
1x Art Ross Trophy (1956)
2x Conn Smythe Trophy winner (1959 retro Smythe, 1965)
6x First All-Star Team (1955-1957, 1959-1961)
4x Second All-Star Team (1958, 1964, 1966, 1969)

=====
Now let's look at Sergei Makarov:

Soviet League MVP: 3x (1980, 1985, 1989)
Soviet Player of the Year Voting: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 9
Soviet League Most Points: 9x (1980-82, 1984-89)
Soviet League Most Goals: 3x (1980-81, 1989)
Soviet 1st Team AS: 10x (1979-88)
Soviet Best Line: 8x (1981-1987, 1989)
CC AS Team: 1984,
Izvestia Golden Stick: 3x (1980, 1986, 1989)
WC Best Forward: 2x (1979, 1985)
WC All Star Team: 8x (1979, 1981-83, 1985-87, 1989)
WC Most Points: 3x (1983, 1985, 1986)
WC Most Goals: 2x (1979, 1983)

That's 3 "Soviet Harts" to 2 Harts, 9 "Soviet Art Rosses" to 1, and 9 Soviet AST to 6 AST.

Their two-way play is a toss-up because, as good as Beliveau was (from what I've read), Makarov was phenomenal.

Beliveau probably has Makarov on longevity, but, as we all know, Makarov's NHL career must be taken with an asterisk because of his "fish out of water" situation (different language, different training, different league, different life), and he didn't do too bad for himself.

I get it: Beliveau is a legend, especially in Quebec. But Makarov is also pah-retty darn popular in his home country. Is there a way, without Canadian or Russian bias, to compare them side-by-side?

Click to read more...

 

[NyQuil]

My first impression is that you have to look at the competition during their respective playing eras, particularly for individual awards.

 

[Sentinel]

My first impression is that you have to look at the competition during their respective playing eras, particularly for individual awards.

Sure, in the Soviet league Makarov only had to compete against Krutov, Larionov, Fetisov, Tretiak, and Drozdetsky. Belivau's competition was a lot stiffer. BUT.

1. He surpassed them all and not by small margin (except Tretiak).

2. Soviet clubs in Makarov's time routinely toured the NHL. Makarov routinely played against NHLers in both national team and CSKA. And it's pretty clear that he was the 2nd best forward in the early 80s and at worst 3rd best forward in the late 80s. We can draw some conclusions from it on the global scale, can we not?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All other things being equal, Beliveau was a superstar for basically twice as long.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I could never quite understand everyone's love for the 50s Habs stars. Richard really dropped in my rankings lately. Now I'm trying to wrap my mind about Beliveau.

you'll get them all someday

Sure, in the Soviet league Makarov only had to compete against Krutov, Larionov, Fetisov, Tretiak, and Drozdetsky. Belivau's competition was a lot stiffer. BUT.

1. He surpassed them all and not by small margin (except Tretiak).

are we really finally at the point where makarov has clearly eclipsed fetisov? it just doesn't feel right to me, but then i wasn't there.

 

[Sentinel]

All other things being equal, Beliveau was a superstar for basically twice as long.

OK, I'll buy that, even though I specifically addressed that point in my OP, about Makarov's post-Soviet career.

But can we just dismiss Beliveau's single Art Ross and Makarov's NINE? Maybe Beliveau was a superstar for longer, but Makarov was #1 a lot more often.

are we really finally at the point where makarov has clearly eclipsed fetisov? it just doesn't feel right to me, but then i wasn't there.

One at at time, please.

Fetisov simply had no competition. It seems like the Soviet system was able to produce them one at a time (Ragulin - Vasiliev - Fetisov). Yet he still managed to win only two "Best Player" awards to Makarov's three.

 

[tarheelhockey]

All other things being equal, Beliveau was a superstar for basically twice as long.

Yeah, this is what it comes down to for me. I can buy them being the same caliber of player, but we're talking about a huge difference in longevity.

Also, it's worth noting that Makarov ended up #6 on the wingers list in 2015 and #26 on the overall list in 2020 (meaning Ovechkin has now passed him as a winger). Beliveau ended up #3 among centers and #6 among players. Unless we are dropping Beliveau all the way down to something #7-8 and #25-30 on those lists, we run into a logical contradiction that he could be on the same level as Makarov.

 

[JackSlater]

I prefer Beliveau. Tremendous peak, great longevity, well rounded play, versatile enough to have success with many linemates, noted for his leadership. A handful of extra games played in two other seasons and we're probably talking about a three time scoring leader rather than on, whatever that's worth. I do think that the biggest factor in this comparison is that even in his late 30s Beliveau was one of the best players in the world. I don't think that Makarov's longevity is bad given the context of his situation but Beliveau has a clear edge. I've give it to Makarov if he had clearly the best peak between the two of them but that isn't the case.

 

[Sentinel]

I prefer Beliveau. Tremendous peak, great longevity, well rounded play, versatile enough to have success with many linemates, noted for his leadership. A handful of extra games played in two other seasons and we're probably talking about a three time scoring leader rather than on, whatever that's worth. I do think that the biggest factor in this comparison is that even in his late 30s Beliveau was one of the best players in the world. I don't think that Makarov's longevity is bad given the context of his situation but Beliveau has a clear edge. I've give it to Makarov if he had clearly the best peak between the two of them but that isn't the case.

I don't see what's "tremendous" about Jean's peak. He only has ONE Art Ross and lost FOUR of them to his teammates.

As for versatility... this can work on others, but not on Makarov. The man was as well-rounded as it gets.

The only thing that Beliveau has on Makarov is longevity, but isn't Makarov's prime CLEARLY superior? At least Makarov didn't lose scoring titles to his teammates, year after year.

I have them both in Top 10, but now I'm starting to think that Beliveau needs to come down a notch.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Knocking down seven top-3 finishes in points as "ONE Art Ross" but giving Makarov "nine Soviet Art Rosses" is a classic screw job...

I think if you went back and watched Beliveau, I have to assume it would all make sense pretty quickly...

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't see what's "tremendous" about Jean's peak. He only has ONE Art Ross and lost FOUR of them to his teammates.

This is a bit too much of a shorthand for his actual performance. Let's look a little more closely at how he got there.

1954-55

	GP	Scoring
Bernie Geoffrion	70	38-37-75
Maurice Richard	67	38-36-74
Jean Beliveau	70	37-36-73

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm not inclined to hold this against him. It was his first full season, and the line was a 3-headed monster. A couple of points in either direction was not statistically significant.

1955-56

	GP	Scoring
Jean Beliveau	70	47-41-88
Gordie Howe	70	38-41-79
Maurice Richard	70	38-33-71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As Art Ross wins go, this is a pretty strong one. At the time, 88 points was the second highest total ever, behind Howe's outlier 95-point season. Note that Beliveau was clearly the primary driver of offense despite playing with Richard, who was named 1AS that season.

1956-57

	GP	Scoring
Gordie Howe	70	44-45-89
Ted Lindsay	70	30-55-85
Jean Beliveau	69	33-51-84

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Again there's nothing problematic here. Beliveau's highest scoring teammate, Richard, had only 62 points and missed several games. I'm not holding it against him that he didn't score 5 more points in this context.

1958-59

	GP	Scoring
Dickie Moore	70	41-55-96
Jean Beliveau	64	45-46-91
Andy Bathgate	70	40-48-88

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For my money, this has the same value as a Ross win.

1959-60

	GP	Scoring
Bobby Hull	70	39-42-81
Bronco Horvath	68	39-41-80
Andy Bathgate	70	26-48-74
Jean Beliveau	60	34-40-74

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As in the previous season, he paced to win the Ross.

1960-61

	GP	Scoring
Bernie Geoffrion	64	50-45-95
Jean Beliveau	69	32-58-90
Frank Mahovlich	70	48-36-84

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This was by far and away the biggest season of Geoffrion's career. I think it would be fair to say Beliveau received something of a boost from that. I think it would also be fair to say there's no shame finishing second to a guy who completely went supernova.

1963-64

	GP	Scoring
Stan Mikita	70	39-50-89
Bobby Hull	70	43-44-87
Jean Beliveau	68	28-50-78

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Beliveau is 32 years old by now. As a 2020 comparison, this is like if Sidney Crosby had finished 3rd behind Draisaitl and McDavid. It's not a feather in his cap, but it's also hard to imagine a reality where it could have turned out any differently.

1965-66

	GP	Scoring
Bobby Hull	65	54-43-97
Stan Mikita	68	30-48-78
Bobby Rousseau	70	30-48-78
Jean Beliveau	67	29-48-77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Same dynamics as the prior season. A 34-year-old Beliveau being the third-biggest threat in the league, only behind two top-tier HOF'ers, is not a bad thing. Note that if we take both players' 34-year-old season and adjust the numbers for era, Beliveau outscored Makarov 81 to 49 in four fewer games.



In sum, I don't see a whole lot to criticize here. Characterizing him as a 1-time Ross winner makes it sound like he's in a category with Jamie Benn or something. He lost two Rosses to minor injuries, and one to Geoffrion's career year. He also finished behind Howe or Hull a total of 4 seasons, and I can't see Makarov doing any differently.

 

[overpass]

This is a bit too much of a shorthand for his actual performance. Let's look a little more closely at how he got there.

1954-55

	GP	Scoring
Bernie Geoffrion	70	38-37-75
Maurice Richard	67	38-36-74
Jean Beliveau	70	37-36-73

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm not inclined to hold this against him. It was his first full season, and the line was a 3-headed monster. A couple of points in either direction was not statistically significant.

1955-56

	GP	Scoring
Jean Beliveau	70	47-41-88
Gordie Howe	70	38-41-79
Maurice Richard	70	38-33-71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As Art Ross wins go, this is a pretty strong one. At the time, 88 points was the second highest total ever, behind Howe's outlier 95-point season. Note that Beliveau was clearly the primary driver of offense despite playing with Richard, who was named 1AS that season.ic here. Beliveau's highest scoring teammate, Richard, had only 62 points and missed several games. I'm not holding it against him that he didn't score 5 more points in this context.

Beliveau normally only played with Maurice Richard on the power play. His linemates for these seasons were Bert Olmstead and Bernard Geoffrion. M. Richard was centred by Ken Mosdell and then Henri Richard.

 

[FerrisRox]

I definitely value finishing top five in NHL scoring (in a six-team league) much higher than leading the Russian league in scoring... Is the OP suggesting that they are somehow equal?

Also... I fail to see what's so terrible about being outscored by a teammate. What's the issue?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Equivalent numbers for Makarov's 9 first place finishes:

1979-80

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	43	29-39-68
Helmut Balderis	41	26-35-61
Viktor Shalimov	44	34-19-53

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1980-81

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	?	42-37-79
Sergei Kapustin	?	36-25-61
Nikolai Drozdetsky	?	30-28-58

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1981-82

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	46	32-43-75
Alexander Kozhevnikov	47	43-28-71
Vladimir Krutov	46	37-29-66

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1983-84

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	44	36-37-73
Vladimir Krutov	44	37-20-57
Nikolai Drozdetsky	44	31-20-51

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1984-85

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	40	26-39-65
Vladimir Krutov	40	23-30-53
Helmut Balderis	39	31-20-51

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1985-86

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	40	30-32-62
Igor Larionov	40	21-31-52
Vladimir Krutov	40	31-17-48

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1986-87

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	40	21-32-53
Vladimir Krutov	39	26-24-50
Igor Larionov	39	20-26-46

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1987-88

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	51	23-45-68
Igor Larionov	51	25-32-57
Nikolai Sukhanov	43	22-29-51

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1988-89

	GP	Scoring
Sergei Makarov	44	21-33-54
Vladimir Krutov	35	20-21-41
Anatoly Chistyakov	43	9-31-40

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Foolishly, I made these tables without a "teams" column. So I highlighted in blue the names of players who were not Makarov's teammates.

Certainly I think we can say even from a brief glance at the numbers that Makarov was by far and away the dominant scorer in the league. Nobody else comes close in most of these seasons, including his own linemates.

The potential criticism here is that only the following players on this list were named on our top-50 non-NHL European list:

#2 Makarov - CSKA
#15 Krutov - CSKA
#18 Larionov - CSKA
#23 Balderis - CSKA in '79, Riga in '85
#31 Kapustin - Moscow Spartak
#43 Shalimov - Moscow Spartak

So it appears that in only 3 out of 9 seasons was Makarov actually challenged by top-level talent that wasn't playing for his own team. This brings into question whether this was really a race with a bunch of legitimate challengers from the rest of the league, or simply a race with 2 or 3 of his own teammates.

In any case, this dynamic is quite different from trying to beat Richard, Howe, Hull for the title. Makarov was the only player in his league that offered such a level of competition, as opposed to Beliveau having to go head-to-head against players like that every year.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think it's that unorthodox to prefer a player who actually WINS something to a player who is consistently in the Top 3. Not to take anything away from Beliveau, but Makarov actually DID win and was, like you said, far and away the best player.

Internationally, he was consistently on top, second only to Gretzky. Which is not a bad place to be.

Speaking of Gretzky: we know he tore apart the NHL. He also tore up international tournaments, confirming that his mastery was not NHL-specific. Makarov tore up international tournaments, so can't you make the inferrence that his mastery was not Soviet league-specific?

Can you hold it against Makarov that he didn't play against other dynasties? Well, he did (against Oilers, Islanders, and Canadiens), and he has demonstrated he was quite on their level and beyond (his hat-trick against the Habs was pretty telling). It's a small sample, but we make bigger leaps than that when comparing, say Morenz to Howe.

It seems to me that everybody here accepts as an axiom that the Soviet league was weaker than the NHL, and therefore the 9x scoring winner of the former should not be treated with the same respect that a 1x scoring leader (and consistently top 3 member) of the latter. It's not like Makarov was a one time winner that was not confirmed by the international success (like Mozyakin this century). Makarov delivered internationally at the same level as domestically. So I believe it's fairly easy to make that inferrence.

The only question mark is "what if Makarov adapted better to the NHL". It's really the only area where I am inclined to give the benefit of a doubt to Beliveau. He did age extremely well, although, for my money, the comptetion in the 90s was much stiffer than in the 60s. There was simply too many stars then. But that's fine: I'm giving Beliveau longevity here. But how can we not give prime to Makarov?

 

[JackSlater]

I don't see what's "tremendous" about Jean's peak. He only has ONE Art Ross and lost FOUR of them to his teammates.

As for versatility... this can work on others, but not on Makarov. The man was as well-rounded as it gets.

The only thing that Beliveau has on Makarov is longevity, but isn't Makarov's prime CLEARLY superior? At least Makarov didn't lose scoring titles to his teammates, year after year.

I have them both in Top 10, but now I'm starting to think that Beliveau needs to come down a notch.

Beliveau has a very clear peak with his 1956 season in which he blew everyone away in the regular season and playoffs. It rivals pretty much any season outside of Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux/Howe in NHL history. As I said in the post that you quoted, Beliveau was versatile enough to find success with a variety of linemates. He was the centrepiece of two different dynasties and played with a wide variety of players and was always excellent. Maybe Makarov could have been used in a similar way, I don't know, but I do know with Beliveau. This isn't a slight on Makarov either and I know that Makarov did have success before KLM, but it is it plus for Beliveau.

I don't think that Makarov's prime is CLEARLY superior. He was likely the best or second best player in the Soviet league during the 80s. Beliveau was likely the best or second best player in the NHL for the decade from the mid 50s to the mid 60s. I'm pretty confident that the late era six team NHL was stronger than the 80s Soviet league but even if we call that a draw Beliveau did more outside of that window. Makarov leading the Soviet league in scoring as many times as he did is extremely impressive. He is a great player after all. Beliveau probably leads the NHL in scoring three times, or at least twice, with marginally better health. Makarov has the edge in bullet points in that regard but I don't view it as that basic a counting exercise. I also don't particularly care that Beliveau lost the Art Ross to linemates multiple times or that Makarov lost the Soviet MVP to linemates multiple times.

 

[Fatass]

these two player’s aren’t even close by comparison.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

you'll get them all someday



are we really finally at the point where makarov has clearly eclipsed fetisov? it just doesn't feel right to me, but then i wasn't there.

Nope.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think it's that unorthodox to prefer a player who actually WINS something to a player who is consistently in the Top 3. Not to take anything away from Beliveau, but Makarov actually DID win and was, like you said, far and away the best player.

Internationally, he was consistently on top, second only to Gretzky. Which is not a bad place to be.

Speaking of Gretzky: we know he tore apart the NHL. He also tore up international tournaments, confirming that his mastery was not NHL-specific. Makarov tore up international tournaments, so can't you make the inferrence that his mastery was not Soviet league-specific?

Can you hold it against Makarov that he didn't play against other dynasties? Well, he did (against Oilers, Islanders, and Canadiens), and he has demonstrated he was quite on their level and beyond (his hat-trick against the Habs was pretty telling). It's a small sample, but we make bigger leaps than that when comparing, say Morenz to Howe.

It seems to me that everybody here accepts as an axiom that the Soviet league was weaker than the NHL, and therefore the 9x scoring winner of the former should not be treated with the same respect that a 1x scoring leader (and consistently top 3 member) of the latter. It's not like Makarov was a one time winner that was not confirmed by the international success (like Mozyakin this century). Makarov delivered internationally at the same level as domestically. So I believe it's fairly easy to make that inferrence.

The only question mark is "what if Makarov adapted better to the NHL". It's really the only area where I am inclined to give the benefit of a doubt to Beliveau. He did age extremely well, although, for my money, the comptetion in the 90s was much stiffer than in the 60s. There was simply too many stars then. But that's fine: I'm giving Beliveau longevity here. But how can we not give prime to Makarov?

That all seems like a reasonable rebuttal.

The way we "tier" players, we tend to have a group of about 10 players below the Big Four which are interchangeable based on opinion -- like Hasek and Roy for example, or the defenseman cluster of Shore/Harvey/Bourque/Lidstrom. Beliveau is universally ranked inside that category, and he tends to be ranked at or near the top of that tier along with Bobby Hull and the highest-ranked goalie.

He gets such a ranking largely based on his longevity and multi-dynasty roles, his leadership, the fact that he is the top non-Big-4 centerman (though I think this will change soon with Crosby overtaking him), the fact that he played in the competitive Original Six era (as opposed to Morenz, Esposito, Clarke), and the absolutely immense amount of respect he earned from the hockey world. Which is to say, the difference between Beliveau being a consensus top-7 as opposed to top-15 comes down largely to "soft" factors rather than stats or awards.

Whereas the soft factors work against Makarov -- he's typically ranked somewhere in the Lafleur/Ovechkin tier, but he tends to be ranked on the lower end of that tier (around #30-ish) because of questions around competition, a career cut short by international events, the fact that he's usually not viewed through a leadership prism, and perhaps subconsciously by the fact that most of us have never heard him speak.

Now I'm not saying it's wrong to rank players on soft factors. Roles matter, longevity matters, leadership matters, competition level matters. But I do think it's possible to rate those factors differently, and therefore hold Beliveau a little lower within his tier, and Makarov a little higher within his tier, and suddenly they're closer than a conventional ranking would have them. And that's largely based on Makarov's overwhelming record during his prime.

 

[Sentinel]

Makarov's CSKA dynasty was not that far behind. In fact, I don't really see how it is inferior to the 70s Habs. Sure, CSKA won the title year afer year, but other Soviet clubs boasted some pretty good players that were routinely called to the national team and dominated there (Maltsev, Tyumenev, Shepelev, Skvortsov, Kozhevnikov, Kovin, Varnakov, Nemchinov, the Golikovs, etc.). Sure, Makarov was better than all of them. Everything you could ask of him, he did. Over and over again. Don't forget the Calder trophy And don't forget that long before the KLM line, Makarov was awesome in the ChC-79 with the Golikov brothers whom he had never seen until that tournament.

I give longevity and leadership to Beliveau.

I don't think there can be an argument for Lafleur over Makarov. Makarov's prime was clearly longer, and face-to-face Makarov crushed him.

I realize that people here, mostly being North Americans, are far better familiar with Beliveau's legacy than with Makarov's. After all, he is underrated even in his homeland. But, given that Makarov is actually closer to our time, and there is plenty of visual evidence, I think we should be able to put aside tradition and bias and accept Makarov for a phenomenon that he was.

 

[Sentinel]

All other things being equal, Beliveau was a superstar for basically twice as long.

Btw, that's a stretch. Believau's prime was 1954-1969. Makarov's was 1979-1992 (last year when Makarov was over a PPG player, although in next year's playoffs he was still deadly). That's 15 years vs. 13.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

you'll get them all someday



are we really finally at the point where makarov has clearly eclipsed fetisov? it just doesn't feel right to me, but then i wasn't there.

We should be.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I give longevity and leadership to Beliveau.

I don't think there can be an argument for Lafleur over Makarov. Makarov's prime was clearly longer, and face-to-face Makarov crushed him.

I realize that people here, mostly being North Americans, are far better familiar with Beliveau's legacy than with Makarov's. After all, he is underrated even in his homeland. But, given that Makarov is actually closer to our time, and there is plenty of visual evidence, I think we should be able to put aside tradition and bias and accept Makarov for a phenomenon that he was.

There's a huge gap in leadership department.

 

[Sentinel]

There's a huge gap in leadership department.

Leadership in Soviet Union was a thankless and often perilous job. I can't name a single Soviet player known for his "leadership," except Larionov.

At any rate, leadership is EXTREMELY hard to quantify, because, let's face it: none of us was there in the lockeroom.

 

[decma]

Don't we have a fairly sizable sample of Makarov data vs NHL competition?

If there is doubt about the validity of his CKSA data due to quality of competition, and of his Cgy/SJ data because of age and adjustment issues, we would still at least have several dozen games of prime Makarov against regular NHL teams or teams comprised largely or entirely of NHL players (at Rendez-Vous, Canada Cup, World Championships, etc). Has anyone compiled his statistics in those games?