Makarov vs. Beliveau

[Theokritos]

Imagine the world had collective amnesia of everything Ilya Kovalchuk did in the NHL up to his return to the KHL. Imagine you have a 2 time Gagarin Cup winner, MVP, ridiculous scoring exploits, numerous gold medals in the World Cup, Olympics, WJCs. Imagine that Youtube highlight reel from another planet. Imagine all the online hype about this player being the cross between a Pavel Bure and an Owen Nolan. Imagine all the hype around that player, the speculation whether he's as good as an NHL star like Ovechkin or Malkin.

Except that all of them (Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Malkin etc) play in the KHL in our scenario and everything Kovalchuk achieves there is achieved in direct comparison with Ovechkin and Malkin.

 

[FerrisRox]

If you think they were "silly exhibition games," I have nothing to tell you.

Then you have nothing to tell me, cause I watched countless numbers of those games and with very few exceptions, they were like pre-season games with nothing at stake.

 

[Sentinel]

Then you have nothing to tell me, cause I watched countless numbers of those games and with very few exceptions, they were like pre-season games with nothing at stake.

This nonsense is not even worth debunking. Your opinion has been duly noted. Thank you.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Then you have nothing to tell me, cause I watched countless numbers of those games and with very few exceptions, they were like pre-season games with nothing at stake.

Classic excuse:

We weren't really trying.

 

[JackSlater]

The results of the NHL vs Soviet exhibition games don't do anything for Makarov really. The WHA had a winning record against NHL teams without adding reinforcements, and I don't think people are going to advocate for Tardif and his two scoring titles and two MVPs based on this. Makarov is proven enough based on how he played.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Second of all, we did see what Sergei Makarov was all about in the NHL. He was a great veteran player who put up a quality rookie year at 31 and quickly declined over a half dozen seasons. But you also can't have it both ways. You don't get to say you're a top 10 all time great and then give an excuse about how you're a fish out of water. Your greatness has to be undeniable, and Makarkov was underwhelming given how late in the game he arrived to North America. Doesn't give us a full picture.

This is the one that - as someone who has slowly watched Makarov ascend from Toe Blake to Jean Beliveau on HOH - is the hardest to get past. He’s just won 9 of the last 10 scoring titles and he joins not just the best NHL team but the best offensive one and he’s... comparable offensively to rookie/sophomore Sergei Fedorov? That’s not, like, a bad thing or anything, but I just think that being the #1 or #1a in terms of Russian players for a decade isn’t always necessarily the highest bar to clear, particularly on a team that is so loaded for bear that you almost can’t have an underwhelming season.

 

[Staniowski]

They're both spectacular hockey players.

Beliveau's talent was really incredible. He was extremely fast, a great stickhandler, and had great shots.

But I do think that Makarov was a better scorer than Beliveau, and perhaps a better scorer than anybody from the O6 (based on the games I've seen). Makarov was a machine. He always played well, and he really improved his game from the late '70s, into the early '80s. His skating, puck skills, work ethic, intelligence, etc. were super-elite.

Makarov had a bit more substance to his game than Beliveau, a bit more intensity, a bit more smarts, and better puck skills.

 

[Sentinel]

Classic excuse:

We weren't really trying.

Right? When Canada beats Russia, it's "war" (as per Phil Esposito). If it loses to Russia, it's "meaningless exposition game."

This is the one that - as someone who has slowly watched Makarov ascend from Toe Blake to Jean Beliveau on HOH - is the hardest to get past. He’s just won 9 of the last 10 scoring titles and he joins not just the best NHL team but the best offensive one and he’s... comparable offensively to rookie/sophomore Sergei Fedorov? That’s not, like, a bad thing or anything, but I just think that being the #1 or #1a in terms of Russian players for a decade isn’t always necessarily the highest bar to clear, particularly on a team that is so loaded for bear that you almost can’t have an underwhelming season.

Again: he was an over 1 PPG player for another three years in a much harder league than Beliveau's. Makarov aged better than Lafleur FWIW.

And again, Makarov's team was loaded and he repeatedly came out on top of it. Without exception.

Also, although that's a theme for another thread, Krutov had no tail end to his career at all, but neither did Mike Bossy, and they both had incredible primes.

 

[wetcoast]

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

I actually think that they are closer than you are giving Makarov credit for here.

In the best on best tournaments of the 80's there was Gretzky, then Markarov then everyone else.

I prefer Jean here as while Makarov was quite good when he came to the NHL Jean remained great in his waning days, even if part of that can be put into context of his team and situation, ie the Dynasty Habs versus Calgary and Terry Crisp circa early 90s.

 

[wetcoast]

There's a huge gap in leadership department.

Well for one thing "leadership" is often vastly over rated and a real "soft" factor like tarheelhockey points out in post 10 of this thread but that's a subjective individual evaluation to be sure.

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.

this is an important point as "leadership" in the NHL and Soviet Communist systems are completely different animals and extremely hard to compare in a fair manner IMO.

Also the part in bold is very important as alot of the whole "leadership" equation is cliche and so hard to evaluate.

When a team wins there are always quotes about how player A<B and C were "inspired" by leadership form the captain or another well known leader on the team but we have no way to know if it actually caused or did anything different.

In short leadership is a narrative and is always present on winning teams and is part of the NHL and hockey culture.

Does anyone really know or follow who the captains are for teams in the NHL, NBA and MLB?

Are these less competitive sports than the NHL and/or does leadership matter less in those sports than in hockey?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well for one thing "leadership" is often vastly over rated and a real "soft" factor like tarheelhockey points out in post 10 of this thread but that's a subjective individual evaluation to be sure.




this is an important point as "leadership" in the NHL and Soviet Communist systems are completely different animals and extremely hard to compare in a fair manner IMO.

Also the part in bold is very important as alot of the whole "leadership" equation is cliche and so hard to evaluate.

When a team wins there are always quotes about how player A<B and C were "inspired" by leadership form the captain or another well known leader on the team but we have no way to know if it actually caused or did anything different.

In short leadership is a narrative and is always present on winning teams and is part of the NHL and hockey culture.

Does anyone really know or follow who the captains are for teams in the NHL, NBA and MLB?

Are these less competitive sports than the NHL and/or does leadership matter less in those sports than in hockey?

We're speaking about Jean Beliveau here, The Captain. Cannot compare to more recent times.

Not hard to evaluate. Not cliche. Nothing but positives about the guy.

 

[Iapyi]

Right? When Canada beats Russia, it's "war" (as per Phil Esposito). If it loses to Russia, it's "meaningless exposition game."


Again: he was an over 1 PPG player for another three years in a much harder league than Beliveau's. Makarov aged better than Lafleur FWIW.

And again, Makarov's team was loaded and he repeatedly came out on top of it. Without exception.

Also, although that's a theme for another thread, Krutov had no tail end to his career at all, but neither did Mike Bossy, and they both had incredible primes.

FWIW? How about absolutely NOTHING. Especially in this bogus comparison that's being attempted.

Comparing Player A to Player B and commenting that Player B supposedly "aged" better then Player G = a dishonourable methodology.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At least compare him to Guy Lafleur so we can have an intelligible conversation.

Just looking at Beliveau's Hart record vs. Makarov's "Soviet player of the year" record, we get:

Béliveau: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4
Makarov: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 9

Even if we were to equalize those two awards, Makarov barely comes out ahead, and then Makarov is not as good defensively, is not as big in size and is not as tough, is not as great a leader, is not as good a playoff performer (though he was good) and (although only relevant in terms of responsabilities) plays a less important position.

And Béliveau got this Hart record playing in one of the toughest eras of all-time, competing with the likes of Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull.

 

[Fatass]

I actually think that they are closer than you are giving Makarov credit for here.

In the best on best tournaments of the 80's there was Gretzky, then Markarov then everyone else.

I prefer Jean here as while Makarov was quite good when he came to the NHL Jean remained great in his waning days, even if part of that can be put into context of his team and situation, ie the Dynasty Habs versus Calgary and Terry Crisp circa early 90s.

You’re entitled to an opinion on the topic, but I see differently. Makarov played on the (basically) the Russian National Team, which competed in a pseudo league that only existed to support the National team players. We saw what he really was as a player when he got to a real league. He was good, but not great, and certainly not anywhere near Belliveau.
I recommend you read Igor Larinov’s book.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I'm not confident picking any forward over Makarov except Gretzky and Mario.

 

[wetcoast]

No generosity needed for Beliveau - he was an superstar-calibre player in the NHL for 18 years.

Makarov couldn't even finish top 10 in scoring in the much-weaker-than-the-NHL Soviet league before 1980. So the 1979 WCs were Makarov's coming-out party; that still doesn't retroactively make him an elite player for the 1978-79 season. How can you possible compare that to Beliveau finishing 6th in points-per-game in the NHL, likely with limited PP time too, as Montreal still had Lach?

It sucks for Makarov's legacy that he had to adjust to the NHL at the age of 31, but the man finished 29th in NHL scoring without missing any games. 28th in NHL scoring in his age 32 season. 53rd in his age 33 season (albeit with 12 games missed). Beliveau, at 39, finished 9th in the NHL in scoring, before having yet another fantastic playoff run. The way these men aged isn't even remotely close.

I mean, if you really want to insist Makarov got screwed, it's 18-13 in favor of Beliveau, but again, that's giving Makarov the complete benefit of the doubt in a what-if situation. Beliveau doesn't have any such what-ifs.

You are trying way to hard to underplay the context for Makarov in 78-79.

He played RW as a 20 year old behind 2 elite National team members in their primes for CSKA Moscow that year.

The year before at 19 he led his team Traktor Chelyabinsk in scoring with a respectable 31 points and not a single scorer in the Russian league aged 23 and under scored more points than he did at age 19.

Also the comparison in how they aged needs context in 70-71 the Habs scored tons of goals in games against expansion and recent expansion teams.

I don't have the numbers for Beliveau game by game but the actual difference between how they aged needs some context.

For the record i think Jean needs to be ranked higher all time but the spread is probably less than 10-15 spots overall and even less if just among forwards.

 

[Stephen]

At least compare him to Guy Lafleur so we can have an intelligible conversation.

Just looking at Beliveau's Hart record vs. Makarov's "Soviet player of the year" record, we get:

Béliveau: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4
Makarov: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 9

Even if we were to equalize those two awards, Makarov barely comes out ahead, and then Makarov is not as good defensively, is not as big in size and is not as tough, is not as great a leader, is not as good a playoff performer (though he was good) and (although only relevant in terms of responsabilities) plays a less important position.

And Béliveau got this Hart record playing in one of the toughest eras of all-time, competing with the likes of Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull.

Another human factor to consider here regarding Makarov's MVP awards and nominations is his MVP competitors were mostly teammates. The whole stacked Moscow CSKA situation really doesn't sit well with me. So it's not like he was just beating out other great Soviet competitors on opposition teams in competition, but they were just picking between great players on a stacked team. Just drawing an analogy to the Conn Smythe process, how many times do we see the award being given to the goalie, or the biggest star on the team by default? Who knows what thought process went into these things?

 

[wetcoast]

I'd say, it's the case, when you can't say it for sure. It's like comparing vikings and samurai. You may say whatever you wish, but there are no any facts to prove it.

excellent place to post this cheesy video

 

[Stephen]

You are trying way to hard to underplay the context for Makarov in 78-79.

He played RW as a 20 year old behind 2 elite National team members in their primes for CSKA Moscow that year.

The year before at 19 he led his team Traktor Chelyabinsk in scoring with a respectable 31 points and not a single scorer in the Russian league aged 23 and under scored more points than he did at age 19.

Also the comparison in how they aged needs context in 70-71 the Habs scored tons of goals in games against expansion and recent expansion teams.

I don't have the numbers for Beliveau game by game but the actual difference between how they aged needs some context.

For the record i think Jean needs to be ranked higher all time but the spread is probably less than 10-15 spots overall and even less if just among forwards.

The "how the aged" angle doesn't really stand up at all. Makarov was an effective player up until 30-32, and suffered a 'fish out of water' decline rather abruptly in the mid 90s, was expansion fodder and was out of the game by 38.

Jean Beliveau scored 90 points in 69 games as a 30 year old in 1960-61, had 10 years of productive NHL hockey left in him, with a Hart, Conn Smythe and multiple Stanley Cups yet unclaimed.

 

[wetcoast]

The main argument against Makarov seems to be his twilight years in the NHL. Do people agree that I debunked this argument? He was still a PPG player three years into his NHL stint (with yet another great performance in playoffs two years later), and 90s NHL was much deeper and harder to stand out in than Beliveau's late 60s-early 70s post-expansion NHL?

I don't think that anyone can debunk an opinion and that's part of the equation here, people are going to have different opinions and view context differently between say the post expansion NHL and the 90s NHL and how Jean and Sergei fared in either context.

Is being 9th in NHL scoring in 70-71 better than 29th in 89-90?

No one really knows but just to add some more context here there were 25 Canadian players who were ahead of Makarov in scoring in 90 and in the following year where Makarov had 70 points in 68 games they were only 15 Canadian players who scored at a better PPG rate.

I think they are alot closer than some are giving Makarov credit for but the arguments for Jean overall are stronger, if Makarov had been in a better situation than under Terry Crisp then things might look closer to some but Jean is also a legend so many might not have been swayed by anything.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think that anyone can debunk an opinion and that's part of the equation here, people are going to have different opinions and view context differently between say the post expansion NHL and the 90s NHL and how Jean and Sergei fared in either context.

Is being 9th in NHL scoring in 70-71 better than 29th in 89-90?

No one really knows but just to add some more context here there were 25 Canadian players who were ahead of Makarov in scoring in 90 and in the following year where Makarov had 70 points in 68 games they were only 15 Canadian players who scored at a better PPG rate.

I think they are alot closer than some are giving Makarov credit for but the arguments for Jean overall are stronger, if Makarov had been in a better situation than under Terry Crisp then things might look closer to some but Jean is also a legend so many might not have been swayed by anything.

Bolded is a pretty good way to look at it.

Of course, we are comparing Beliveau's age 39 season with Makarov's age 31 and 32 seasons. In Beliveau's age 32 season, he won the Hart Trophy.

 

[wetcoast]

Nice read, thanks for sharing. Interesting sentiments from Beliveau's father.

I think his father and Ray Scapinello's dad were cut from the same cloth.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/the-man-in-the-striped-shirt-1.722025

Here is the quote that always makes me chuckle as I grew up with Italian friends who had fathers like this.

CBCSports.ca: Tell me about the famous hockey stick story involving your dad?
Scapinello: My dad was an Italian immigrant. Believe it or not, my dad never went into a hockey arena that I was ever in, since the age of five until the day I retired from the NHL. He couldn't care less about hockey; neither did my mom. He thought I was the biggest bum in the world for only working three days a week and having the summer off. [laughs]
After I got established in the NHL for a few years, I started collecting hockey sticks and getting them signed by the players. Being Italian, I lived at home until I was in my early 30s. I was golfing one day and I came home and looked out the kitchen window and rubbed my eyes, because I saw my hockey sticks driven into the ground.
My dad had cut off the blades of the sticks and used them to hold up his tomato plants in his garden and I went nuts but he didn't think he did anything wrong. I had a stick that was signed by Phil Esposito and it said, "Ray best wishes, Phil Esposito," and there it was holding up my dad's tomato plants. Unbelievable.

 

[wetcoast]

The results of the NHL vs Soviet exhibition games don't do anything for Makarov really. The WHA had a winning record against NHL teams without adding reinforcements, and I don't think people are going to advocate for Tardif and his two scoring titles and two MVPs based on this. Makarov is proven enough based on how he played.

Also Tardif was a better player than given credit for even if some of his ability was curtailed after the infamous Rick Jodzio attack that caused him permanent brain damage.

Had Tardif stayed with the Habs he would have been part of that dynasty and he was a very skilled scoring winger (better than Steve Shutt IMO).

 

[wetcoast]

We're speaking about Jean Beliveau here, The Captain. Cannot compare to more recent times.

Not hard to evaluate. Not cliche. Nothing but positives about the guy.

Once again it's a narrative and impossible to quantify.

Trevor Linden and Stan Smyl were also legendary captains but their leadership wasn't on skilled or legendary teams like the ones Jean played on.

The point is that one can't measure how much of a better leader or captain Jean was than Stan or Trevor

 

[wetcoast]

Bolded is a pretty good way to look at it.

Of course, we are comparing Beliveau's age 39 season with Makarov's age 31 and 32 seasons. In Beliveau's age 32 season, he won the Hart Trophy.

Sure I'm not going to say that Jean didn't age better but it's pretty close and the situation that Makarov did it in Calgary circa 1990 was quit a bit different than Jean's situation in the 60s for the Habs.

Sure Jean won the Hart at age 32 but his age 30, 31 and 34 seasons were also nothing to write home about either so it goes both ways.

I also think that Makarov left something on the table when he came to the flames and his relationship with Terry crisp didn't help matters either.

We saw glimpses of what could have been (NHL wise) when Makarov was reunited with Larinov in San Jose at age 35.

Also I find this position on Makarov in the NHL confusing coming from a guy who views Fetisov so highly and his transition to the NHL which wasn't as good as Makarov given their positions and how Dmen can generally age better than forwards.

Then again I know some people view Fetisov as the better player while both were in Russia, I just don't hold the same view.