Makarov vs. Beliveau

[JackSlater]

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).

Probably. There are a few WHA players like Tardif and Cloutier that I'm interested in, but they are pretty unlikely to get much of a look without someone championing them. It's also funny to think that even the Montreal dynasty in the 70s could have been a bit better with Tardif and Tremblay (at the start anyway) in the fold.

 

[Stephen]

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

Leadership is definitely more impactful coming from someone who can back it up with elite play than guys who are just okay.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Now its Smyl & Linden compared to Beliveau?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

="BenchBrawl, post: 172575172, member: 106885"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.

Don't think that is true.

 

[wetcoast]

Now its Smyl & Linden compared to Beliveau?

I'm talking strictly about leadership nothing else and that's the problem with leadership its easily much more subjective than talent or skills or actual stats.

There is no doubt that Jean is one of the best players of all time but the leadership narrative is just that a narrative.

No one can even come close to quantifying a top 10, 50 or even 100 top leaders of all time list with any validity and any attempt at said list would be a SC counting exercise to be sure.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't think that is true.

Yes, both players seem "good, not great" defensively to me. Makarov was a much more prolific penalty killer, but that was at least partially due to coaching strategies.

BB's main point that Beliveau's MVP record in the NHL is comparable to Makarov's in the much weaker Soviet league of course stands.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, both players seem "good, not great" defensively to me. Makarov was a much more prolific penalty killer, but that was at least partially due to coaching strategies.

BB's main point that Beliveau's MVP record in the NHL is comparable to Makarov's in the much weaker Soviet league of course stands.

How do we know the Soviet league was much weaker?

Can we quantify that?

Were there NHL level players going over to play in the Soviet league in the 1980's? Soviet teams played NHL team in Canada often in the 80's (Super series) and won the vast majority of games on the smaller rinks with North American officials. How could their league be so weak?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm talking strictly about leadership nothing else and that's the problem with leadership its easily much more subjective than talent or skills or actual stats.

There is no doubt that Jean is one of the best players of all time but the leadership narrative is just that a narrative.

No one can even come close to quantifying a top 10, 50 or even 100 top leaders of all time list with any validity and any attempt at said list would be a SC counting exercise to be sure.

Are you implying leadership does not exist because it can't be quantified?

Read some hockey history, observations about Beliveau from teammates and opponents alike. Seems that most people close to the actual scene saw Beliveau as a truly great leader.

 

[Sentinel]

Yes, both players seem "good, not great" defensively to me. Makarov was a much more prolific penalty killer, but that was at least partially due to coaching strategies.

BB's main point that Beliveau's MVP record in the NHL is comparable to Makarov's in the much weaker Soviet league of course stands.

Makarov was an elite PKer and an elite two-way player.

They are not "comparable." Makarov is clearly ahead. "A much weaker Soviet League" is speculative. I agree that it was weaker, but by how much? Surely the difference between 50s-60s Habs and Bruins / Rangers was not all that dissimilar to the difference between 80s CSKA and Traktor?

 

[wetcoast]

Are you implying leadership does not exist because it can't be quantified?

No I think it exisits but seriously how does one really measure it and it's impact?

Read some hockey history, observations about Beliveau from teammates and opponents alike. Seems that most people close to the actual scene saw Beliveau as a truly great leader.

I read lots of hockey history and when it comes to leadership (and how to define it's impact) it's cliche very much like the Crash Davis monologue in Bull Durham.

Leadership always follows this template, Team A wins their captain or leader is given alot of credit from everyone, they win some more, more leadership credit is given and off it goes.

Most recent example is Toews.

No doubt he is a great leader but Chicago wins 3 SC's for a variety of reasons and most of them are much more impact full than leadership.

Ditto for the Habs teams.

Skill and depth being the primary reasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Makarov was an elite PKer and an elite two-way player.

They are not "comparable." Makarov is clearly ahead. "A much weaker Soviet League" is speculative. I agree that it was weaker, but by how much? Surely the difference between 50s-60s Habs and Bruins / Rangers was not all that dissimilar to the difference between 80s CSKA and Traktor?

If Makarov was an "elite two-way player," why does everyone remember Larionov as the defensive conscience of the line?

The 50s Habs would resemble the CSKA situation if they could poach any player they wanted from any other team in the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How do we know the Soviet league was much weaker?

Can we quantify that?

Were there NHL level players going over to play in the Soviet league in the 1980's? Soviet teams played NHL team in Canada often in the 80's (Super series) and won the vast majority of games on the smaller rinks with North American officials. How could their league be so weak?

The best estimate is that a modern consolidated NHL is about half Canadian, while it is much less than half Russian and ex-Soviet block.

I'm not disputing that the top Soviet players were just as good as the top NHL players (other than Gretzky and later Lemieux)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No I think it exisits but seriously how does one really measure it and it's impact?

I read lots of hockey history and when it comes to leadership (and how to define it's impact) it's cliche very much like the Crash Davis monologue in Bull Durham.

Leadership always follows this template, Team A wins their captain or leader is given alot of credit from everyone, they win some more, more leadership credit is given and off it goes.

Most recent example is Toews.

No doubt he is a great leader but Chicago wins 3 SC's for a variety of reasons and most of them are much more impact full than leadership.

Ditto for the Habs teams.

Skill and depth being the primary reasons.

Not sure this is true.

Gretzky was the Oilers captain for 4 Cups, but who was seen as the leader?

Did Denis Potvin get lots of credit as a leader? How about Yvan Cournoyer? Or Maurice Richard? Sid Abel?

You say Toews is a great leader but there are more impactful reasons for their 3 Cups. No one is arguing that point. But leadership is still a factor.

Beliveau was a great leader. Makarov was not. An advantage for Beliveau. That's all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The best estimate is that a modern consolidated NHL is about half Canadian, while it is much less than half Russian and ex-Soviet block.

I'm not disputing that the top Soviet players were just as good as the top NHL players (other than Gretzky and later Lemieux)

But the NHL teams of Makarov's era were still predominately Canadian. (Aboot 75%)

 

[Sentinel]

If Makarov was an "elite two-way player," why does everyone remember Larionov as the defensive conscience of the line?

The 50s Habs would resemble the CSKA situation if they could poach any player they wanted from any other team in the league.

Larionov was a center, he had defensive responsibilities in Tikhonov's plan. But Makarov and Krutov killed penalties and hounded the puck in all three zones.

Didn't 50s Habs have the first choice of any player in the province of Quebec? At least that's what I vaguely remember. But I wasn't talking about poaching. I was talking about the difference between the dynasty winner and the last place team in both leagues.

 

[Sentinel]

The best estimate is that a modern consolidated NHL is about half Canadian, while it is much less than half Russian and ex-Soviet block.

I'm not disputing that the top Soviet players were just as good as the top NHL players (other than Gretzky and later Lemieux)

What you mean is that Canadian pool was deeper. They simply had more elite players in the League. But I don't think the disparity in the leagues was so much that a 9 time Soviet league point leader can be just disregarded as an AHL analogue and unfavorably compared to a 2 time NHL point leader.

You also did not address my point about the tail-end of Makarov's career occurring in a stronger league than the tail-end of Beliveau's career.

In every international event Makarov was second only to Gretzky. The sample size is smaller than the NHL regular season, but it's not miniscule.

The best estimate is that a modern consolidated NHL is about half Canadian, while it is much less than half Russian and ex-Soviet block.

Can you please clarify what this means? I wouldn't make inference on the quality of Soviet players based on today's Russian players. Unless I misunderstand you.

 

[wetcoast]

Not sure this is true.

I think if you look in general that this statement often is how leadership goes down.

Just look at the recent inductees into the HHOF with Carbs and Lowe.

Heck some have mentioned that Dave Andreychuk the captain of a SC team was the final part of his HHOF resume

Gretzky was the Oilers captain for 4 Cups, but who was seen as the leader?

Well it's obviously Moose, just ask him.

But seriously Gretzky was known as a great leader for those teams as well and that serves my point even more, leadership is rarely about the captain or a single player, although the narrative might be.

Did Denis Potvin get lots of credit as a leader? How about Yvan Cournoyer? Or Maurice Richard? Sid Abel?

Potvin sure does.

Cournoyer doesn't but he didn't become captain until the age of 32 and at that point of his career he is more Trvor Linden or Stan Smyl than Jean here.

Richard sure does, Abel as well.

You say Toews is a great leader but there are more impactful reasons for their 3 Cups. No one is arguing that point. But leadership is still a factor.

It's just such a small one and no one has really presented any argument to counter that.

Beliveau was a great leader. Makarov was not. An advantage for Beliveau. That's all.

First of all how do we know that Makarov wasn't?

Also the second more important point is that under the conditions he played in Makarov wasn't in any position to show leadership in the way Jean did.

It's the equivalent of criticizing Jean for his lack of best on best tournament play.

Finally let's say that we grade players all time on a score of 100 or 1000 possible points how much of that scale should be given to leadership?

Heck even contemporary players that Makarov is compared to the most often in bossy and Lafleur were never the captains of their teams.

Leadership is seldom mentioned with them either.

 

[wetcoast]

What you mean is that Canadian pool was deeper. They simply had more elite players in the League. But I don't think the disparity in the leagues was so much that a 9 time Soviet league point leader can be just disregarded as an AHL analogue and unfavorably compared to a 2 time NHL point leader.

You also did not address my point about the tail-end of Makarov's career occurring in a stronger league than the tail-end of Beliveau's career.

In every international event Makarov was second only to Gretzky. The sample size is smaller than the NHL regular season, but it's not miniscule.


Can you please clarify what this means? I wouldn't make inference on the quality of Soviet players based on today's Russian players. Unless I misunderstand you.

Makarov on the whole was probably the second best player in the 3 CC's up in the 80s but he wasn't second to Gretzky in all 3 of them.

That's highly debatable.

I also think the context is that in the late 60's and early 70s older player were able to remain dominant for longer, perhaps in part due to expansion while the context for Makarov was different

89-90 Makrov was 31 and finished 29th in league scoring, every player ahead of him in points was younger and the 2nd best player aged 31+ was 53th in 33 year old Peter Stastny.
90-91 Makarov was 32 and finished 28th in league scoring, once again every player ahead of him was younger and the 2nd best player 32+ was 68th a 34 year old Stastny.
91-92 Makaov is 33 finishes 53rd (70 points in 68 games so basically zero dropp off) and Joe Mullen is ahead of him with the Pittsburgh bump playing with Mario then Stastny is behind him once again
92-93 he finishes only behind Joe (still in Pittsburg Mullen and falls really far down in his finish, part of that is due to the weirdness of the 92-93 season.
93-94 Makarov is now 35 and still finishes a respect full 69th in league scoring only Joe (still in Pittsburgh) Mullen is the same age or older ahead of him.

In other words Makarov aged really well given context.

 

[plusandminus]

One thing that tends to get too little consideration in these comparisons are home ice advantage.
Home ice advantage significantly helps a team. Especially if they get the last shift, but also having the small ice surface as well as the crowd cheering for them.
These Soviets came to another country, stayed at hotels, played on small ice surfarce, and in front of a crowd that was cheering for Canada or their NHL/WHA team to win.

Just look at the NHL standings of the 1970s and 1980s to see how much better teams performed at home vs on the road.
(One extreme example is when Philadelphia had home ice advantage vs CSKA. Look at Flyer's home ice standings compared to their away standings during the mid 1970s.)

When the Soviet national team played even with Canada in 1987, they did so as an away team.

I know home ice advantage in the Stanley Cup playoffs of today is not as important as it used to be. But in the 1970s and 1980s it was quite an advantage.

 

[wetcoast]

One thing that tends to get too little consideration in these comparisons are home ice advantage.
Home ice advantage significantly helps a team. Especially if they get the last shift, but also having the small ice surface as well as the crowd cheering for them.
These Soviets came to another country, stayed at hotels, played on small ice surfarce, and in front of a crowd that was cheering for Canada or their NHL/WHA team to win.

Just look at the NHL standings of the 1970s and 1980s to see how much better teams performed at home vs on the road.
(One extreme example is when Philadelphia had home ice advantage vs CSKA. Look at Flyer's home ice standings compared to their away standings during the mid 1970s.)

When the Soviet national team played even with Canada in 1987, they did so as an away team.

I know home ice advantage in the Stanley Cup playoffs of today is not as important as it used to be. But in the 1970s and 1980s it was quite an advantage.

Sure but the counterpoint was that against NHL teams, the NHL teams took it as an exhibition and they were more concentrated on the NHL season/playoffs.

Even in best on best tournament the Soviets had a ton of preparation time before tournaments.

Surely the Soviets knew how much team preparation could factor in from their 1980 Olympic experience?

 

[plusandminus]

Sure but the counterpoint was that against NHL teams, the NHL teams took it as an exhibition and they were more concentrated on the NHL season/playoffs.

Even in best on best tournament the Soviets had a ton of preparation time before tournaments.

Surely the Soviets knew how much team preparation could factor in from their 1980 Olympic experience?

Not sure if I follow you. Even if a team prepare themselves for a game on the road, the other team still has the home ice advantage.
Let's take football (soccer). During home and away matches everything is equal for the home team and away team, except the home ground advantage and home fans advantage.
So why do even teams like Barcelona play differently at home compared to away? Why do the host of international tournaments often go far in the tournaments? Because home advantage matters.
It's the familiar ground/rink, familiar changing rooms, and a crowd full of fans cheering for you and putting pressure on the referee.

I too was thinking of 1980. Would USA have won if they hadn't had the home advantage and the crowd cheering for them? We'll never know, but it probably helped. (USA also had lots of preparation, which of course helped.)

 

[Theokritos]

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."

I don't agree that's a fair way to look at it. As early as 1975-76, when the shock of the Summit Series was still rather recent and the series against the Soviet clubs were something new and exciting, you have mixed pre-game statements from the NHL side on how important the games were for them. See this post. The Canadiens, Sabres and Flyers said it was very important to them while the Rangers and the Penguins suggested an NHL game would be more important to them. The Rangers and the Penguins didn't say that after they lost, they said it before the game and then ended up losing.

Do we believe that any Soviet team (in particular CSKA) approached any of their games on their tour with the attitude "meh, the NHL is interesting, but we should be focusing on SKA Leningrad and Torpedo Gorky right now"?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well it's obviously Moose, just ask him.

But seriously Gretzky was known as a great leader for those teams as well and that serves my point even more, leadership is rarely about the captain or a single player, although the narrative might be.

First of all how do we know that Makarov wasn't?

Also the second more important point is that under the conditions he played in Makarov wasn't in any position to show leadership in the way Jean did.

It's the equivalent of criticizing Jean for his lack of best on best tournament play.

Finally let's say that we grade players all time on a score of 100 or 1000 possible points how much of that scale should be given to leadership?

Heck even contemporary players that Makarov is compared to the most often in bossy and Lafleur were never the captains of their teams.

Leadership is seldom mentioned with them either.

Quotes from Calgary players state Makarov was something of a pain in the butt, critical of their play and the coach.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't agree that's a fair way to look at it. As early as 1975-76, when the shock of the Summit Series was still rather recent and the series against the Soviet clubs were something new and exciting, you have mixed pre-game statements from the NHL side on how important the games were for them. See this post. The Canadiens, Sabres and Flyers said it was very important to them while the Rangers and the Penguins suggested an NHL game would be more important to them. The Rangers and the Penguins didn't say that after they lost, they said it before the game and then ended up losing.

Do we believe that any Soviet team (in particular CSKA) approached any of their games on their tour with the attitude "meh, the NHL is interesting, but we should be focusing on SKA Leningrad and Torpedo Gorky right now"?

I would think the Rangers and Pens were downplaying the games because they were probably sure they were going to be overmatched.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't agree that's a fair way to look at it. As early as 1975-76, when the shock of the Summit Series was still rather recent and the series against the Soviet clubs were something new and exciting, you have mixed pre-game statements from the NHL side on how important the games were for them. See this post. The Canadiens, Sabres and Flyers said it was very important to them while the Rangers and the Penguins suggested an NHL game would be more important to them. The Rangers and the Penguins didn't say that after they lost, they said it before the game and then ended up losing.

Do we believe that any Soviet team (in particular CSKA) approached any of their games on their tour with the attitude "meh, the NHL is interesting, but we should be focusing on SKA Leningrad and Torpedo Gorky right now"?

No, but -- and I already addressed this question -- professionals always play to win, especially against great opponents. In the 80s the quality of Soviet hockey was well established, and I won't believe for a minute that NHL clubs, facing such a challenge, simply treated it as "exhibition."

Gretzky, for one, is known never to take a shift off. Do you think he wasn't trying against the CSKA? Sorry, not buying this.