Makarov vs. Beliveau

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't have issue with Makarov being generally the best forward after Gretzky for most of the 80s, though being the best forward in a given decade doesn't mean that the player is above Beliveau. I'm commenting on the quality of the Soviet league of the 80s and I do want to have an idea of who the fifth or so best forward was in that league, given that Soviet scoring titles seem to be the crux of the argument here. Makarov isn't any better or worse if his league is great or is terrible but it does provide some relevant information when it comes to how to value his scoring titles. If he's playing with the other two best forwards in the league and with the two best defencemen constantly while every other competitor is playing with far worse players or on his own team in less advantageous positions, and those competitors aren't even historically noteworthy, then that takes a fair bit of the shine away. I buy Makarov as the best Soviet forward ever and probably the best Soviet player ever but I do have questions about who he was competing against in domestic competition.

For most of the 1980s, the Soviet league was set up so that Tikhonov could poach any player he wanted from any other team in the league, and add them to CSKA. I'm not sure when this practice started, but it was not in place for most of the 1970s. I know this is how Balderis ended up on CSKA after starring for Riga.

The point of this practice was to get the Soviet players extra prepared for international tournaments, which were considered more important than the domestic league. But there's a good case that it shares some of the blame for the decline in the depth of Soviet talent that was noted in the late 1980s, even before the fall of the USSR.

So while CSKA in the 1970s resembled a dynasty-level team, CSKA in the 1980s was beyond that.

Relevant to your point? The top players in the league were likely all playing for CSKA for the majority of Makarov's career. No Maltsev-level guy playing for a rival like in the 1970s.

 

[plusandminus]

Sid could be matched against Bergeron, O'Reilly, Toews, McKinnon or McDavid every night. How would that effect his production?

I think we should remember about age here too. Crosby is 32 now and somewhat over the hill (or how you say it). So let's look at Crosby's whole NHL career (like Makarov in Soviet).

There's also a chance that in a 6 team league Crosby would be teammate with some other top players. My guess is he would then still be the captain and leader of that team, as he's been for team Canada..?

(This is not directed to you or anyone, but just a reminder, unnecessary or not.)

 

[JackSlater]

For most of the 1980s, the Soviet league was set up so that Tikhonov could poach any player he wanted from any other team in the league, and add them to CSKA. I'm not sure when this practice started, but it was not in place for most of the 1970s. I know this is how Balderis ended up on CSKA after starring for Riga.

The point of this practice was to get the Soviet players extra prepared for international tournaments, which were considered more important than the domestic league. But there's a good case that it shares some of the blame for the decline in the depth of Soviet talent that was noted in the late 1980s, even before the fall of the USSR.

So while CSKA in the 1970s resembled a dynasty-level team, CSKA in the 1980s was beyond that.

Relevant to your point? The top players in the league were likely all playing for CSKA for the majority of Makarov's career. No Maltsev-level guy playing for a rival like in the 1970s.

That's most of the issue for me. I know of the situation in the 80s with CSKA basically hoarding the top players so that the national team could benefit. Can't say it didn't work, but it also distorts league accomplishments. Admittedly Beliveau played for a time on the most loaded team in hockey and for basically his whole career he did have Henri Richard behind him in the lineup which somewhat limits Richard's point totals, but it's not like he had his primary competitors in a position where their icetime and powerplay opportunities were limited in favour of his own. I'm not sure that Makarov had many great players in position to outscore him for a big part of his prime, while Beliveau did. It's why I am curious about who the top forwards in the Soviet league were for most of Makarov's prime. If it is basically his linemates and then the other forwards below him on the depth chart of his own team then it's a very unique situation that is difficult to compare with pretty much any NHL player's situation.

 

[Sentinel]

Unfair, you take out Lemieux and Gretzky without replacing them by "randomized" superstars who could have overtook Makarov. You diminish the sample of "top players" by 2, without replacing them. That's an enormous void you're creating. Furthermore, Bobby Hull was much harder to beat than anyone from the 1980's outside Gretzky and Lemieux. Also, this way of judging players is too dependent on a single other player being there (or not).

Alos, why take out Lemieux from 83-88? Was he better than Bobby Hull then? If so, not by much.

All this without going on Beliveau's playoff value versus Hull's.

Beliveau was given the same treatment by removing Howe. Beliveau lost three Harts to Howe. Howe is the prime reason Beliveau wasn't the best player in the world in his prime. Gretzky and Lemieux are the prime reason Makarov was not the best player in the world... actually, only Gretzky. Lemieux was not quite there until 1989, especially if you consider Makarov's stellar two-way play.

 

[wetcoast]

Take away the non-Canadians, fine. But then make it a 6 team league. Would that really be easier to dominate?

Probably not because systems are so much more in use and systems benefit defensive play to go along with the changes in goalie equipment for purely safety reasons.

But let's keep the thread on track so that Farkas can donate to the ECHL fund.

 

[Sentinel]

Edit: Somehow I'm not even sure why strength of the Soviet League would matter. Kopitar likely would have been outstanding season after season in a Slovenian league, although that would in itself tell very little about how good he would perform in the NHL.

I will only focus on this part, because it's the easiest to debunk. How do you think Team Slovenia (AKA "Kopitar + 19 unknowns") would do against Team Canada, especially lead by Gretzky and Lemieux? Because Team USSR (AKA "Red Machine") did pretty good against Team Canada. Ditto for club series.

This comparison is off by a few parsecs.

 

[Sentinel]

If he's playing with the other two best forwards in the league and with the two best defencemen constantly while every other competitor is playing with far worse players or on his own team in less advantageous positions, and those competitors aren't even historically noteworthy, then that takes a fair bit of the shine away.

Funny, because you have just described Beliveau and the late 50s Habs.

Especially if you remove Howe... but even with Howe, between 1954-55 and 1960-61 seasons Canadiens won 5 of 7 Art Rosses.

Sid could be matched against Bergeron, O'Reilly, Toews, McKinnon or McDavid every night. How would that effect his production?

Most likely he would still be better than all of them. Prime Crosby was pretty darn good. And without having to face Zetterberg, he would look even better.

 

[wetcoast]

One way to approach the question of who was the "better" player.

For the purposes of the below, set aside defensemen and goalies. Both of these guys played on the same team with non-forwards (Harvey, Plante, Fetisov, Tretiak) who could rationally be ranked above them. Let's focus on forwards only for now.

OK, now also set aside Big 4 players. Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux exit stage left.

Now, thinking only about forwards who aren't Big 4, how many years were each of these guys the best in the world?

My impression is that Beliveau began to be regarded more highly than Maurice Richard in 1956, and was then eclipsed by Bobby Hull in 1960. I don't believe Hull lost his grip on that title until after Beliveau was retired. So... Beliveau had a 4-season window.

Again my impression: Makarov gets safely clear of Marcel Dionne around 1982. After that, does anybody touch him before 1989? Trottier's in the picture, Yzerman's in the picture, but it seems to me neither of them was clearly above Makarov from 1983-89. Am I wrong here? If not, Makarov had a 6-season window as the best non-big-4 forward in the world.

That's part of the case for Makarov, as he was the best Soviet forward in the 80s and most likely the best forward in the World aside form Mario and Wayne who Jean probably couldn't touch either.

This distraction of how good the RSL was compared to the 06 of Jean Beliveau doesn't really matter as Makarov performed as the 3rd best forward in best on best tournaments during the same time period and the Russians were basically on par with the Canadians even with Wayne and Mario or at the least could definitely hang with them.

Like I said I prefer Jean but the gap isn't as large as some are making it out to be in this thread.

 

[wetcoast]

Sid could be matched against Bergeron, O'Reilly, Toews, McKinnon or McDavid every night. How would that effect his production?

Well he would also probably have a much better collection of wingers than he has had but what does this have to do with anything?

We already know that Crosby is the best player post lockout and a top 10 of all time and trending towards 5th and I think he has an extremely strong argument ahead of Jean BTW.

 

[Stephen]

That's part of the case for Makarov, as he was the best Soviet forward in the 80s and most likely the best forward in the World aside form Mario and Wayne who Jean probably couldn't touch either.

This distraction of how good the RSL was compared to the 06 of Jean Beliveau doesn't really matter as Makarov performed as the 3rd best forward in best on best tournaments during the same time period and the Russians were basically on par with the Canadians even with Wayne and Mario or at the least could definitely hang with them.

Like I said I prefer Jean but the gap isn't as large as some are making it out to be in this thread.

The gap between Sergei Makarov and Jean Beliveau is substantial. Even if we downplay the competitiveness of the Original Six and early expansion eras you're still talking about a career where Beliveau's dynasty era Canadiens overlapped with the Red Wings dynasty of the 1950s and Leafs dynasties of the 1960s, as well as a number of Hall of Fame competitors both superior and inferior to Beliveau. That is to say an ecosystem of other Big Fish.

Where is this in the 80s Soviet Union with CSKA Moscow? When the next handful of great forwards are all on the same team, the best defenseman is on the same team, the best goalie is on the same team, do those accomplishments really mean that much? Even roadkill like Moscow Dynamo, Spartak Moscow failed to produce a credible Real Madrid vs Barcelona type rivalry.

 

[Sentinel]

The gap between Sergei Makarov and Jean Beliveau is substantial. Even if we downplay the competitiveness of the Original Six and early expansion eras you're still talking about a career where Beliveau's dynasty era Canadiens overlapped with the Red Wings dynasty of the 1950s and Leafs dynasties of the 1960s, as well as a number of Hall of Fame competitors both superior and inferior to Beliveau. That is to say an ecosystem of other Big Fish.

Where is this in the 80s Soviet Union with CSKA Moscow? When the next handful of great forwards are all on the same team, the best defenseman is on the same team, the best goalie is on the same team, do those accomplishments really mean that much? Even roadkill like Moscow Dynamo, Spartak Moscow failed to produce a credible Real Madrid vs Barcelona type rivalry.

So this "substantial difference" between Makarov and Beliveau boils down to ... their teams? Is that it? How about actually looking at them individually?

Again, Makarov was the best player in the world (removing Gretzky and Howe) for way longer than Beliveau.

Btw -- and this is not a response directly to you -- there is an eye test. I've made and posted a video for Makarov making pylons of Robinson, Potvin, Chelios, etc. Not something to be dismissed.

 

[wetcoast]

The gap between Sergei Makarov and Jean Beliveau is substantial. Even if we downplay the competitiveness of the Original Six and early expansion eras you're still talking about a career where Beliveau's dynasty era Canadiens overlapped with the Red Wings dynasty of the 1950s and Leafs dynasties of the 1960s, as well as a number of Hall of Fame competitors both superior and inferior to Beliveau. That is to say an ecosystem of other Big Fish.

Where is this in the 80s Soviet Union with CSKA Moscow? When the next handful of great forwards are all on the same team, the best defenseman is on the same team, the best goalie is on the same team, do those accomplishments really mean that much? Even roadkill like Moscow Dynamo, Spartak Moscow failed to produce a credible Real Madrid vs Barcelona type rivalry.

It's a shame that we never saw what Makarov could do against Canada's best...wait we did.

But if one wants to focus on only a particular set of circumstances sure.... and like sentinel said the descriptions for Makarov's club team can be attached to Jean pretty easily as well right?

but people are sometimes only going to see what they want to look at I guess.

I provided some context up thread about Makarov and his scoring and age in his first 3 NHL seasons and the NHL with expansion and the age 39 year where the Habs had some really high scoring games against Vancouver, Buffalo and California to be exact but even if someone comes up with clear numbers will people even see it?

 

[JackSlater]

Funny, because you have just described Beliveau and the late 50s Habs.

Especially if you remove Howe... but even with Howe, between 1954-55 and 1960-61 seasons Canadiens won 5 of 7 Art Rosses.

I said that Beliveau spent time on the most loaded team in hockey, though even when he had Moore, Harvey, and Plante with him he didn't also have Howe and Kelly playing with him, plus Bathgate/Hull/Mikita and so on playing behind him down the lineup. He also spent most of his career with good but not "best in the world" linemates and managed to spearhead a dynasty, was awarded a Hart and finished second numerous times, place very high in scoring numerous times despite usually missing a handful of games and so on. Compared to most all time greats Beliveau was fortunate to have a prime position, but Makarov clearly had it better within the Soviet context.

Again none of that makes one better than the other, but if we're looking at what each did within their league and trying to compare it we do have to look at the situation they played in. I'd also still like to know from anyone who the top Soviet forwards were in the mid to late 80s. Who was the legitimate historically noteworthy competition within the Soviet league for Makarov outside of Krutov and Larionov?

 

[Stephen]

It's a shame that we never saw what Makarov could do against Canada's best...wait we did.

If you deleted the boring, every day NHL resumes of most players and relied on a limited sampling of international tournaments, exhibition games you'd also have some interesting interpretations of what a player could be.

We also saw a 30-31 year old Sergei Makarov in comparison to a 30-31 year old Jean Beliveau, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, and it's not a strong claim to an all-time great ranking.

But if one wants to focus on only a particular set of circumstances sure.... and like sentinel said the descriptions for Makarov's club team can be attached to Jean pretty easily as well right?

but people are sometimes only going to see what they want to look at I guess.

I would say the NHL Original Six era had at least 3 competitive franchises out of 6 at any given point during Beliveau's era and the early expansion era had a very strong cast of superstars who were not Montreal Canadiens, so no I wouldn't sign off on "same same" with whatever 80s hockey in the USSR looked like.

I provided some context up thread about Makarov and his scoring and age in his first 3 NHL seasons and the NHL with expansion and the age 39 year where the Habs had some really high scoring games against Vancouver, Buffalo and California to be exact but even if someone comes up with clear numbers will people even see it?

Why are you drawing an equivalency between Sergei Makarov's 31-34 year old seasons and Jean Beliveau's 39 year old season? That's a very strange cherry pick especially when you consider Beliveau was scoring 90 points in 68 games 1960-61 as a 30 year old, highlighting that Makarov's fish out of water/past his prime is a flimsy excuse for an underwhelming NHL career.

 

[Stephen]

I said that Beliveau spent time on the most loaded team in hockey, though even when he had Moore, Harvey, and Plante with him he didn't also have Howe and Kelly playing with him, plus Bathgate/Hull/Mikita and so on playing behind him down the lineup. He also spent most of his career with good but not "best in the world" linemates and managed to spearhead a dynasty, was awarded a Hart and finished second numerous times, place very high in scoring numerous times despite usually missing a handful of games and so on. Compared to most all time greats Beliveau was fortunate to have a prime position, but Makarov clearly had it better within the Soviet context.

Again none of that makes one better than the other, but if we're looking at what each did within their league and trying to compare it we do have to look at the situation they played in. I'd also still like to know from anyone who the top Soviet forwards were in the mid to late 80s. Who was the legitimate historically noteworthy competition within the Soviet league for Makarov outside of Krutov and Larionov?

I find that when you press on the question of who the Real Madrid was to CSKA Moscow's Barcelona was, or who the Lemieux to Makarov's Gretzky was (non teammate) in the 1980s Soviet Union, you're not likely to get very far.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

The gap between Sergei Makarov and Jean Beliveau is substantial. Even if we downplay the competitiveness of the Original Six and early expansion eras you're still talking about a career where Beliveau's dynasty era Canadiens overlapped with the Red Wings dynasty of the 1950s and Leafs dynasties of the 1960s, as well as a number of Hall of Fame competitors both superior and inferior to Beliveau. That is to say an ecosystem of other Big Fish.

Where is this in the 80s Soviet Union with CSKA Moscow? When the next handful of great forwards are all on the same team, the best defenseman is on the same team, the best goalie is on the same team, do those accomplishments really mean that much? Even roadkill like Moscow Dynamo, Spartak Moscow failed to produce a credible Real Madrid vs Barcelona type rivalry.

I'm actually really interested in your logic here, because you seem to be implying that playing in an extremely unbalanced league is automatically disqualifying for some reason, and that a player can be seen as better than another simply because his competitive circumstances were more difficult, without even looking at their actual performances.

Let's say, as a historical hypothetical, the Detroit Red Wings and Montreal Canadiens combined rosters in 1950 and Howe, Lindsay, Richard, Beliveau, Harvey, Kelly, Sawchuk, Plante and company proceeded to destroy the NHL for the rest of the decade, creating a league situation that approximates what CSKA Moscow was dealing with in the 1980s.

Do you think that would inherently make all of them worse players than they actually were in real life? That we wouldn't think Sawchuk's 1AST/Vezinas or Harvey's Norrises or Howe's Art Rosses were meaningful at all just because they won them a bit easier than they would have anyway? Do you think the relative scoring rank of the players within that team would provide us with zero information as to how good they were? Do you think it would be easy to hold down a 1st line spot over a consistent period of time if the roster was that stacked? Do you think the strongest competition for the scoring title would be coming from within that team or from the rest of the league? Do you think that observers would automatically think the same guy was the team's best player every single season?

Having one unbeatable team is definitely a different competitive environment than, say, the 1950s NHL with two dominant teams, or the overlapping dynasty period of the '70s/'80s, or the late '90s/early '00s with four dominant teams, or the parity of the 2010s. We do have to keep those factors in mind when evaluating players, but I don't see why any league situation would on its own make a player better or worse in a historical context. It seems to me that you should be rating every player based on how they performed relative to their team and league situation.

 

[wetcoast]

If you deleted the boring, every day NHL resumes of most players and relied on a limited sampling of international tournaments, exhibition games you'd also have some interesting interpretations of what a player could be.

Seriously we have a really good sample of what Makaorv was both domestically in a country that was basically on par with Canada during the 80s.

I'm not relying on the limited international sampling we already know that Makarov was the best forward in the world outside of the NHL during the 80s, the international (especially best on best tournaments) just adds more context.

We also saw a 30-31 year old Sergei Makarov in comparison to a 30-31 year old Jean Beliveau, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, and it's not a strong claim to an all-time great ranking.

Sometimes it's best to not rely on memory as Jean in his age 31/32 seasons wasn't exactly an elite superstar either.

Neither of them is being compared to Gretzky/Lemiuex so I have no idea why you are mentioning their age 31 and 32 seasons.

I would say the NHL Original Six era had at least 3 competitive franchises out of 6 at any given point during Beliveau's era and the early expansion era had a very strong cast of superstars who were not Montreal Canadiens, so no I wouldn't sign off on "same same" with whatever 80s hockey in the USSR looked like.

Once again this focus on just club teams is a narrow and cherry picked one, the Habs had several dynasties during Jean's time period and the HOH section has acknowledged his great team mates in their estimation as well so this isn't a "plus" for Jean.

Why are you drawing an equivalency between Sergei Makarov's 31-34 year old seasons and Jean Beliveau's 39 year old season? That's a very strange cherry pick especially when you consider Beliveau was scoring 90 points in 68 games 1960-61 as a 30 year old, highlighting that Makarov's fish out of water/past his prime is a flimsy excuse for an underwhelming NHL career.

Mainly because so much has been made out of the number of elite seasons for Jean (even if he wasn't actually elite in thsoe seasons) and how he aged.

70-71 Had 6 of the top 10 scorers, including Jean aged 30 and over.

During Makarovs's first 3 years the only players outscoring him were all younger and in their primes, with the Joe Mullen Mario aided exception.

 

[Stephen]

I'm actually really interested in your logic here, because you seem to be implying that playing in an extremely unbalanced league is automatically disqualifying for some reason, and that a player can be seen as better than another simply because his competitive circumstances were more difficult, without even looking at their actual performances.

Let's say, as a historical hypothetical, the Detroit Red Wings and Montreal Canadiens combined rosters in 1950 and Howe, Lindsay, Richard, Beliveau, Harvey, Kelly, Sawchuk, Plante and company proceeded to destroy the NHL for the rest of the decade, creating a league situation that approximates what CSKA Moscow was dealing with in the 1980s.

Do you think that would inherently make all of them worse players than they actually were in real life? That we wouldn't think Sawchuk's 1AST/Vezinas or Harvey's Norrises or Howe's Art Rosses were meaningful at all just because they won them a bit easier than they would have anyway? Do you think the relative scoring rank of the players within that team would provide us with zero information as to how good they were? Do you think it would be easy to hold down a 1st line spot over a consistent period of time if the roster was that stacked? Do you think the strongest competition for the scoring title would be coming from within that team or from the rest of the league? Do you think that observers would automatically think the same guy was the team's best player every single season?

In your hypothetical scenario, Sawchuk would likely come away with a higher wins total, lower career GAA and SV% and your scoring stars like Howe would again likely have higher goals, assists and points totals beating up on inferior competition every night over a decade, winning more championships, demonstrating more dominance, "destroying" the NHL in your own words. I don't know how the Art Rosses would be distributed, but MVP awards could be problematic (just look at how strange and political Conn Smythes can be).

Having one unbeatable team is definitely a different competitive environment than, say, the 1950s NHL with two dominant teams, or the overlapping dynasty period of the '70s/'80s, or the late '90s/early '00s with four dominant teams, or the parity of the 2010s. We do have to keep those factors in mind when evaluating players, but I don't see why any league situation would on its own make a player better or worse in a historical context. It seems to me that you should be rating every player based on how they performed relative to their team and league situation.

I disagree with your last point specifically when discussing Soviet era players. When superstars are put in an environment designed to enhance their level of dominance as a showcase, so many contextual reference points just go out the window. Championships won don't matter at all, since you're supposed to win them. Per your hypothetical above, the Vezina is going to Sawchuk (there is no Plante). The Norris is going to Harvey unless something catastrophic happens. The Art Ross is going to be a three horse race between whomever is your top line, and we can give the Hart to the guy who won it last year.

 

[Stephen]

Seriously we have a really good sample of what Makaorv was both domestically in a country that was basically on par with Canada during the 80s.

I'm not relying on the limited international sampling we already know that Makarov was the best forward in the world outside of the NHL during the 80s, the international (especially best on best tournaments) just adds more context.

Are you seriously making the argument that the Soviet league was basically on par with the NHL in the 1980s when you say "Canada?"

Sometimes it's best to not rely on memory as Jean in his age 31/32 seasons wasn't exactly an elite superstar either.

Neither of them is being compared to Gretzky/Lemiuex so I have no idea why you are mentioning their age 31 and 32 seasons.

I'm saying we have a pretty good idea of what an all-time great looks like at 31 years old, and what Makarov did at that age is not up to par. The fish out of water/different culture/different sport/past his prime angle are excuses.

Once again this focus on just club teams is a narrow and cherry picked one, the Habs had several dynasties during Jean's time period and the HOH section has acknowledged his great team mates in their estimation as well so this isn't a "plus" for Jean.

The fact that those Canadiens dynasties at least overlapped the Red Wings and Maple Leafs dynasties shows some level of competitiveness that is non existent in the Soviet league.

Mainly because so much has been made out of the number of elite seasons for Jean (even if he wasn't actually elite in thsoe seasons) and how he aged.

70-71 Had 6 of the top 10 scorers, including Jean aged 30 and over.

During Makarovs's first 3 years the only players outscoring him were all younger and in their primes, with the Joe Mullen Mario aided exception.

So you're comparing Beliveau almost a decade older than Makarov as similar levels of decline? For the record, 31-34 isn't that old, and wasn't in 1990 either. Patrick Kane is 31 today. Sidney Crosby is 32 and Alexander Ovechkin is 34 for frame of reference to what a superstar should look like in their early 30s.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I didn't just take out Gretzky/Lemieux, I also took out Howe. If you're suggesting we should leave Mario Lemieux in as an offset to Bobby Hull, I'd say you're deliberately tilting the scales in the other direction.

The point of the exercise is that we know the Big 4 are untouchable when it comes to this stuff. Makarov being #3 behind Gretzky/Lemieux is no different than Beliveau being #2 behind Howe. Beliveau wasn't going to beat Mario, why would we punish Makarov for not beating Mario? Removing the entire Big-4 levels the playing field, which is the point of removing them and not muddying up the picture with D and goalies.




This all makes sense. I said upthread that Beliveau's 1960 effectively has the value of a Ross winning season, so I'm on board with calling it in his favor. 1961 was a weird year in that neither Beliveau nor Hull had a Hart vote at all, so those two seasons can probably be lumped together as a transition phase. I'd be interested to look a little more deeply around how people at the time perceived the question of who were the top 3-5 forwards in the league. By 1962 I think we can say Hull had eclipsed Beliveau for sure.



I guess the question I'm after here is -- if Makarov was clearly the best player in the Soviet league, and if head-to-head against NHL'ers he was better than anyone other than Gretzky/Lemieux, can we conclude that he was the #3 forward in the world during that time? Was there some other NHL forward circa 1983-89 who would really have challenged that ranking?

To me, being the clear-cut #3 forward of the 80s is about equivalent to being the clear-cut #2 forward of the late 1950s. That puts them on a level with each other for prime, and Beliveau tilts the argument only by virtue of longevity and what I'll call "soft" factors like leadership and clutch scoring.

I'm saying this way of looking at things is wrong, not that we should tweak it one way or another.

 

[VMBM]

Again none of that makes one better than the other, but if we're looking at what each did within their league and trying to compare it we do have to look at the situation they played in. I'd also still like to know from anyone who the top Soviet forwards were in the mid to late 80s. Who was the legitimate historically noteworthy competition within the Soviet league for Makarov outside of Krutov and Larionov?

I don't know if that was a rhetorical question, but the most notable 'rivals' were e.g. Kapustin, Shalimov, Shepelev, Kozhevnikov (all from Spartak), Balderis (Riga, still a force in the league, not internationally), Drozdetsky (CSKA), Varnakov (Torpedo Gorky), and especially in the late 1980s, Khomutov, Bykov and young Kamensky (CSKA).

 

[JackSlater]

I don't know if that was a rhetorical question, but the most notable 'rivals' were e.g. Kapustin, Shalimov, Shepelev, Kozhevnikov (all from Spartak), Balderis (Riga, still a force in the league, not internationally), Drozdetsky (CSKA), Varnakov (Torpedo Gorky), and especially in the late 1980s, Khomutov, Bykov and young Kamensky (CSKA).

My question was a literal question. It looks more or less as I thought and by the mid to late 80s becomes very weak. The early 80s competition is pretty good, though some seem to have been a bit old for the era. Then again, Shepelev was also arguably better than Gretzky in the early 80s so that's a big plus. Thanks for listing some of Makarov's scoring competition.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is the better team comparison better aimed for the WWII Canadiens instead of the 1960's Canadiens? Most of the league's players of note played on the Habs in the War years...we don't give Durnan full marks, and I just recently had to try to drag Richard down in our last top 100...

I had Richard and Makarov relatively close to each other on my initial ranking...

I think we're starting to come around on the weakness of the War years and that they extend past 1945...I'd say the next step is actually trying to gauge this Soviet League...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well he would also probably have a much better collection of wingers than he has had but what does this have to do with anything?

We already know that Crosby is the best player post lockout and a top 10 of all time and trending towards 5th and I think he has an extremely strong argument ahead of Jean BTW.

It has to do with the level of competition in a six team league.

The discussion was about taking out all non-Canadian players today and how weak that would make the competition, like the original 6. The point was just that if we limited the modern league to only 6 teams, like in the 50s and 60s, it would still be a difficult league to dominate for the top players.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm saying this way of looking at things is wrong, not that we should tweak it one way or another.

Why is it wrong to ask who was the best player in the world?