Mikita vs Dionne

[K Fleur]

Dionne was certainly the better offensive talent.

Mikita was the more complete and slightly overall better player.

modern way of asking the question would be Seguin vs Bergeron

Most of this post seems wrong. Especially the modern player comparison.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Most of this post seems wrong. Especially the modern player comparison.

you might want to check again then

 

[K Fleur]

you might want to check again then

I mean Mikita’s scoring finishes are clearly better than Dionne’s. If Dionne was “certainly the better offensive talent” it doesn’t show through in real results.

I don’t see how Bergeron is in anyway a comparable player to Mikita as they are almost completely different caliber of players with little stylistic similarities.

 

[Tarantula]

I mean Mikita’s scoring finishes are clearly better than Dionne’s. If Dionne was “certainly the better offensive talent” it doesn’t show through in real results.

I don’t see how Bergeron is in anyway a comparable player to Mikita as they are almost completely different caliber of players with little stylistic similarities.

Dionne

NHL Totals

1348

731

1040

1771

600

[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]

Makita

NHL Totals

1394

541

926

1467

1270

[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]

Not that stats tell the whole story......

 

[Nick Hansen]

Dionne had some incredible competition while playing with significantly worse teammates than Mikita who centered Hull. Lafleur beating him in 76/77 and Orr/Espo in 74/75, Gretzky in 80/81 (whom he had beaten the year before)...the Brad Park of offensive superstars...

 

[double5son10]

Dionne had some incredible competition while playing with significantly worse teammates than Mikita who centered Hull. Lafleur beating him in 76/77 and Orr/Espo in 74/75, Gretzky in 80/81 (whom he had beaten the year before)...the Brad Park of offensive superstars...

Mikita and Hull were on different lines.

I saw a lot of Dionne growing up in LA, both at the Forum and on the tube. First star's autograph I ever got. Never saw Mikita live, or at least I don't remember having seen him. Dionne was an offensive force, no question, but oh man was he ever a one-dimensional player. If he was aware there was a defensive zone out there he never showed it. A lot of people on here don't realize, because the voters of the time were clueless and rarely watched the Kings, but in '76-77 when Dionne made the All-Star team, that Dionne played RW almost exclusively that season. Coach Bob Pulford had ZERO faith in Dionne backchecking. No, Marcel never shied away from traffic, and I actually feel like most of the goals I saw him score were darting around the slot and crease to bury the puck, but he certainly wasn't one to throw his weight around. You could watch a Kings game and feel like he'd done nothing all game, only to realize after the fact he had a three point night.

I only have reputation and old video to go by Mikita at his peak, but on that alone I'd take him over Dionne. Only one of them understood it's a 200 ft. game. Dionne might be the better producer of points, but by all accounts Mikita was the superior hockey player.

 

[streitz]

I know that. However, He got the Isles within a game of the finals in his second year though.

Well I never said Potvin was bad did I?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Mikita and Hull were on different lines.

I saw a lot of Dionne growing up in LA, both at the Forum and on the tube. First star's autograph I ever got. Never saw Mikita live, or at least I don't remember having seen him. Dionne was an offensive force, no question, but oh man was he ever a one-dimensional player. If he was aware there was a defensive zone out there he never showed it. A lot of people on here don't realize, because the voters of the time were clueless and rarely watched the Kings, but in '76-77 when Dionne made the All-Star team, that Dionne played RW almost exclusively that season. Coach Bob Pulford had ZERO faith in Dionne backchecking. No, Marcel never shied away from traffic, and I actually feel like most of the goals I saw him score were darting around the slot and crease to bury the puck, but he certainly wasn't one to throw his weight around. You could watch a Kings game and feel like he'd done nothing all game, only to realize after the fact he had a three point night.

I only have reputation and old video to go by Mikita at his peak, but on that alone I'd take him over Dionne. Only one of them understood it's a 200 ft. game. Dionne might be the better producer of points, but by all accounts Mikita was the superior hockey player.

yup, same thing I said.

Dionne was the better scorer
Mikita was the more complete player

and Mikita was the better player, though they're close

 

[Canadiens1958]

Just to maybe help mediate this...

C1958 in and around the time you're talking about, specifically for Montreal and Toronto, how much ice time or how many shifts would you consider to be "rolling" - does that represent a "regular" shift or does it just represent the presence of a fourth line (in whole, or in part) in certain scenarios?

i.e. one of their swingmen rotating up to forward with their other "extra" forward(s) in defensive zone situation vs. what Tampa currently dressing 11/7 and Nikita Kucherov takes the open spot every other fourth line shift to get away from line matchups...

No mediation, just plain, undisputable facts that are supported. Dink Carroll knew four lines when he saw them.

Video from 1960 SC final Game 2, roughly 20 minutes of game action and newspaper archives provided and analyzed, breaking down the specific four lines for each team here.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/150176941/

Statistical breakdown here.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/150238911/

Basic 12 forwards , 5 defencemen dressed and played for Montréal. No need to extra shift anyone.

The definition of rolling has not changed. For strategic reason and changing game conditions there is nevera defined pattern.Fourth line in 1960 and 2018 always had fewer minutes and shifts than the first line. Then and now the first line may have enjoyed a 3:1 ration in TOI over the the 4th line.Function of team strategy and game circumstances. Also in 1960, coincidental penalties did not exist so certain players - slowest on a line may have had a bit less.

 

[VanIslander]

If God let me resurrect them both for a pond hockey pickup game for my soul, I'm not sure which one would be the better pick.

There is a difference between epistemology (what we know) and ontology (what is really the case).

 

[Neutrinos]

I mean Mikita’s scoring finishes are clearly better than Dionne’s. If Dionne was “certainly the better offensive talent” it doesn’t show through in real results.

I don’t see how Bergeron is in anyway a comparable player to Mikita as they are almost completely different caliber of players with little stylistic similarities.

Scoring finishes are of no real value though when comparing players from different eras

That is to say, "Player A won a scoring title in '70, therefore is better than Player B who finished 2nd in '90" is not a true statement

 

[pappyline]

No mediation, just plain, undisputable facts that are supported. Dink Carroll knew four lines when he saw them.

Video from 1960 SC final Game 2, roughly 20 minutes of game action and newspaper archives provided and analyzed, breaking down the specific four lines for each team here.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/150176941/

Statistical breakdown here.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/150238911/

Basic 12 forwards , 5 defencemen dressed and played for Montréal. No need to extra shift anyone.

The definition of rolling has not changed. For strategic reason and changing game conditions there is nevera defined pattern.Fourth line in 1960 and 2018 always had fewer minutes and shifts than the first line. Then and now the first line may have enjoyed a 3:1 ration in TOI over the the 4th line.Function of team strategy and game circumstances. Also in 1960, coincidental penalties did not exist so certain players - slowest on a line may have had a bit less.

Well you cherry picked a game and cherry picked a segment of that game because you thought it would support your opinion. But it doesn't..

I watched the whole game.

The Wilson/Edmundson/ James line played exactly two short shifts. The first was to give Kelly/Mahovlich a break because they just came off the power play. The second was to give Mahovlich time to recover from his collision with Plante.

The Backstrom line played 3 shifts probably at the expense of the Goyette line.

If you think that constitutes rolling 4 lines then I don't know what to say----other than that you are wrong.

As far as the newspaper article goes, it does say Montreal used 4 lines. It goes on to say the Backstrom line received more ice time than normal. That tells me that using 4 lines was noteworthy & unusual enough to be mentioned. The fact 3 shifts is called more ice time tells me how little they were normally used.. Maybe he was referring to the fact that Marshall replaced Pronovost on the Goyette line for the entire 3rd period. Hicke and Backstrom never saw the ice in that period.

It is an undisputed fact that no team rolled 4 lines in the 50's/60's.

 

[seventieslord]

Scoring finishes are of no real value though when comparing players from different eras

That is to say, Player A won a scoring title in '70, therefore is better than Player B who finished 2nd in '90, is not a true statement

It's not necessarily true, no. Not when comparing just one isolated season to another season.

But these players careers overlapped for 9 seasons. They're not from completely different times. And one was top 10 in scoring eight times, and the other was top 4 nine times.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well you cherry picked a game and cherry picked a segment of that game because you thought it would support your opinion. But it doesn't..

I watched the whole game.

The Wilson/Edmundson/ James line played exactly two short shifts. The first was to give Kelly/Mahovlich a break because they just came off the power play. The second was to give Mahovlich time to recover from his collision with Plante.

The Backstrom line played 3 shifts probably at the expense of the Goyette line.

If you think that constitutes rolling 4 lines then I don't know what to say----other than that you are wrong.

As far as the newspaper article goes, it does say Montreal used 4 lines. It goes on to say the Backstrom line received more ice time than normal. That tells me that using 4 lines was noteworthy & unusual enough to be mentioned. The fact 3 shifts is called more ice time tells me how little they were normally used.. Maybe he was referring to the fact that Marshall replaced Pronovost on the Goyette line for the entire 3rd period. Hicke and Backstrom never saw the ice in that period.

It is an undisputed fact that no team rolled 4 lines in the 50's/60's.

Link to full video.

Fact remains you now admit to four lines from each team playing.

 

[pappyline]

Link to full video.

Fact remains you now admit to four lines from each team playing.

Yes Montreal did dress 12 forwards. Yes the spare forward line did get a few minutes in that particular game but both teams rolled 3 lines.

Do you finally admit that teams in the 50's & 60's rolled 3 lines not 4. And do you finally admit that the star Montreal & Toronto forwards got as much regular shift and power play ice time as the star forwards of the other 4 teams. Once you admit this then we are finished here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes Montreal did dress 12 forwards. Yes the spare forward line did get a few minutes in that particular game but both teams rolled 3 lines.

Do you finally admit that teams in the 50's & 60's rolled 3 lines not 4. And do you finally admit that the star Montreal & Toronto forwards got as much regular shift and power play ice time as the star forwards of the other 4 teams. Once you admit this then we are finished here.

And 5 defencemen since Harvey, Johnson, Talbot, Langlois, Turner all played in the video. Major problem since 12 + 5 yields 17 skaters while you claim only 16.

Stop your revisionist efforts.

 

[pappyline]

And 5 defencemen since Harvey, Johnson, Talbot, Langlois, Turner all played in the video. Major problem since 12 + 5 yields 17 skaters while you claim only 16.

Stop your revisionist efforts.

No revisionism by me. I watched the video. I can see that Montreal dressed 17 skaters. I am not sure how they managed to do that since the rules quoted in a previous post state only 16 were allowed. Maybe they were allowed an extra skater in playoff games.

Any ways that has nothing to do with the fact that Montreal rolled only 3 forward lines.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No revisionism by me. I watched the video. I can see that Montreal dressed 17 skaters. I am not sure how they managed to do that since the rules quoted in a previous post state only 16 were allowed. Maybe they were allowed an extra skater in playoff games.

Any ways that has nothing to do with the fact that Montreal rolled only 3 forward lines.

Last regular season game between the two teams also featured also featured 17 skaters per team . Link:

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Four lines were deployed regularly.

You are not referencing actual rules but summaries that cite minimums.

Note the early 1950s where the visiting team could dress one less skater. Not a competitive advantage but recognition of the fact that injury call-ups on the road were not always practical.

Btw, if the mods could dedicate a thread to this topic it would be beneficial on a few levels - roster sizes, rules, deployment amongst others,

 

[pappyline]

Last regular season game between the two teams also featured also featured 17 skaters per team . Link:

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Four lines were deployed regularly.

Not in the one game sample you referenced. Both teams rolled 3 lines.

Thanks for the information on skaters in uniform. Different in the 60's from what I thought

 

[daver]

Scoring finishes are of no real value though when comparing players from different eras

That is to say, "Player A won a scoring title in '70, therefore is better than Player B who finished 2nd in '90" is not a true statement

They have a lot more value than comparing career point totals.

If not respective scoring finishes, how does one do a statistical comparison to players from different eras?

 

[Canadiens1958]

They have a lot more value than comparing career point totals.

If not respective scoring finishes, how does one do a statistical comparison to players from different eras?

Scoring is just a form of counting. Statistical would be all inclusive and exhaustive.

 

[daver]

Scoring is just a form of counting. Statistical would be all inclusive and exhaustive.

What does this mean? How else would you measure their respective offensive performances only if not looking at their respective scoring finishes?

 

[Canadiens1958]

What does this mean? How else would you measure their respective offensive performances only if not looking at their respective scoring finishes?

Start by looking at "Key" goals, performance against top goalies, top defensive players, top teams, situationally, and so forth.

 

[daver]

Start by looking at "Key" goals, performance against top goalies, top defensive players, top teams, situationally, and so forth.

I think this stuff gets all evened out over the course of multiple seasons and I don't drink the "O6 was the best era, tougher d-men, best goalies" koolaid either. Peformance vs. peers is what matters.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think this stuff gets all evened out over the course of multiple seasons and I don't drink the "O6 was the best era, tougher d-men, best goalies" koolaid either. Peformance vs. peers is what matters.

Demonstratably not accurate.

BTW what I referenced/listed is a detailed look at performance against peers.