Bustedprospect
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2006
- 449
- 119
As someone who grew up and fell in love with hockey in the mid-to-late 90s, I never, EVER understood why Ranford was in the conversation for top goalies in the league.Can it be someone that was super overrated for a short period of time rather than their whole career, like Bill Ranford for the first half of the 90's?
He wins a Cup and a Conn Smythe as a 23YO. Some less than stellar years with the Oilers that followed were supplemented by good looking international appearances for team Canada, which led the hockey media to become convinced that he was a top goalie being held back by a bad Oilers team.
In his last couple of years in Edmonton, anytime it's reported or speculated a team might need a starting goalie, Ranford is always rumored to be the #1 target with a value that should net some kings ransom for the Oilers (IIRC Shanahan AND Joseph from the Blues, a huge package from the Wings that would contain both Primeau AND Osgood, a package with Redden and Muller from the Islanders, a package around Owen Nolan and Thibault from Colorado, something huge from the Flyers, etc. etc.)
I was reading some old articles from around then and stumbled upon some of the Ranford hype:
-An article about how Mike Vernon is the Wings Achilles heel going into the 1995 Finals. The article mentioned something about how Vernon isn't anywhere near the level of the top goalies in the league which it lists as Hasek, Roy, Belfour, Ranford, Felix Potvin, and now Brodeur.
-Another one touched on Ranford's arbitration award given in the '95 offseason, where a 1 year $3M deal made him the 2nd highest paid goalie behind Roy. The article actually makes mention that statistically he was the 40th or 41st best goalie in the NHL the previous season, but then makes sure to point out that it was 100% the rest of the Oilers fault.
I also looked up some articles about his trade to Tampa and was surprised to find the hype train was still alive at that point. He was acquired for a 2nd and 3rd and pitched as a legit #1 goalie to finally replace the perpetually injured Daren Puppa. His tenure as a back up with the Caps the previous year was explained away as simply a couple of Ranford injuries allowing Kolzig to go on a hot streak that lasted the whole season.
Another candidate for overrated for a short period might be Jim Carey.
I would say Fuhr was a little over-rated... but not a lot. I mean, if you end up with a Canada Cup and four Stanley Cups, you probably deserve quite a lot of credit.
The media hype over him in 1987-88 did go a bit out of control, though.
I would have liked to have seen Fuhr's stat-results if he had played basically ANY of his career on defence-first clubs. He played on nothing but firewagon teams until 1995-96 with St. Louis, when he suddenly looked great again.
Bear in mind this very forum ranked Henri Richard above Peter Forsberg. I do not understand that at all.If we're talking HF boards all-time, it is Peter Forsberg.
Well, those rankings aren't perfect and are only representative of a 15 or so opinions. Any ranking system people are going to find flaws and probably rightly so. It is a good list. Also, I'm not the biggest Henri Richard fan so it is tough for me to really take a stand on that one.Bear in mind this very forum ranked Henri Richard above Peter Forsberg. I do not understand that at all.
Well, those rankings aren't perfect and are only representative of a 15 or so opinions. Any ranking system people are going to find flaws and probably rightly so. It is a good list. Also, I'm not the biggest Henri Richard fan so it is tough for me to really take a stand on that one.
It just seems the average poster here, maybe due to demographics or recency bias, just is over the top in its love for Forsberg. I mean the guy had one top-5 Hart finish, a short career, and yeah, he did some pretty terrific things when he was in there. But to use the Top 200 list to have him ahead of Ron Francis seems odd.
Adjusted points via Hockey Reference:
100 Point seasons--Forsberg 4, Francis 3
90 Point seasons--Forsberg 1, Francis 1.
80 Point seasons--Forsberg 2, Francis 4.
60 Point seasons--Forsberg 2, Francis 10.
I mean Forsberg maybe had a slightly higher scoring peak but Francis is pretty damn close. Defensively, I don't see how Forsberg can rank ahead of Francis with his Selke and multiple high voting finishes plus faceoff acumen. Forsberg is thought to be a physical beast but really he wasn't very big and didn't strike fear into anyone. He had that reverse hit thing that he did every 5-6 games, I guess. Forsberg was gold in the playoffs but Francis was no slouch.
Then we get to the fact that Francis scored about 900 more points and got the #120 rank vs. #51 for Forsberg and I just don't see it. There might be other factors and the eye test and some people value different things more than others and so on. And I'm not arguing Forsberg was not a great player. Just around here he's thought a lot higher of than I personally think he should be.
My Best-Carey
When your number one argument is Forsberg had the higher scoring peak when he averaged 98.6 points in his best five years vs. 101.2 for Francis, well...Forsberg had the higher scoring peak.
When your number one argument is Forsberg had the higher scoring peak when he averaged 98.6 points in his best five years vs. 101.2 for Francis, well...
My Best-Carey
It's funny you mention, of all things, that example, because to me Francis is way over-rated and Forsberg would be ahead of him in probably every category (of playing ability), 10 times out of 10.It just seems the average poster here, maybe due to demographics or recency bias, just is over the top in its love for Forsberg. I mean the guy had one top-5 Hart finish, a short career, and yeah, he did some pretty terrific things when he was in there. But to use the Top 200 list to have him ahead of Ron Francis seems odd.
It's funny you mention, of all things, that example, because to me Francis is way over-rated and Forsberg would be ahead of him in probably every category (of playing ability), 10 times out of 10.
I care very little for career point-totals or how many 60+ point seasons someone had. Means nothing to me. My preference is to consider the player at his consistent prime level, for six to ten seasons, or whatever his prime years consisted of. The one area Francis has over Forsberg is longevity and ability to stay in the line-up, game after game, with few injuries. Of course, Francis deserves credit for that and, likewise, Forsberg's "ranking" (in theory -- I don't really partake in player rankings) drops a little bit because of his missed games.
But here's the clincher, for me: Forsberg, at one point, was widely considered the best player in the world. At worst, he was in the conversation for sure, and around 2003, he was probably the favorite choice as "best player in the world". Was Ron Francis EVER considered a top-10 player in the world? A top-10 forward, even? (Maybe the latter for one season or so.) So, to me, that clinches it.
Francis had one of the stranger "player legacy" narratives I can remember. On the Whalers, he was generally considered the best player on a quite bad team. Then, after one good-not-great playoff and Cup win for Pittsburgh, followed by an "okay" regular season and one great Cup run and win, he suddenly could do no wrong and was lauded disproportionately. He racked up a couple 100-point seasons on the power-play with Lemieux and Jagr, and then this Francis-legacy started where he was suddenly ranked way higher than he had even been during his prime. He averaged a modest +11 per season with Pittsburgh, was a huge "minus" with Carolina, and yet in his old-age he became rewritten as this great "two way player" (thanks to one arbitrary Selke win, I guess).
(Needless to say, Lindros also would rank way higher than Francis, but I'll stop for now...)
I don't know why 6-7 year peak is the ONLY criteria. Even off of that, Francis is still pretty close. He had 8 80+ point adjusted seasons to Forsberg's 7.I care very little for career point-totals or how many 60+ point seasons someone had. Means nothing to me. My preference is to consider the player at his consistent prime level, for six to ten seasons, or whatever his prime years consisted of. The one area Francis has over Forsberg is longevity and ability to stay in the line-up, game after game, with few injuries. Of course, Francis deserves credit for that and, likewise, Forsberg's "ranking" (in theory -- I don't really partake in player rankings) drops a little bit because of his missed games.
I know. I was just using the raw numbers to show that Forsberg's huge peak was technically less than Francis. My overreaching point is more about the above post.I think you already know the answer to this, but...
When we compare their top five seasons in raw points, both of them set their career high in 1996. But Francis's other four best years (1987, 1990, 1993 and 1994) were from a much higher-scoring era compared to Forsberg's other four best years (1998, 1999, 2001, 2003). In those five years, Francis finished 11th, 12th, 20th, 15th, and 4th in scoring; Forsberg finished 5th, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 1st. High-end competition was a bit tougher during Francis's prime, but that's a massive gap to overcome.
I know. I was just using the raw numbers to show that Forsberg's huge peak was technically less than Francis. My overreaching point is more about the above post.
BTW, Francis five best scoring finishes were 4-5-5-8-9 vs. Forsberg's 1-2-4-5-9. It's advantage Forsberg but hardly a massive gap. They both had the five years where they finished in the top ten.
My Best-Carey
I think he knew that. He never showed the slightest interest in playing for the Habs.Best thing to happen to Lecavalier from a media standpoint is that he never went to Montreal. Tide would have turned quick.
It's funny you mention, of all things, that example, because to me Francis is way over-rated and Forsberg would be ahead of him in probably every category (of playing ability), 10 times out of 10.
I care very little for career point-totals or how many 60+ point seasons someone had. Means nothing to me. My preference is to consider the player at his consistent prime level, for six to ten seasons, or whatever his prime years consisted of. The one area Francis has over Forsberg is longevity and ability to stay in the line-up, game after game, with few injuries. Of course, Francis deserves credit for that and, likewise, Forsberg's "ranking" (in theory -- I don't really partake in player rankings) drops a little bit because of his missed games.
But here's the clincher, for me: Forsberg, at one point, was widely considered the best player in the world. At worst, he was in the conversation for sure, and around 2003, he was probably the favorite choice as "best player in the world". Was Ron Francis EVER considered a top-10 player in the world? A top-10 forward, even? (Maybe the latter for one season or so.) So, to me, that clinches it.
Francis had one of the stranger "player legacy" narratives I can remember. On the Whalers, he was generally considered the best player on a quite bad team. Then, after one good-not-great playoff and Cup win for Pittsburgh, followed by an "okay" regular season and one great Cup run and win, he suddenly could do no wrong and was lauded disproportionately. He racked up a couple 100-point seasons on the power-play with Lemieux and Jagr, and then this Francis-legacy started where he was suddenly ranked way higher than he had even been during his prime. He averaged a modest +11 per season with Pittsburgh, was a huge "minus" with Carolina, and yet in his old-age he became rewritten as this great "two way player" (thanks to one arbitrary Selke win, I guess).
(Needless to say, Lindros also would rank way higher than Francis, but I'll stop for now...)
Yes, those (yawn) 100-point seasons he casually racked up (not including a 1994-95 strike-shortened year which adjusts to 102 points via hockey reference). Big deal. I mean Francis and his 119 points in 1995-96 has already been surpassed by five players in the mere 25 years since then by the likes sub standard muckers like Mario, Jagr, Kucherov, Thornton, and Crosby. Hardly worth mentioning.He racked up a couple 100-point seasons on the power-play with Lemieux and Jagr, and then this Francis-legacy started where he was suddenly ranked way higher than he had even been during his prime.