New Back Check Episode: Detroit

[danincanada]

Datsyuk probably because he was more "compelling" than his game play always warranted...Zetterberg I could see not being invited to the party right away...

Nothing has to do with Corsi, of course

You sound like someone who didn't watch much of Datsyuk at his peak. Starting his NHL career late and wearing down early with injuries hurt his career but he was a special player and his peers knew it. Reading quotes and comments about players only seems to work for guys we didn't get to watch though. I can't imagine how highly someone like Datsyuk would be ranked in this section if people only had quotes about him to go by.

If we had a time machine and we were facing off against the aliens in hockey peak Datsyuk would be on my team, that's for sure.

 

[Michael Farkas]

[Mod]

I saw plenty of Datsyuk, that's why I say the things I do about him and him vs Zetterberg. The quotes would leave me to believe that he was a top 5 player of all time. You have it backwards.

 

[danincanada]

Thanks. We do actually talk about the players after the stats. I'm not sure how else to introduce the stats. It feels like we can't talk about them afterwards. We could break them up, I guess.

But we want a baseline so everyone knows where we're at. A lot of stuff on the internet accidentally or deliberately misrepresents reality and that's the last thing we want to do. We have opinions, sure, but there is a historical record which we want to acknowledge as much as we can.

I'll try to listen more then. I probably didn't give it enough time but the way we are these days, if something doesn't grab your attention right away it's easy to flip to the next podcast, video, etc.

One tie breaker could be that one player won 7 trophies in a 6 team league where he (theoretically) had five players competing with him for the award. The other had a lot more competition for his 7 trophies.

Another tie breaker could be that Harvey came in second a further two times, Lidstrom a further three times.

The salient points I've been harping on for a while now. Glad you caught those facts right away. Bourque is much trickier to value vs. these two.

 

[Michael Farkas]

[MOD]

Datsyuk is unique in the sense that he's a lot of flash, but also substance. But the flash was so flashy that it created an unrealistic - in my opinion - expectation (or whatever) about what he was actually doing and did. This by no means meant to say that I think Datsyuk was like the fifth best player on the 2008 Red Wings or anything like that...but just that he's a lot closer to the underappreciated, less flashy, Henrik Zetterberg.

Datsyuk was a stick magician, he had some world-class moves...so he's a highlight machine...which is fine, but it didn't translate into a highlight-able amount of points necessarily either...much like Kenta or like Rick Middleton...Datsyuk never finished top-3 in points, finished top-10 three times (4, 4, 10)...Zetterberg, just as game, has two top-10 finishes (6, 8). They did it in very different ways, but the results were more similar than I think most fans would guess...

My sense is that people feel there is gap between Datsyuk and Zetterberg of some degree...but I'm not so sure. Zetterberg was just about as good offensively, though with less panache...and Zetterberg was a more versatile and well-rounded defensive player, again with less panache...Datsyuk is a noted NZ puckjacker, we have all seen the stick lifts...Zetterberg was a more straightforward defensive player and his ability to play both LW and C adeptly made him more versatile. This was especially true in the playoffs where Zetterberg had a little better level to give than Datsyuk did...

I don't want to go so far as to say that Datsyuk can sucker some less astute fans in with his flash, because that undercuts him too far for my liking...he really was a terrific player, really terrific...but I don't think he ever really distanced himself in any way from Zetterberg to the point where you can go, "oh yeah, Datsyuk was a top 5 player in the league for some noteworthy length of time...but Zetterberg wasn't, or wasn't top 10 or whatever"

The dumb-dumbs, yeah, I expect that...but when you really take apart what each guy is doing, you really don't end up with a gap like this...

Buccigross: The Top 100 current players

The list above (not advisable to click on) is ESPN's top 100 players in the NHL as of 2011-12...Datsyuk is 4th (Crosby, Toews [lol], Malkin)...while Hank is down at 33rd...

You want to say that Datsyuk is a tiny bit better, I'll buy that with no argument...I get that case. But Datsyuk being a top-5 player in the league and Zetterberg not being top 30 is not kosher...it doesn't make sense...

Again here, another absolute clown: Eye On Hockey top 50 players: 30-26

Zetterberg is not top 25...Datsyuk safely in the top 10.

I didn't tolerate listening to the awful, senile old Mickey Redmond (please go away) to watch these guys play and then come away with the notion that 13 is so much better than 40...more dazzling, perhaps...but if you want function over form, it's a lot closer than most fans and most media give it credit for...it's easy to see why, it's just not agreeable from an on-ice perspective...

 

[danincanada]

[MOD]
Datsyuk is unique in the sense that he's a lot of flash, but also substance. But the flash was so flashy that it created an unrealistic - in my opinion - expectation (or whatever) about what he was actually doing and did. This by no means meant to say that I think Datsyuk was like the fifth best player on the 2008 Red Wings or anything like that...but just that he's a lot closer to the underappreciated, less flashy, Henrik Zetterberg.

Datsyuk was a stick magician, he had some world-class moves...so he's a highlight machine...which is fine, but it didn't translate into a highlight-able amount of points necessarily either...much like Kenta or like Rick Middleton...Datsyuk never finished top-3 in points, finished top-10 three times (4, 4, 10)...Zetterberg, just as game, has two top-10 finishes (6, 8). They did it in very different ways, but the results were more similar than I think most fans would guess...

My sense is that people feel there is gap between Datsyuk and Zetterberg of some degree...but I'm not so sure. Zetterberg was just about as good offensively, though with less panache...and Zetterberg was a more versatile and well-rounded defensive player, again with less panache...Datsyuk is a noted NZ puckjacker, we have all seen the stick lifts...Zetterberg was a more straightforward defensive player and his ability to play both LW and C adeptly made him more versatile. This was especially true in the playoffs where Zetterberg had a little better level to give than Datsyuk did...

I don't want to go so far as to say that Datsyuk can sucker some less astute fans in with his flash, because that undercuts him too far for my liking...he really was a terrific player, really terrific...but I don't think he ever really distanced himself in any way from Zetterberg to the point where you can go, "oh yeah, Datsyuk was a top 5 player in the league for some noteworthy length of time...but Zetterberg wasn't, or wasn't top 10 or whatever"

The dumb-dumbs, yeah, I expect that...but when you really take apart what each guy is doing, you really don't end up with a gap like this...

Buccigross: The Top 100 current players

The list above (not advisable to click on) is ESPN's top 100 players in the NHL as of 2011-12...Datsyuk is 4th (Crosby, Toews [lol], Malkin)...while Hank is down at 33rd...

You want to say that Datsyuk is a tiny bit better, I'll buy that with no argument...I get that case. But Datsyuk being a top-5 player in the league and Zetterberg not being top 30 is not kosher...it doesn't make sense...

Again here, another absolute clown: Eye On Hockey top 50 players: 30-26

Zetterberg is not top 25...Datsyuk safely in the top 10.

I didn't tolerate listening to the awful, senile old Mickey Redmond (please go away) to watch these guys play and then come away with the notion that 13 is so much better than 40...more dazzling, perhaps...but if you want function over form, it's a lot closer than most fans and most media give it credit for...it's easy to see why, it's just not agreeable from an on-ice perspective...

[MOD]

Someone who didn't think peak Datsyuk was even more substance than the numbers and highlights displayed wasn't watching him closely or all the time because he drove the play so much and played such an amazing 200' game. At his peak you had Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin playing very much one-way games and focusing all out on offense while Datsyuk and Zetterberg were far more well rounded and played in a tougher conference. If anything the first three were "more compelling than their games warranted" at that time, while the other two were even more than you'd expect because they did it all and played in every situation. That's what I was responding to you about, not some Datsyuk/Zetterberg comparison.

I agree with you regarding Zetterberg because, to me, they had similar values. They fed off each other so well that they're probably joined at the hip for most fans anyways so I think you're overstating the odd ball who believed Datsyuk was so much better than Zetterberg. Mickey Redmond is far better than Bob Errey btw.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

They both have 7.

One tie breaker could be that one player won 7 trophies in a 6 team league where he (theoretically) had five players competing with him for the award. The other had a lot more competition for his 7 trophies.

Another tie breaker could be that Harvey came in second a further two times, Lidstrom a further three times.

I don't believe Lidstrom was better than Harvey necessarily (I certainly couldn't prove it one way or the other) but I don't know that it's controversial or ridiculous to claim, based on Norris Trophies alone, that Lidstrom is the second greatest D in NHL history. (If you listen to the podcast, you'll see we're not saying he is the second best D ever.)

I'm inclined to agree with you about Bourque but I didn't see enough of his career to be sure.

I agree that you're not so wrong about Harvey and Lidstrom but we will never really know because of different eras.

Concerning Bourque, I can tell you easily he was better than Lidstrom (skills/prime/peak/longevity). The reason he didn't have as much as Norris trophies than Lidstrom is because he played in the strongest era ever for defensemen. There were so much hall of fame defensemen playing during prime/peak Bourque unlike Lidstrom who played in the weakest era ever in this regard.

 

[sr edler]

Frank Foyston is an interesting player for internal era (player) comparison. That, and the fact that he moved twice with the same package of HHOF teammates (Hap Holmes/Jack Walker), first from Toronto to Seattle, and then from Seattle to Victoria. Prototype pest player Cully Wilson was also part of that first package before he slashed/cross-checked himself out of the PCHA.

First, 1913–14 Toronto Blueshirts. Foyston was not a standout player on this team, but merely a piece of the puzzle. He was outscored by both Scotty Davidson and Jack Walker, quite handedly too. The most coveted/promising player on this team was puck rushing/offensive defenseman Harry Cameron, by the way. He became the highest paid player on the team and also dragged his young friend Frank Nighbor along with him up through the ranks. First from Pembroke to Port Arthur, and then from Port Arthur to Toronto (in 1912–13), before Nighbor left for Vancouver before the 1913–14 season.

1916–17 Seattle Metropolitans. I think you can make a case Foyston was the best all-round player on this team. The team had a dynamic though where Jack Walker had taken on a more defensive role and where Bernie Morris acted out offensively (and outscored Foyston, both in regular season and Stanley Cup). This team didn't have any high star/calibre/name recognition defensemen, by the way (the pair was Eddie Carpenter and Roy Rickey), which hints about decent help from somewhere else (Walker).

1924–25 Victoria Cougars. It's hard to tell what kind of influence Foyston had on this team. He was pretty old and got outscored both in the regular season and Stanley Cup by players like Gord Fraser and Gizzy Hart. Also by Frank Fredrickson and Jack Walker, of course, who pushed the envelope offensively speaking in all playoff instances. For Foyston, it seems like a Nieuwendyk with New Jersey Devils kinda passenger-ish situation.

When Foyston was the leading gun on the Metropolitans in 1919 and 1920 Seattle couldn't really pull it off in the finals (against Montreal and Ottawa), although they could of course have won in 1919 without the Spanish flu thing. Or lost. They weren't as dominant as in 1917 though. This could have been a depth thing though as Bernie Morris had trouble with the law (alleged draft dodging) and fell off the team before the 1919 finals. In 1920 he (Morris) was back (in the SC finals) but was not the same player after having spent time in prison. Personally I think the Metropolitans also lost some good teeth when Wilson got ousted (after having smashed Mickey MacKay's jaw) and they replaced him with Jim Riley/Charles Tobin/Sibby Nichols who didn't really bring the same kind of coffee.

Reason I bring up Harry Cameron is because he probably won't show up on many (if any) top 100 lists, while I suspect Foyston will show up on at least a few. Cameron won three Cups, like Foyston, but unlike Foyston I think there is actually a case to be made that Cameron was the best overall player on all his Cup winning teams (1914, 1918, 1922), while Foyston was on only one Cup winning team (1917). And on one of those teams (1914) they were teammates. That's my own view of it, at least.

Curiosa: 1911–12 Port Arthur Lake City of the New Ontario Hockey League had a crazy line-up (retrospectively) with Harry Cameron, Jack Walker and Frank Nighbor. Nighbor wasn't a regular though and the leading scorer on this team was Mickey O'Leary.