Nicklas Backstrom HHOF Chances?

[Staniowski]

No one's saying Larmer never had a great season himself.

It's possible to be very good and have an even better player on your line with you. This thread is about Backstrom after all...

No, Larmer was really a better player than Savard in most respects, and certainly, overall, Larmer was better.

Savard may have looked a bit better in that era of no defense....but that's it for Savard. Larmer was good at a lot of things.

 

[Staniowski]

Also, I see that Larmer scored 32 points in the 22 games that Savard didn't play.

(That is '89....I guess you guys were talking about '88, though)

 

[Hobnobs]

Also, I see that Larmer scored 32 points in the 22 games that Savard didn't play.

But that was because he was a good player. He didnt say he wasnt a good player. Just that he was dragged to the usual points he had with or without Savard. Its a curious case of mental gymnastics going on here.

 

[seventieslord]

You mean like when he scored a 101 points during a season with a mix of Creighton, Thomas, Graham, Roenick and Goulet as his linemates?

You're not even trying BTW, you're just namedropping players who were near the top of the Chicago scoring list.

Larmer combined with Creighton on just two ESP all season, and Thomas & Graham just one each. His linemates were quite obviously Roenick (94 pts) and Goulet (65). But that doesn't sound nearly as impressive as "a mix of Creighton, Thomas, Graham, Roenick and Goulet", does it?

For the record, obviously it was a very good season, and I've said for years, anytime a winger outscores his center we should pay attention, particularly when the center is also very good.

Yes but if you're very good you're not dragged to 89 when you obviously can score without that player...

And are you now saying Ovechkin dragged Bäckström to 101 points? The guy that had 21pts in 12 games without Ovie on the ice? Strange take but ok.

I like how you can look up scoring logs when it suits you.

You can focus on a small sample size of 12 games if you like - I'll pay more attention to what happened in the other 70 games. You don't need to put words in my mouth, I never said he was dragged anywhere, but if you don't think centering the league's top offensive player helped him that season then I don't know what to tell you.

But that was because he was a good player. He didnt say he wasnt a good player. Just that he was dragged to the usual points he had with or without Savard. Its a curious case of mental gymnastics going on here.

there's no mental gymnastics, you're just far too focused on my use of a single word. let's be real here, we all know you're here right now because I said that Backstrom's 09-10 wasn't as impressive as Hawerchuk's 83-84 or Savard's 87-88 and you just can't let something like that stand, but all you could muster in response was a critique of the word "dragged" and here we are many posts later still quibbling over that word. Point is, we all know who was driving the bus on the top lines of the 84 jets, 88 Hawks, and 2010 Capitals.

All things being equal, you don't think 100 points = 100 points if one of those players had a 120 point linemate and one had an 80 point linemate, right?

No, Larmer was really a better player than Savard in most respects, and certainly, overall, Larmer was better.

Savard may have looked a bit better in that era of no defense....but that's it for Savard. Larmer was good at a lot of things.

OK, sure, Larmer was better at a lot of little things than his one-dimensional center Savard. That's not untrue, and players like him are probably unappreciated in the grand scheme of things. But that's a huge leap to say that he was a better player overall. Larmer's role on the top line, if he was unable to fill it, could have been filled by another winger on the team fairly adequately - Al Secord topped 75 points three times - and if they didn't have such a player, they could have found one via trade. Only Savard could be Savard. They could not just promote Lysiak or Murray and expect them to do the things Savard could do. He was a special, irreplaceable offensive talent, among the top few in the league.

Ken Hodge and Wayne Cashman were "better than Esposito in most respects", Dave Taylor was "better than Marcel Dionne in most respects", Alexandre Burrows was "better than Henrik Sedin in most respects", Brian Sutter was "better than Bernie Federko in most respects", heck, we could probably say that Jari Kurri was better than Wayne Gretzky in most respects, but I don't see how any of those statements make any of those wingers better overall players than their centers.

 

[Staniowski]

You're not even trying BTW, you're just namedropping players who were near the top of the Chicago scoring list.

Larmer combined with Creighton on just two ESP all season, and Thomas & Graham just one each. His linemates were quite obviously Roenick (94 pts) and Goulet (65). But that doesn't sound nearly as impressive as "a mix of Creighton, Thomas, Graham, Roenick and Goulet", does it?

For the record, obviously it was a very good season, and I've said for years, anytime a winger outscores his center we should pay attention, particularly when the center is also very good.



I like how you can look up scoring logs when it suits you.

You can focus on a small sample size of 12 games if you like - I'll pay more attention to what happened in the other 70 games. You don't need to put words in my mouth, I never said he was dragged anywhere, but if you don't think centering the league's top offensive player helped him that season then I don't know what to tell you.



there's no mental gymnastics, you're just far too focused on my use of a single word. let's be real here, we all know you're here right now because I said that Backstrom's 09-10 wasn't as impressive as Hawerchuk's 83-84 or Savard's 87-88 and you just can't let something like that stand, but all you could muster in response was a critique of the word "dragged" and here we are many posts later still quibbling over that word. Point is, we all know who was driving the bus on the top lines of the 84 jets, 88 Hawks, and 2010 Capitals.

All things being equal, you don't think 100 points = 100 points if one of those players had a 120 point linemate and one had an 80 point linemate, right?



OK, sure, Larmer was better at a lot of little things than his one-dimensional center Savard. That's not untrue, and players like him are probably unappreciated in the grand scheme of things. But that's a huge leap to say that he was a better player overall. Larmer's role on the top line, if he was unable to fill it, could have been filled by another winger on the team fairly adequately - Al Secord topped 75 points three times - and if they didn't have such a player, they could have found one via trade. Only Savard could be Savard. They could not just promote Lysiak or Murray and expect them to do the things Savard could do. He was a special, irreplaceable offensive talent, among the top few in the league.

Ken Hodge and Wayne Cashman were "better than Esposito in most respects", Dave Taylor was "better than Marcel Dionne in most respects", Alexandre Burrows was "better than Henrik Sedin in most respects", Brian Sutter was "better than Bernie Federko in most respects", heck, we could probably say that Jari Kurri was better than Wayne Gretzky in most respects, but I don't see how any of those statements make any of those wingers better overall players than their centers.

I didn't say being better in most respects makes him better....

I said Larmer was a better player overall than Savard.

 

[seventieslord]

I didn't say being better in most respects makes him better....

I said Larmer was a better player overall than Savard.

So, in the sense that one might say "Mario Lemieux is the better player but Doug Gilmour is the better all-around player"?

 

[Staniowski]

So, in the sense that one might say "Mario Lemieux is the better player but Doug Gilmour is the better all-around player"?

No.

Mario Lemieux is better than Doug Gilmour.

Steve Larmer is better than Denis Savard.

 

[Carlzner]

The fact that Backstrom's defense is only mentioned a few times in this thread is criminal. THAT'S why he's still underrated, everyone in this thread is just going on about the point totals with little mention of how much the Capitals have relied on him defensively during his career.

Kuznetsov is pretty much the first good 1/2C that Backstrom has had in his career. The best ones after that are old man Fedorov and Mike Ribeiro.

To me, the argument against his HHOF chances vanishes once you realize just how good he's been defensively. It's gone completely under the radar.

 

[Doctor No]

Speaking of defense, he was also an NHL goaltender for over a decade with all-star game peak levels.

 

[Dingo]

That Goulet-Roenick-Larmer line was sick in EA 92 or 93

 

[seventieslord]

No.

Mario Lemieux is better than Doug Gilmour.

Steve Larmer is better than Denis Savard.

....well, alright then

 

[Hobnobs]

You're not even trying BTW, you're just namedropping players who were near the top of the Chicago scoring list.

Larmer combined with Creighton on just two ESP all season, and Thomas & Graham just one each. His linemates were quite obviously Roenick (94 pts) and Goulet (65). But that doesn't sound nearly as impressive as "a mix of Creighton, Thomas, Graham, Roenick and Goulet", does it?

For the record, obviously it was a very good season, and I've said for years, anytime a winger outscores his center we should pay attention, particularly when the center is also very good.

Not name dropping just mentioning the players he played with on both ES and PP

I like how you can look up scoring logs when it suits you.

You can focus on a small sample size of 12 games if you like - I'll pay more attention to what happened in the other 70 games. You don't need to put words in my mouth, I never said he was dragged anywhere, but if you don't think centering the league's top offensive player helped him that season then I don't know what to tell you.

Didnt look up anything. Actually had a conversation about this before and those stats came up.

there's no mental gymnastics, you're just far too focused on my use of a single word. let's be real here, we all know you're here right now because I said that Backstrom's 09-10 wasn't as impressive as Hawerchuk's 83-84 or Savard's 87-88 and you just can't let something like that stand, but all you could muster in response was a critique of the word "dragged" and here we are many posts later still quibbling over that word. Point is, we all know who was driving the bus on the top lines of the 84 jets, 88 Hawks, and 2010 Capitals.

All things being equal, you don't think 100 points = 100 points if one of those players had a 120 point linemate and one had an 80 point linemate, right?

Words means something. When you say dragged, you're trying to make the guy you want to argue for look even better than he was. He didn't drag Larmer anywhere. They benefitted eachother.

Now where's "I cant stand for this"-comment coming from? Where in this thread have I argued that Hawerchuks or Savards top seasons are worse than Bäckströms or that they aren't better? Sounds like you're strawmanning a bit as well now. Tss...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if anyone wants to make the case that backstrom on his own team could have put up that one great mvp/scoring title (with generationals excluded)-range season that hawerchuk, savard, sittler, ratelle, lafontaine, thornton, henrik sedin, getzlaf, and tavares did, i’m listening.

i’m not saying he couldn’t have, i just don’t have any evidence that suggests he could have.

 

[Staniowski]

....well, alright then

I'm going to assume you don't remember the 1980s....nobody who watched hockey in the 1980s would say that Savard dragged Larmer anywhere, or even that Savard had a significant influence on Larmer's point totals. I would recommend that you watch Larmer play.

The fact that Savard outscored Larmer doesn't mean Savard was a better player. It simply means he scored more points in that particular situation. I bet if, at a slightly lower level, Marty Murray and Larmer were linemates, that Murray would outscore Larmer too. Doesn't mean Murray is a better player. It may or may not mean that Murray was more valuable than Larmer in that particular situation.

Larmer was better than Savard overall, he had better versatility, better adaptability, and was better against high-quality competition.

 

[Albatros]

To me, the argument against his HHOF chances vanishes once you realize just how good he's been defensively. It's gone completely under the radar.

You want someone in the Hall of Fame that goes completely under the radar?

 

[Staniowski]

if anyone wants to make the case that backstrom on his own team could have put up that one great mvp/scoring title (with generationals excluded)-range season that hawerchuk, savard, sittler, ratelle, lafontaine, thornton, henrik sedin, getzlaf, and tavares did, i’m listening.

i’m not saying he couldn’t have, i just don’t have any evidence that suggests he could have.

I dont think that matters very much. Backstrom is still putting up points....there's probably a good chance he'll have more than 1200 when he's done, which will likely be more than everybody of his generation except for the obvious 4 or 5 guys.

Even though he's quiet, he has a good reputation, good defensively.

The HHOF just loves to induct players, so I think he's quite likely as long as he plays a few more seasons.

 

[Chips]

You want someone in the Hall of Fame that goes completely under the radar?

Famous well loved players with big moments but not consistent career long great play don’t deserve in

Players who aren’t *as well known but constantly great all around game (great defense + for a few/several years competing for most-assists seasons with Thornton) don’t deserve to get in

HF boards wants like 10 people in the hall of fame lol. Sometimes fame doesn’t count and it’s all totals, sometimes totals count but oh he’s not famous

Also, he’s played multiple stretches without Ovechkin and was still very good offensively, even with the Caps winger depth being pretty shallow much of his time here and ovi having a couple bad years

He’s not flashy, he’s super efficient and smart and just a quiet guy personally, which has nothing to do with hockey.

*I do believe hockey people know exactly who he is even if casual fans don’t, and he will get in the Hall of Fame. It’s not purely a media line about how underrated he is, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen players and coaches talk about it, which probably means they specifically remember playing against him/factoring him heavily into their gameplan. People actually playing the game don’t not notice that.

Seperately, he doesn’t NEED to be associated in name to Ovechkin to get in... but he always will heavily be, and that would probably help too from the “fame” perspective. Backstrom is featured pretty prominently in Ovechkin highlights, and especially from the run and gun days.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I'm going to assume you don't remember the 1980s....nobody who watched hockey in the 1980s would say that Savard dragged Larmer anywhere, or even that Savard had a significant influence on Larmer's point totals. I would recommend that you watch Larmer play.

The fact that Savard outscored Larmer doesn't mean Savard was a better player. It simply means he scored more points in that particular situation. I bet if, at a slightly lower level, Marty Murray and Larmer were linemates, that Murray would outscore Larmer too. Doesn't mean Murray is a better player. It may or may not mean that Murray was more valuable than Larmer in that particular situation.

Larmer was better than Savard overall, he had better versatility, better adaptability, and was better against high-quality competition.

So basically you're saying that Savard and Larmer are Kane and Toews prior to 2015, but in this case the winger is the more rounded and better overall player?

I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think that's a ridiculous notion by any means.

 

[GlitchMarner]

if anyone wants to make the case that backstrom on his own team could have put up that one great mvp/scoring title (with generationals excluded)-range season that hawerchuk, savard, sittler, ratelle, lafontaine, thornton, henrik sedin, getzlaf, and tavares did, i’m listening.

i’m not saying he couldn’t have, i just don’t have any evidence that suggests he could have.

To be fair, some of those players had more help than others.

If we're penalizing Backstrom because he had Ovechkin, why not do the same to LaFontaine who had 76 goal Mogilny?

Henrik Sedin had Daniel.

Ratelle played with Gilbert.

Sittler had Lanny.

Obviously Ovechkin is better than all these wingers (and was better than his centre), but none of those players had his best offensive season without some talent on his line.

As for Tavares: He carried his line, but he lost out on the Art Ross to Jamie Benn (who isn't exactly a generational talent) in a season where the race for the scoring Title was notably weak. It was a very good season, but I'm not sure it's a top ten peak season among forwards from Tavares' era.

 

[seventieslord]

So basically you're saying that Savard and Larmer and Kane and Toews prior to 2015, but in this case the winger is the more rounded and better overall player?

I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think that's a ridiculous notion by any means.

Similar I guess, but they weren't linemates and the difference in offensive output was even greater.

If they played together all that time, I'd expect a slight uptick in Kane's points and a larger gain for Toews, narrowing the gap in production (as it is, from 07-08 through 15-16, it's 16%)

Basically what I'm getting at is the difference in their production would be well within the range of argument - as it currently is. Savard outscored his best linemate by 33% per game over 8 seasons. Toews was in the conversation for best defensive forward in the league while 16% behind Kane in scoring, I know Larmer was good but he wasn't in that tier.

 

[Staniowski]

So basically you're saying that Savard and Larmer are Kane and Toews prior to 2015, but in this case the winger is the more rounded and better overall player?

I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think that's a ridiculous notion by any means.

There are lots of examples of the 2nd-best scorer on a line being the best player of the line.....and some, of the 3rd-best scorer being the best player of the line.

When judging a player, you always need to consider adaptability.....you can't just look at how many points they score in the particular situation they are in. What if they had other linemates? What if they were playing against tougher defensive teams? What if there was more hitting?

Savard was a very good scorer, and fast and exciting.

But, in the '80s, most competitive teams (the smart ones) would take Larmer over Savard if they had the choice.

 

[Hobnobs]

There are lots of examples of the 2nd-best scorer on a line being the best player of the line.....and some, of the 3rd-best scorer being the best player of the line.

When judging a player, you always need to consider adaptability.....you can't just look at how many points they score in the particular situation they are in. What if they had other linemates? What if they were playing against tougher defensive teams? What if there was more hitting?

Savard was a very good scorer, and fast and exciting.

But, in the '80s, most competitive teams (the smart ones) would take Larmer over Savard if they had the choice.

Yashin - Alfredsson comes to mind as a pretty well-known example.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I dont think that matters very much. Backstrom is still putting up points....there's probably a good chance he'll have more than 1200 when he's done, which will likely be more than everybody of his generation except for the obvious 4 or 5 guys.

Even though he's quiet, he has a good reputation, good defensively.

The HHOF just loves to induct players, so I think he's quite likely as long as he plays a few more seasons.

i wasn't really talking about his HHOF chances. i was just referring to the discussion above about backstrom relative to hawerchuk, savard, and sittler.

i just don't see backstrom ever having that kind of a year, like they did, but again am open to arguments.

To be fair, some of those players had more help than others.

If we're penalizing Backstrom because he had Ovechkin, why not do the same to LaFontaine who had 76 goal Mogilny?

Henrik Sedin had Daniel.

Ratelle played with Gilbert.

Sittler had Lanny.

Obviously Ovechkin is better than all these wingers (and was better than his centre), but none of those players had his best offensive season without some talent on his line.

As for Tavares: He carried his line, but he lost out on the Art Ross to Jamie Benn (who isn't exactly a generational talent) in a season where the race for the scoring Title was notably weak. It was a very good season, but I'm not sure it's a top ten peak season among forwards from Tavares' era.

it's not really about penalizing anyone for anything. it's just about all of those other guys, whether they had a superstar running mate or not, finishing top three in hart voting (except ratelle, who was fourth).

so if backstrom was on his own team with a star winger that he was better than (say, zach parise?), could he put up a season on the level of that list?

i get that backstrom has been underrated, but we're talking about guys who peaked as a top three player in the league and only one time did backstrom even break the top three centers in the league.

 

[Big Phil]

No.

Mario Lemieux is better than Doug Gilmour.

Steve Larmer is better than Denis Savard.

I'd like to see that sort of argument to be honest. I like Larmer, he is right at the top of the Hall of Very Good, but you were in good shape if Savard was your best forward, generally you wouldn't be if it were Larmer. No doubt about it Savard was the dominant player between the two, he was the face of Chicago for a reason. Finished 5th for the Hart in 1991, the year after Savard left. It was the only year he got Hart votes, not coincidentally it was because Savard was his teammate and he was the one who got the votes.

 

[Staniowski]

I'd like to see that sort of argument to be honest. I like Larmer, he is right at the top of the Hall of Very Good, but you were in good shape if Savard was your best forward, generally you wouldn't be if it were Larmer. No doubt about it Savard was the dominant player between the two, he was the face of Chicago for a reason. Finished 5th for the Hart in 1991, the year after Savard left. It was the only year he got Hart votes, not coincidentally it was because Savard was his teammate and he was the one who got the votes.

The issue with Savard is that he could score against bad competition, but he couldn't score against good competition. To illustrate, in his Chicago days (first 10 seasons), he generally led the Blackhawks in scoring in playoff series' against poor defensive teams, but almost never did against better defensive teams (and they didn't even play any series' against truly great defensive teams). Against the 10 best defensive teams they played over those 10 seasons, he led the team in scoring only in 2 series against Edmonton....and one of those was very high scoring. In the other 8 series against the best defensive teams, Savard never led his team in scoring.

When I watched Chicago in the '80s, that's what I saw - Savard could produce against relatively weak competition, and that's about all. To me, his game was limited.

Larmer was a very smart player who continuously improved his game, and he became a better player than Savard, who never really improved his game.

I think there's a good argument that, among good players, Savard is the most overrated player of the '80s, and Larmer the most underrated.