Players whose reputations were (at some point) inflated by media (or NHLPA) narrative

[The Panther]

I'm not talking "over-rated", which implies rating by fans over a long period.

I'm talking about an over-cooked media narrative, perhaps for only a short period, which inflated a player's reputation or, in some cases, even helped a player win an NHL award. It could also be inflated by NHL players themselves.

A good example, I think, is Grant Fuhr. I loved Fuhr and he was a good player. And I never considered Fuhr over-rated by hockey fans. Rather, his rep got really inflated during 1987 and 1988 by hockey writers. It got a little silly after 1987-88 when Fuhr finished ahead of Edmonton-Gretzky in Hart voting, and won the Vezina, despite having just had the weakest RS-record since his sophomore year. (I think in March '88 he actually posted the worst GAA in the NHL.) He was also nowhere near the top-10 in save percentage (he had been top-10 three times before).

Another goalie, Mike Liut, during 1980-81. St.Louis was having its first big regular season in a long time, and the NHL hockey writers decided, for some reason, that it was entirely down to Liut's brilliance. In fact, St.Louis was no better defensively in 1980-81 than they'd been in 1979-80; the difference was that the Blues were scoring 1 goal-per-game more than they'd scored the year before. Yet Liut almost beat young-Gretzky for the Hart and won the Pearson.

I'm not sure what caused the hockey media to have a passionate love affair with Scott Niedermayer, or exactly when it was. But for a while there, just before the lock-out I guess, he was the media-darling defenceman. Was Niedermayer any better in this period than, say, Chris Pronger? I don't see it. I also don't see his 2007 Conn Smythe...

More recently, Jonathan Toews' rep was really pushed by hockey media types, writers, and even other teams' coaches and players. Was Toews great in his prime? Yes, indeed. But his rep got so inflated by media that I feel an anti-Toews backlash set in on the part of fans, who were tired of hearing about him.



So, great players all, but I feel their reps got a bit disproportionately inflated during certain periods.

Who else?

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

I don't get it.

It sure sounds like you are saying they were overrated.

And in most of those cases, I'd disagree.

 

[VanIslander]

An overcooked media narrative?

The dominance of Eric Lindros.

Lindros was never top 5 in goals and his only top 5 in assists and points was in a lockout-shortened season.

The HHOF induction committee rightfully passed on him six times before compounding career hype about the leader of the so-called Legion of Doom, the "complete player" who couldn't even rush the puck without his eyes on the puck, head down, like some juniors bully oblivious to all in his china shop.

His reputation should have been MUCH different than it kept getting spun.

His dominance was a whisper and a prayer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Joe Nieuwendyk = "the real (Canadian) captain of the Stars!" "3 Cups with 3 different teams!"

Not as bad as the Niedermayer narrative, but it's up there.

 

[MadLuke]

Lindros was never top 5 in goals and his only top 5 in assists and points was in a lockout-shortened season.

That a creative way to make a 1-6-7 top 10 finish career sound has worst has possible.

 

[The Panther]

That a creative way to make a 1-6-7 top 10 finish career sound has worst has possible.

To clarify that: top-6 in GPG six times, and top-10 in PPG eight times in his first nine seasons.

But actually, he's a good answer in terms of the media hype before he ever played in the NHL. That was way out of control, and to this day continues to work against his reputation with certain fans.

 

[seventieslord]

Came here to say Niedermayer, Toews and Nieuwendyk.

 

[Herby]

The Ryan Smyth "Captain Canada" stuff. People loved the mullet, the old helmet and the wood stick. He was a throwback, but he wasn't as good as the media and fans made him out to be.

I can see a case for Niedermayer, not that he wasn't a great player but looking back, it's pretty clear that Pronger was the 2nd best d-man of that era and some see them as equals. He also won a Norris when he was never a better player than Lidstrom.

Rob Blake is another one. Blake was insanely talented physical freak, but his frequent defensive shortcomings and average game sense were often overlooked because he delivered big hits and could shoot the puck as good as anyone not named Al MacInnis. Another player who robbed Lidstrom of a deserved Norris trophy.

Toews is obviously a great player but is also hyped up to an undeserved level by the media. There were times where you would hear media personalities discussing whether Toews was the best player in the league when his play on the ice just never warranted it.

 

[Theokritos]

It could also be inflated by NHL players themselves.

I was going to name several winners of the Lester B. Pearson award here, but on a second thought, it's still not entirely clear what exactly that award was for back in the day. There are several sources from 1972-1986 saying it was for a player's "contribution to hockey", which would make some of the choices a bit less puzzling.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Scott Niedermayer and Jonathan Toews.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Scott Niedermayer and Jonathan Toews.

Same two names that I came to say.

 

[VanIslander]

The three most loved/hyped/defended/gushed over players here at Hfboards has certainly been Crosby, Toews and McDavid.

 

[The Panther]

The three most loved/hyped/defended/gushed over players here at Hfboards has certainly been Crosby, Toews and McDavid.

Okay, but Hfboards isn't the media or the NHLPA.

 

[VanIslander]

HfBoards is social media....

The lines of communication and legitimacy have been blurred for years. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[DannyGallivan]

An overcooked media narrative?

The dominance of Eric Lindros.

Lindros was never top 5 in goals and his only top 5 in assists and points was in a lockout-shortened season.

The HHOF induction committee rightfully passed on him six times before compounding career hype about the leader of the so-called Legion of Doom, the "complete player" who couldn't even rush the puck without his eyes on the puck, head down, like some juniors bully oblivious to all in his china shop.

His reputation should have been MUCH different than it kept getting spun.

His dominance was a whisper and a prayer.

I disagree. Lindros was a force of nature when healthy, but I've never seen such bad luck with a litany of different injuries, not just the head shots that ultimately cost him his career.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The three most loved/hyped/defended/gushed over players here at Hfboards has certainly been Crosby, Toews and McDavid.

For good reasons.

 

[sr edler]

Lindros was a force of nature when healthy, but I've never seen such bad luck with a litany of different injuries

What was bad luck about it? Have you seen the Kasparaitis hit? He's staring at the ice (or his feet, or the puck) for a prolonged eternity.

Perhaps searching for Bob Nevin's contact lenses?

 

[JackSlater]

Iginla I think. By all accounts a great guy and also a great player, but his fame and reputation seemed a bit bigger than his play warranted.

 

[VanIslander]

Kasparaitis was under 6'0 feet but like Michael Peca was a heads-up open-ice bodychecker and bloodhound.

Kasparaitis, Peca, Stevens... all cleaned clocks that needed it; Lindros' style was atrocious but the media always sympathized with him and crafted 'what-if's instead of chastizing bad habits borne of pre-NHL laziness.

It's hard for me to think of a player who EARNED his injuries as much as Lindros did.

(Maybe Deadmarsh, but he came about it with his balls-to-the-wall style; Forsberg's willingness to absorb hits led as expected to internal injuries - his spleen).

 

[VanIslander]

Iginla I think. By all accounts a great guy and also a great player, but his fame and reputation seemed a bit bigger than his play warranted.

The opposite. He was a bloody hero of the 2002 Olympics but the media humped all over Sakic. Jarome was equally deserving of praise.

Fast forward to the 2010 Olympic gold. Gawd, Iggy was shafted at times. But fortunately he was a Canadian playing for a Canadian team so he eventually will get his deserving HHOF induction. If Iginla ain't a bloody 1st ballot inductee (unlike Lindros' 7th year ordeal), i'll howl about it for the next decade (as i did around here about Makarov before his eventual induction).

 

[DannyGallivan]

What was bad luck about it? Have you seen the Kasparaitis hit? He's staring at the ice (or his feet, or the puck) for a prolonged eternity.

Perhaps searching for Bob Nevin's contact lenses?

That's a Dennis Milleresque obscure comment, lol.
I've always acknowledged that he acquired the bad habit of skating with his head down due to being so much stronger than his junior opponents. I was commenting on all the other injuries on top of that, from shoulder issues to a freak collapsed lung. That doesn't take away from what he actually brought to the table.

 

[JackSlater]

The opposite. He was a bloody hero of the 2002 Olympics but the media humped all over Sakic. Jarome was equally deserving of praise.

Fast forward to the 2010 Olympic gold. Gawd, Iggy was shafted at times. But fortunately he was a Canadian playing for a Canadian team so he eventually will get his deserving HHOF induction. If Iginla ain't a bloody 1st ballot inductee (unlike Lindros' 7th year ordeal), i'll howl about it for the next decade (as i did around here about Makarov before his eventual induction).

What a strange post. Iginla's reputation was often above whatever his level of play was. National commercial campaigns, glowing pieces about him, Hart nomination when he really shouldn't be nominated. I have no idea what the point of singling out two Olympic tournaments is supposed to be. Sakic carried his line in the gold medal game in 2002 and was certainly the star of the game. Iginla wasn't particularly good in the 2010 tournament, but he still remained on the top line for the most part. I'm perplexed that a person is even considering the possibility that Iginla won't get into the HHOF in his first year of eligibility when it seems beyond obvious that he will.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Joe Nieuwendyk = "the real (Canadian) captain of the Stars!" "3 Cups with 3 different teams!"

Not as bad as the Niedermayer narrative, but it's up there.

worse, imo, because more undeserved. nieuwendyk was the third most important center on '89 and people act like he was more than a PP specialist on that team. and then in nj he did almost nothing up to the finals and then got hurt in game seven of the ECF. and look at how his linemate jeff friesen completely exploded once he was gone—six goals in the remaining eight games, including the ECF game seven winner deep into the third, then leading the finals in goals.

at least niedermayer had two great runs. nieuwendyk has one as the third/fourth best guy on dallas and then was just kind of there for the other two. in total he had 5 goals, 1 assist in 18 SCF games.

Came here to say Niedermayer [...] and Nieuwendyk.

if only they had made a big deal of antti niemi...

HfBoards is social media....

The lines of communication and legitimacy have been blurred for years. Welcome to the 21st century.

pierre turgeon...? i kid, i kid.

The opposite. He was a bloody hero of the 2002 Olympics but the media humped all over Sakic. Jarome was equally deserving of praise.

can i just say, i really appreciate when you mass post in a saucy mood.


here's mine—

he's not a guy i saw play but i did a little digging on him during the HOH top wingers project, because his historical reputation as mr. ranger didn't seem to correspond to what he actually did. here are two posts—

according to this article from the montreal gazette, gilbert suffered a pinched nerve and transitioned from a goal scorer to a playmaker during the '73 season.

The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

his assist numbers pre-'73 don't corroborate, obviously. but where did we land on whether he played point on the PP? i ask because by reputation gilbert wasn't a playmaking winger, and reading about him i always read about him being primarily a shooter. see, for example, descriptions of him from old time rangers fans in this thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=667739

in the book titans of '72 gilbert is grouped as a "sharpshooter" (along with redmond, hull, goldsworthy), not a "playmaker" (mikita, ratelle, clarke, berenson). https://books.google.ca/books?id=Uj5Ty7_X5ncC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq="rod+gilbert"+playmaker&source=bl&ots=KuC8Tef1G4&sig=6F0KG-DPf2tUv1KPHQBAPjrw6R0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OmCXVNbmIs63yASfqIGoAw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q="rod gilbert" playmaker&f=false

and here's gilbert himself on the GAG line:

"Jean was the playmaker and he was so smart," Gilbert says. "He would place the puck in an area where I just had to come into it and fire it."

http://thehockeywriters.com/rod-gilbert-mr-ranger/


i don't know. can anyone reconcile gilbert's reputation as a shooter with his very good assist numbers? either way, i'm very surprised at how little consideration the true great playmaker left, olmstead, is getting from my cursory read through of the conversation. seems to be getting the lemaire/cournoyer treatment, but worse. if it were me, he would be getting the same bonus points for being a unique player that gainey, fleury, and neely would get.


---


switching gears, that gazette article article also strongly hints at gilbert's reputation as a guy who, let's say, might have been fleury-in-ny before fleury-in-ny, minus the psychological demons of course.

maybe the suggestion upthread about comparing gilbert to fleury and fleury having detrimental intangibles came and passed and doesn't need to be taken on, but that this is a star player coming off his career year and his team's only successful playoff run during his tenure, and still at age 32, after 10 years in the league, they're still talking about "a new rod gilbert" who presumably is no longer just looking forward to golfing in april.

rod gilbert: for the majority of his career, there was non-stop innuendo and whispers about his life off the ice affecting his on-ice dedication, and that his proto-jeter ways were contributing to the rangers' annual early playoff exits.

that article i posted yesterday about gilbert says so much about him: he's 32, coming off the best season of his career, coming off his team's only successful playoff run, he's been in the league for a decade, and his coach of the previous 7 years is still talking about "this is the year rod gilbert is going to get serious about hockey."

and just to contextualize rod gilbert a little bit: his reputation as "mr. ranger" is so different from what he actually did there. they treat him like he's john bucyk, but his coach has said "i wouldn't make rod gilbert captain if he was the only guy on the team." real talk: it's new york, it's the early 70s, racial tensions are high (we've all seen the spike lee movies), the knicks have just won two titles in three years on the heroics of willis reed and clyde frazier, and it really looks for all the world like that city wanted to make rod gilbert their white clyde frazier, in the way that boston made larry bird their white bill russell in the '80s. you know: blood and guts hero but without the civil rights "baggage." but buddy, rod gilbert was not clyde frazier in any way except in the night clubs, and he certainly was not larry bird. it's like they invented a gilmour-type intangibles-flowing-through-his-veins hero out of a HOVG player with a HOF face.

rod gilbert, handsome dude

 

[Kent Nilsson]

Dion Phaneuf was nominated for the Norris.

 

[JackSlater]

Adam Graves always got a lot more attention than his play warranted.