Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Centers)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have no idea how someone could say that Clarke, Messier and Trottier are ahead of Beliveau offensively.

Me neither.

 

[overpass]

I have no idea how someone could say that Clarke, Messier and Trottier are ahead of Beliveau offensively.

Exactly what I was about to post.

I can see how you could consider Mikita or Esposito better offensively, but I think you'd be wrong.

 

[MXD]

So Beliveau is last in this group offensively.

Clarke is considered the best defensively.

But Beliveau seems to be a top 3 lock.

Does playing on great Montreal teams have much to do with everyone's perception of him?

Is this real?

 

[Hardyvan123]

An initial list is of the top-60, not top 9. This round is of the top 8.

Is there any eligible voter who puts Mikita at 9th (out of the top-8 voting for this round)?

I should hope not for a guy with 1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3 and a 4th scoring finish as well as a 155-59-91-150 line in the playoffs and at least average (for this group) defense, if not better.

If someone does have him at 9 would love to hear the reasoning for it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Exactly what I was about to post.

I can see how you could consider Mikita or Esposito better offensively, but I think you'd be wrong.

Beliveau is better than Mikita & Esposito offensively?

Please explain.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Completeness

Beliveau is better than Mikita & Esposito offensively?

Please explain.

Beliveau was more complete offensively. Transition, corner work, high or low slot, down low or perimeter - point when Geoffrion was hurt, as the game demanded.

Phil Esposito, not much of a transition game, low slot, average in the corners.

Stan Mikita, below Bobby Clarke in the corners and down low.

 

[overpass]

Beliveau is better than Mikita & Esposito offensively?

Please explain.

Of course I can't say for sure, I'm only working from the evidence available to me.

My reasoning is based on the fact that Beliveau was a complete offensive package who could skate well, had one of the best shots in the league, set up his wings on both sides, and play on or off the puck. As early as the 1955-56 season he was in the conversation for the best hockey player in history.

Mikita and Esposito both played on teams with far less centre depth than Beliveau did and received more ice time and freedom to extend shifts as a result. They also had to play their style and were less adaptable to team needs - their lines had to be specifically tailored to their needs, while Beliveau could and did play with any wingers.

 

[pappyline]

I always treat these Sports illustrated articles with a grain of salt. That magazine has limited hockey coverage and is not necessarily a good source to use. I just skimmed Overpass's post and this error popped out. Reay was fired 20 games into the season. It was Imlach who coached the leafs into the playoffs in 58-59 but this is what the SI article said:


Manager Ivan fired Pilous, hired Reay—who had himself been fired by the Toronto Maple Leafs after pulling them out of the cellar and into the playoffs in 1959—and, in effect, said to Hay, Mikita, Hull and Co., "Now put up or shut up."

 

[pappyline]

I didn't submit a list & don't have a vote but I just had to step in to respond to the Mikita slamming that is going on. People are cherry picking articles and coming to the conclusion that Stan's stats were the result of getting extra ice time and the Hawks playing some sort of run & gun game which gave him an advantage over the other superstars of his era.

Absolute nonsense. Chicago ran 3 lines just like everybody else. Mikita played the powerplay just like the superstars on the other teams. The only extra ice time he got was killing the odd penalty which other stars didn't have to do. If anything Beliveau had the unfair advantage as he didn't kill penalties and could focus on offense.

Chicago had great GA numbers during that era. Sure Hall was a big part of it but he wasn't the only reason. No more than the Habs goalies were the sole reason their GA was so good.

There are games out there to watch and I would suggest people do so instead of cherry picking SI quotes

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Of course I can't say for sure, I'm only working from the evidence available to me.

My reasoning is based on the fact that Beliveau was a complete offensive package who could skate well, had one of the best shots in the league, set up his wings on both sides, and play on or off the puck. As early as the 1955-56 season he was in the conversation for the best hockey player in history.

Mikita and Esposito both played on teams with far less centre depth than Beliveau did and received more ice time and freedom to extend shifts as a result. They also had to play their style and were less adaptable to team needs - their lines had to be specifically tailored to their needs, while Beliveau could and did play with any wingers.

So, actual offensive production only counts if its Gretzky & Lemieux?

Or should everyone be considering the possibility that Beliveau should be #1?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So, actual offensive production only counts if its Gretzky & Lemieux?

Or should everyone be considering the possibility that Beliveau should be #1?

If "actual offensive production" is all that matters, then Esposito > Lemieux. Seriously.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Four Lines

1958-59 thru 1962-63 Canadiens regularly ran four lines with centers Beliveau, H.Richard, Backstrom, Goyette, rotating Marshall and Rousseau thru center as injuries or the need for a second RHS - Rousseau dictated.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If "actual offensive production" is all that matters, then Esposito > Lemieux. Seriously.

Its not all that matters.

But Gretzky & Lemieux have the highest Points Per Game, playoffs and regular season, by far. And because neither brought anything else to the table, and they are a consensus #1 & #2 here, it looks to me that actual offensive production is pretty close to all that matters.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is it too late to somehow add ChiTownPhilly and Sentinel to the voters list?

If someone has a top 80 list almost ready to go, and can finish it and can pass it on to BOTH tarheel and I via PM tonight (so whichever one sees it first can act), we can try to rush it through the screening process tomorrow. Once the thread for Vote 2 is posted (late tomorrow night or early Monday), the list of eligible voters is locked.

If someone hasn't really started work on their top 80 list yet, I'd say it's definitely too late.

Edit: Anyone planning on still submitting a list really should have been in touch with us via PM a long time ago.

 

[VanIslander]

If there is an almighty being listening to my prayers, the next four added centers ought to be two from the nineties and two from the pre-NHL era.

The.

Most.

Anticipated.

Round.

Ever.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If there is an almighty being listening to my prayers, the next four added centers ought to be two from the nineties and two from the pre-NHL era.

The.

Most.

Anticipated.

Round.

Ever.

It's late and I have a pretty good idea on who you are thinking for the 2 pre NHL guys and 1 90's guy but the 90's had a ton of excellent centers and the 4th guy you are thinking about is an 80s and 90's guy right?

That being said all 4 guys could have been in the mix for the 1st round so man the 2nd round is going to be a splitting of hairs.

 

[sr edler]

If there is an almighty being listening to my prayers, the next four added centers ought to be two from the nineties and two from the pre-NHL era.

The.

Most.

Anticipated.

Round.

Ever.

I expect Nighbor and Lalonde, then perhaps the Sakic & Yzerman squad.

 

[Sturminator]

I'm hoping it will include Nighbor, Taylor and Sakic, at least. Who the 4th ends up being is not really that important to me.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

An initial list is of the top-60, not top 9. This round is of the top 8.

Thanks for your help with the semantical distinction, and also for your kind words about my possible inclusion in the selection. Truthfully, it seems that I've brought more heat than light to the conversation. That wasn't intentional, though.

I hope to stay tuned- and have some ongoing interest in the placings, going forward. I also hope to see how the remaining pre-WWII candidates fare.

Seems there was a person or three who was considering calling Mikita one of the four best centers, all-time. If nothing else, I'm grateful that there's been an attenuation of that sort of talk...

 

[overpass]

I didn't submit a list & don't have a vote but I just had to step in to respond to the Mikita slamming that is going on. People are cherry picking articles and coming to the conclusion that Stan's stats were the result of getting extra ice time and the Hawks playing some sort of run & gun game which gave him an advantage over the other superstars of his era.

Absolute nonsense. Chicago ran 3 lines just like everybody else. Mikita played the powerplay just like the superstars on the other teams. The only extra ice time he got was killing the odd penalty which other stars didn't have to do. If anything Beliveau had the unfair advantage as he didn't kill penalties and could focus on offense.

Chicago had great GA numbers during that era. Sure Hall was a big part of it but he wasn't the only reason. No more than the Habs goalies were the sole reason their GA was so good.

There are games out there to watch and I would suggest people do so instead of cherry picking SI quotes

You mentioned the problems with SI as a source. I realize they didn't have detailed hockey coverage but the fact that they were written for a general audience is what makes them interesting. They give more of a big picture look at things and include general perceptions that, say, day to day coverage by a Toronto paper might take for granted because its readers watched or listened to the games.

That being said they could be wrong, of course, like any source.

Another thing about those quotes I posted - they were specifically not cherry-picked. I skimmed every article turned up by a search for Stan Mikita and posted everything of substance. That's why the post was so long.

In any case, thanks for your input - I appreciate hearing from you and others who watched these players. Any suggestions on games to watch of the mid-60s Hawks that are online?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I was unable to PM intylerwetrust. Your list has been received

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hawkey, can you post a list of who you've received lists from? Thanks

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Lists received from bigbuffalo313, Canadiens1958, DaveG, Dennis Bonvie, hardyvan123, Hawkey Town 18, intylerwetrust, Jigglysquishy, MadArcand, MXD, reckoning, Rob Scuderi, Sturminator, ted1971, the edler, tony D, VanIslander

 

[Hardyvan123]

so only 6 guys left to vote then?

 

[pappyline]

You mentioned the problems with SI as a source. I realize they didn't have detailed hockey coverage but the fact that they were written for a general audience is what makes them interesting. They give more of a big picture look at things and include general perceptions that, say, day to day coverage by a Toronto paper might take for granted because its readers watched or listened to the games.

That being said they could be wrong, of course, like any source.

Another thing about those quotes I posted - they were specifically not cherry-picked. I skimmed every article turned up by a search for Stan Mikita and posted everything of substance. That's why the post was so long.

In any case, thanks for your input - I appreciate hearing from you and others who watched these players. Any suggestions on games to watch of the mid-60s Hawks that are online?

I know you didn't cherry pick the SI articles but others have cherry picked pieces of them to support their own theories as misguided as they may be.

I am not sure what is out their on-line for mid-60's Hawk games. There must be a few on you tube. I record them on my DVR when the NHL channel shows them. I also picked up a DVD of a mid-60's Hawk/Wings game at the same time that I bought the DVD on the 61 Black hawk cup run.