Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Centers)

[BraveCanadian]

I get what you're saying here, though. Trottier's career ended with a thud and that really needs to be addressed.

Five straight finals runs did all of Isles big 3 in if you ask me.

They were all declining or done by just after 30.

 

[sr edler]

For all the talk of Messier carrying his team to the cup in 94: Are we all forgetting just how good Brian Leetch was?

Not only Leetch but the whole team was really good top to bottom.

 

[ted2019]

One word on positions.

I think that, if a player is considered at center for the purposes of this project, then he should be deemed being a center for his whole career. It would avoid the inconsistency of punishing a guy who played 4 years at wing, while voting in players who didn't even play that many seasons at C. Besides, Messier is de facto ineligible for the eventual winger list, so taking something away from him here wouldn't make much sense once all the lists are over.

Fair enough

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One word on positions.

I think that, if a player is considered at center for the purposes of this project, then he should be deemed being a center for his whole career. It would avoid the inconsistency of punishing a guy who played 4 years at wing, while voting in players who didn't even play that many seasons at C. Besides, Messier is de facto ineligible for the eventual winger list, so taking something away from him here wouldn't make much sense once all the lists are over.

I agree with this line of thinking.

Morenz mostly played with Joliat, Gagnon and Boucher (Billy)

Richard was never a regular linemate of Bill.

To add to this, Beliveau's even strength linemates were Olmstead and Geoffrion in the 50s, then some combo of Elmer Ferguson, Gillies Tremblay, Bobby Rousseau, and Yvon Cournoyer in the 60 from what I can gather. (C1958 can help more with the 60s; regardless, they weren't that spectacular). In the 50s, he was the centerpiece of the dominant Canadiens PP with Richard, Harvey, and company though.

Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita were not regular even strength linemates, but their shifts had to overlap at times due to their reportedly high ice time. They played together on the PP, along with Pierre Pilote, who was by far the best offensive defenseman of the 60s. One thing about Hull and Mikita playing on separate lines is that we know that opposing checkers focused on Hull, so that MAY have opened up Mikita to score more (perhaps this partly explains why Mikita has only 2 Hart Trophies to go along with his 4 Art Rosses? I dunno).

 

[tarheelhockey]

Five straight finals runs did all of Isles big 3 in if you ask me.

They were all declining or done by just after 30.

From what I remember in a previous thread, I believe it was TDMM who showed that the entire generation of players who peaked around 1980 had unusually short careers.

 

[ted2019]

Mario having a better chance of being third that first? Take a hard look at your own avatar, Lindros standing there beside Clarke. Sip in that image, experience that evolution that both Gretzky and Lemieux went through. If you happen to be a more modern guy than that, then lets reminice an image centering Lindros and Messier, Gretzkys teammate, and tell me, that Lemieux did not end up supreme. Gretzky would maybe score 50+110 today, while Lemieux would do 75+90. Solid.

No, I think that Beliveau was not that far behind Mario, not that Gretzky was that much ahead of Mario. I think that Beliveau gets really short changed in these type of discussions.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Five straight finals runs did all of Isles big 3 in if you ask me.

They were all declining or done by just after 30.

This is a valid point in explaining Trottier's decline, but it's not like Messier played less playoff hockey than Trottier did at a young age. Makes Messier's longevity as an impact player all the more impressive IMO.

From what I remember in a previous thread, I believe it was TDMM who showed that the entire generation of players who peaked around 1980 had unusually short careers.

Yeah it's weird. But Trottier was only 5 years older than Messier; is it that much of a difference? Lots of players in Messier's cohort (Stastny, Savard, Hawerchuk, etc) declined at relatively young ages too.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I had Beliveau in the last ATD and one thing that stood out to me when researching him was his versatility. He centered a lot of different players and told them to just play their game and it was up to him to adjust to their style, not the other way around.

He played with speedy guys like Cournoyer, Bobby Rousseau, and Gilles Tremblay. Grinder types like Dickie Moore, Bert Olmstead, John Ferguson, and Marcel Bonin. Some were more biased goalscorers like Geoffrion and Cournoyer, and Olmstead was purely a passer.

 

[Hardyvan123]

who benefitted the most from their linemates:

Trottier had one of the greatest scorers of all-time in Bossy.

Not sure if you have these guys in order of most benifitted or not but will take each one as they come up.

Trottier had a very good first 2 years before Bossy arrived, sure bossy probably help him but he had this for his 1st 2 seasons.

80-32-63-95 plus 28 , aside form Potvin, he had 25 more points than the next best forward on that team.

76-30-42-76 plus 28, once again the best forward on the team and helped maintain the good production of Billy Harris

Esposito had Orr.

In contrast we saw what Phil did, or actually didn't do in his none Boston years and the R-on, R-off really tells us what kind of player Orr was, compared to Phil

Did Mikita play with Hull that much 5 on 5, or were they mostly together on the PP?

Mikita was #3 for me, a star player at both ends of the ice and completely changed his game from an instigator type to a Lady Byng guy and didn't lose a step.

Beliveau had Richard for several years.

Jean was a star before he entered the league and his playoff scoring and play made him #2 on my list, great longevity and aged extremely well.

Messier I assume was only mostly with Wayne on the PP only. Won the Hart without Wayne, and carried the Rangers to their Cup in 94.

The Moose is a weird case, always had great talent around him yet always seemed to play very well, well often enough and for enough games to a serious consideration for top 5 IMO.

Clarke had Leach.?

He did but it really only affected his scoring, bumping it up slightly for 2 regular season years, if he scored only around 100ish points in those years he would still have been a top, if not the top center in the league with his 2 way play.

Morenz.... did he play with Lalonde?

I'm not so sure that line mates matter quite as much with such small rosters and the style of play in the 20's and 30's, will have to research that a bit.

Also Nighbor has been brought up 2 times in this thread, I had to backtrack and check that he wasn't eligible for voting.

 

[ted2019]

I really hate this being used against Messier. Would he be a better player in your eyes if he retired after 1996-97 at the age of 37? I don't think what Messier did after 1997 adds anything to his legacy, but I don't see why it takes anything away, either.

Edit: By comparison, Bryan Trottier's last season as a point-per-game player (in high-scoring 80s) came at the age of 31 and he retired after his age 35 season. He had a brief, mostly unsuccessful comeback at the age of 37. Messier was a Hart finalist at the age of 36.

Another fair point. That's why I said that My #7-10 can easily change. I also count Trottier's and the Isles 4 straight cups as part of Trottier's placement. Trottier was the defacto #1 Center on those Islander teams and They don't go anywhere without Him, just as They don't get a far without Bossy, Potvin, Smith, Bourne, etc.

 

[Pominville Knows]

No, I think that Beliveau was not that far behind Mario, not that Gretzky was that much ahead of Mario. I think that Beliveau gets really short changed in these type of discussions.

Okey then, i must have misunderstood you. It sounded like you where one of the new-old guard, becouse beside the gaining knowledge, or perhaps the understanding of the knowledge concerning Beliveau much just like Howe compared to the other Big-4, there seem to be people taking it all like Lemieux has fallen, while it in fact it is Beliveau that has gained.

 

[BraveCanadian]

This is a valid point in explaining Trottier's decline, but it's not like Messier played less playoff hockey than Trottier did at a young age. Makes Messier's longevity as an impact player all the more impressive IMO.

I'm not sure that the wear and tear playing Isles hockey is the same as Oilers during that period but, regardless of that, Messier's longevity is definitely one of his stronger points.

In my opinion Trottier peaked higher than Messier all around though.. so they get really hard to pick between.

From what I remember in a previous thread, I believe it was TDMM who showed that the entire generation of players who peaked around 1980 had unusually short careers.

It is true that a lot of players of that time seemed to burn out quickly.

I'm not sure anyone has figured out a good reason for it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is a valid point in explaining Trottier's decline, but it's not like Messier played less playoff hockey than Trottier did at a young age. Makes Messier's longevity as an impact player all the more impressive IMO.



Yeah it's weird. But Trottier was only 5 years older than Messier; is it that much of a difference? Lots of players in Messier's cohort (Stastny, Savard, Hawerchuk, etc) declined at relatively young ages too.

I actually think when one compares Trottier and Moose through age 30 that Bryan wins the race, but Moose aged much better, which is ironic in a way, and had several elite or close to elite seasons after age 30 which is probably the difference between the 2 for me.

 

[VanIslander]

There seems to be a consensus about the Big Three (in whatever order) but a HUGE difference of opinion about who the fourth inductee should be.

Mikita, Messier, Morenz and maybe Clarke and Trottier all seem like contenders for fourth overall, the one slot we seem most divergent about, hence could best benefit from discussing.

Based on comments here as well as elsewhere, Esposito is the only howler who's not at all in the running for fourth overall, but shouldn't he? Yeah, he's slow and a bit one dimensional, but his scoring relative to peers and value to the Bruins and to Team Canada rivals the other candidates. Perhaps his incredible scoring prowess over an eight-year stretch (five 1sts, three 2nds) is overshadowed by Orr just as Messier's was by Gretzky. Of course, Mess played on a different line than Gretz except for the powerplay whereas Espo and Orr were a tandem tearing up the league with complementary skills.

Clarke is the worst offensive player listed here, and I don't think it's particularly close. Still, his Hart record indicates he was considered more valuable than Esposito and Trottier over the course of his career, right?

If by offensive you mean goal scorer then yeah. However, he was a vastly superior passer than Esposito. Clarke was a rich man's Oates with an extra dose of pest.

As for value to their team, Trottier's playoff role front and center on a dynasty club at least equals Clarke's esteem by those voting for most valuable player to their team in the regular season.

 

[Hardyvan123]

We give players credit for being naturally stronger, faster, more coordinated, etc. than other players. We discredit players for being naturally slower, weaker, less coordinated, etc. than other players. Why is the body's natural durability not on the table when everything else is?

Perhaps you misunderstood my post, players should be judged on what they did and all time missed should be considered the same, except for lockouts and WW2 and WW1 too.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There's quite a bit of a difference between WW and lockouts, and I really hope not having to explain it at this stage of my existence...

Well in terms of time missed they aren't though, in both cases all or most NHL players weren't allowed to play in the NHL and that's the consideration that must be given here.

Is anyone here not giving consideration to time missed for lockouts but are doing so for WW2?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure that the wear and tear playing Isles hockey is the same as Oilers during that period but, regardless of that, Messier's longevity is definitely one of his stronger points.

In my opinion Trottier peaked higher than Messier all around though.. so they get really hard to pick between.




It is true that a lot of players of that time seemed to burn out quickly.

I'm not sure anyone has figured out a good reason for it.

Messier played "Islanders hockey" when he was a member of the Oilers, if you know what I mean.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not in terms of evaluating players, though. Whether it's war or lockout, a player shouldn't be penalized for total inability to play at a particular time.

To me, the tricky thing is figuring out how not to penalize him OR give him extra "theoretical" credit for that time period. It's a fine line to walk.

The easiest, and most fair way is to look at the before and after and come to some, subjective as it may be, middle ground at least.

Also one needs to consider the context of any major changes and the length of time, context always matters.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not only Leetch but the whole team was really good top to bottom.

Most SC teams are though right?

Moose did have a 23-12-18-30 plus 14 line on that team, and while I think Leetch was the true star of that team, the Moose was still great in those playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Most SC teams are though right?

Moose did have a 23-12-18-30 plus 14 line on that team, and while I think Leetch was the true star of that team, the Moose was still great in those playoffs.

Yah, I would be very surprised if Messier wasn't 2nd in Conn Smythe voting in both 1990 and 1994 (though I would imagine it would be a distant second in 1994 as great as Leetch was).

 

[Hardyvan123]

No, I think that Beliveau was not that far behind Mario, not that Gretzky was that much ahead of Mario. I think that Beliveau gets really short changed in these type of discussions.

I do as well and quite simply Mario didn't play in enough games to make my top 3.

Both Jean and Stan had several hundred more games at an elite level than Mario did which simply is too much for me to ignore here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah it's weird. But Trottier was only 5 years older than Messier; is it that much of a difference? Lots of players in Messier's cohort (Stastny, Savard, Hawerchuk, etc) declined at relatively young ages too.

Players who reached 1000 games (by birth year)

Year | # | Players
1951|5|Robinson, Dionne, Salming, Lafleur, Ramsay
1952|2|Lever, Russell
1953|5|Gainey, MacDonald, Potvin, Lewis, Middleton
1954|2|Snepsts, Murray
1955|1|Taylor
1956|3| Trottier , Carlyle, Federko
1957|4|Roberts, Tonelli, Mullen, Wilson
1958|5|MacTavish, Marsh, Smith, Acton, Walter
1959|10|Gartner, Lowe, McCrimmon, Broten, Wells, Ramage, Foligno, Huddy, Propp, Christian
1960|9|Bourque, Hunter, Carbonneau, Kurri, Ciccarelli, Anderson, Goulet, Ramsey, Boschman
1961|11| Messier , Murphy, Gretzky, Coffey, Ludwig, Savard, Babych, Macoun, Nicholls, Ledyard, Larmer
1962|5|Chelios, Oates, Sutter, Courtnall, Duchesne
1963|13|Francis, Andreychuk, Gilmour, MacInnis, Patrick, Thomas, Dineen, Hawerchuk, Carpenter, Galley, Sutter, Miller, Adams
1964|14|Stevens, Housley, Verbeek, Daneyko, Hull, Ferraro, MacLean, Bellows, Suter, Tocchet, Ellett, Samuelsson, Craven, Rouse
1965|9|Yzerman, C. Lemieux, Bergevin, Ronning, Duchesne, Lowry, Berube, Courtnall, Gill
1966|17|Mellanby, Robitaille, Muller, Nieuwendyk, Roberts, Buchberger, Cote, Hatcher, Weinrich, Corson, Sweeney, Bodger, Richer, Olczyk, Svoboda, Olausson, Ranheim

In this case, 5 years seems to have made somewhat of a generational difference when it comes to longevity. It's like someone flipped a switch in 1959 and doubled/tripled the number of players who went on to have long careers.

I think it's relevant to point out that the most recent round of expansion began in 1992.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I do as well and quite simply Mario didn't play in enough games to make my top 3.

Both Jean and Stan had several hundred more games at an elite level than Mario did which simply is too much for me to ignore here.

I know you're a big career guy. Where do you have the Moose?

 

[MXD]

Well in terms of time missed they aren't though, in both cases all or most NHL players weren't allowed to play in the NHL and that's the consideration that must be given here.

Is anyone here not giving consideration to time missed for lockouts but are doing so for WW2?

Half-seasons should receive a bit less credit obviously but not that much. The whole season missed is important only in extreme AST counting cases. But that brings the question of diminishing the importance of seasons in Europe.

Besides, one year doesn't make a career. Most players were in the same stage of their career before and after the lockout. Three and a half years can do so, however.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Perhaps you misunderstood my post, players should be judged on what they did and all time missed should be considered the same, except for lockouts and WW2 and WW1 too.

Ok yes I did misunderstand. I definitely agree that lockouts and wars are in a category of their own. I'm not sure how I feel about the difference between getting injured because of playing and something like contracting a disease or getting hit by a car.