Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Centers)

[sr edler]

the Moose was still great in those playoffs.

Of course he was, great in those playoffs that is, but the notion here was if he carried the team. Carry in sports is a term that is often used as to describe someone who carries the whole team. The season before, in 1992–93, with roughly the same team, when Leetch went out with an injury, Rangers didn't make the playoffs. So, to me, it seems more like Leetch carried the team.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

When we submit our vote do we rank each player eligible this round or do we only do top four?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When we submit our vote do we rank each player eligible this round or do we only do top four?

Rank top 8 (which is the same as ranking all 9 when there are only 9 candidates like this round but actually makes a difference in later rounds when there are 10-15 candidates).

 

[seventieslord]

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.

Absolutely their whole career should be considered. However, at least some thought needs to be given to the fact that centers typically score more points than wingers . This will come into play in the wingers project, too.

 

[seventieslord]

The case for Gretzky not being #1:

 

[MXD]

Absolutely their whole career should be considered. However, at least some thought needs to be given to the fact that centers typically score more points than wingers . This will come into play in the wingers project, too.

One would also think that centers are better players than wingers (...generally speaking, of course), so a 1st AST on RW isn't necessarily better than a 2nd AST at C.

Unless you did so in the first half of the fifties.

 

[overpass]

I have no idea what he means by "best defensive record in the league." Unofficial plus/minus? Yes, Mikita and Hull were usually on different lines at even strength. Mikita often went head to head against the top center of the other team, while Hull often went head to head against the top RW of the other team. From what I gather, the Hawks didn't really have any defensive specialists, so they often went strength vs strength.

I'm fairly sure "defensive record" refers to plus-minus. Ron Andrews compiled and distributed plus-minus to NHL teams for at least the last few seasons of the O6 era before it became an official NHL stat in 1967.

If I had to guess who had the best plus-minus in those years, Mikita would be my guess*. He was the league's leading scorer, played for a strong team that lacked depth, and had better linemates and less specific attention from opponents than Hull.

Mikita might have been good defensively but I don't know if plus-minus would prove that.

*I know that Pierre Pilote had the best plus-minus for one year in the 60s, not sure who led in the other years.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The case for Gretzky not being #1:

Agreed.

 

[thom]

Thanks for talking about Pierre Piolette a 3 time norris trophy winner a guy who knocked out Maurice Richard in a fight.Even other media have forgoten him.As for Makita Im confused of where he should be placed.Its like the sakic yzermand discussion.Or clarke vs Trottier.And even Denis Savard vs Peter Stasny.I go over my mind and have seen them play and read tons of publications but cant figure who might be better.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The argument for Lemieux over Gretzky, in a nutshell:

1) The eye test. At one point in my life, I would have told you that Lemieux was a better hockey player than Gretzky. He just looked THAT good, on an aesthetic level in my mind with Muhammad Ali, Pele and Barry Sanders as jaw-droppingly, sublimely talented athletes who simply did whatever the hell they wanted against world-class competition. Grace and power in motion, at a level that maybe Bobby Orr could match.

2) The "what-if?" game. I think we've all been around this block a few times already. Gretzky played on a dynasty during his youth, while Lemieux basically carried the Pens on his back and won Cups as soon as they gave him something to work with. Lemieux made Kevin Stevens and Rob Brown into 50-goal scorers. Lemieux was passing to Brown when he reached the 200-point range, whereas Gretzky was passing to Kurri. What happens to those point totals if they swap wingers? Also, Lemieux's longevity was severely affected by injury and by cancer -- considering he came back and dominated at age 40, is it really fair to say he had less staying power than Gretzky?

3) The "Gretzky is overrated" angle. Wayne was the ultimate right-place-right-time story, as the playmaking center on a firewagon team during the highest-scoring period in history. Several of his teammates went on to Hall of Fame careers, and would have done so regardless whether they played with Wayne or not. Had he played primarily in the 1990s, when goalies were larger and more fundamentally sound, and opposing teams were far more willing to take liberties with slightly-built superstars, perhaps Gretzky's numbers come back down to earth a bit. Lemieux certainly never showed a lack of ability to score at will on 1990s goalies and to fight through 1990s obstruction, but Gretzky looked a bit less impressive as time wore on. It's common to hear from fans who were young in the 1990s that they were astonished by Lemieux and underwhelmed by Gretzky.

What the argument boils down to is that Lemieux was simply a better player than Gretzky, a force of nature that went largely to waste due to not being in the right time and place. That if you were drafting a team to win it all, you would be well served to take Mario #1.



^ I hope I represented that argument accurately. I think all the major points are in there.

This is a big factor in my judgment.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

On my original list, I honestly cant remember and I'm making it a point not to look it up as I want to treat each round with a fresh point of view as it where.

This round he is looking like a 5th or 6th guy to me, which honestly pains me because I really hated his arrogance in Vancouver.

Clarke was my favorite player growing up but I'm not sure if he ranks over anybody other than Phil this round.

Morenz I'm having a tough time with.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

4th post in and we have Clarke and his 3 Harts already?

Does anyone here honestly think Clarke was better than Orr in 73 or 75?

There is an argument for him being the best center in those years sure but let's keep his 3 Harts in some perspective please.

Clarke also was a much better point producer once Reggie Leach became his trigger man as well.

He is probably the worst offensive guy on the list yet the best defensive guy so how to treat him?

Its only a recent phenomenon that Hart = best player. It could be argued easily that Clarke was more valuable to his team than Orr to his, without being the better player or having the better season.

 

[reckoning]

For me, the top four are in order:

Gretzky
Lemieux
Beliveau
Morenz

I don't see a realistic argument for any of the others breaking into the top four.

Gretzky and Lemieux are obviously on a completely different level for the rest. Yes, it could be debated that Lemieux's peak was comparable to Gretzky's, but the fact that Gretzky maintained that level of offensive greatness for so long gives him the decisive victory in my opinion. Most of the anti-Gretzky arguments ("He's protected by goons", "The league won't let anyone hit him", "He only get points because of the stars on Edmonton") have been thoroughly debunked on this board several times.


Howie Morenz was considered the greatest player in hockey during his prime. Others on the list were in contention for that title during the eras, but with Morenz it was almost unanimous. A good example of this is the voting in 1950 by the Canadian Press for the greatest hockey player from 1900-1950:

Howie Morenz - 27 votes
Maurice Richard - 4 votes
Cyclone Taylor - 3 votes
Frank Nighbor - 2 votes

Winning the poll by any margin would have been impressive enough, but it was an absolute landslide.

But I still have to put Beliveau at #3. He was just so good for so long. The only player in history to be the top centre on two separate dynasties. Certainly had a better second half to his career than the rest in this vote.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think it took away significantly from his reputation as a leader and franchise-changer. His time in Vancouver was a debacle for which many have still not forgiven him. Egotistical, divisive, distracting. Severely reduced the legacy of a player who had to that point been seen as one of the very best captains in history.



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

Excellent points.

Messier's end of career years hurt his reputation as a leader.

Trottier's drop off is significant, also. Were injuries a big factor for him?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Of course he was, great in those playoffs that is, but the notion here was if he carried the team. Carry in sports is a term that is often used as to describe someone who carries the whole team. The season before, in 1992–93, with roughly the same team, when Leetch went out with an injury, Rangers didn't make the playoffs. So, to me, it seems more like Leetch carried the team.

Agreed, Mark doesn't help his cause with his huge ego.

 

[BraveCanadian]

This is a big factor in my judgment.

If he was really a better player, wouldn't that be reflected in the results?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If he was really a better player, wouldn't that be reflected in the results?

By results you mean what?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Its only a recent phenomenon that Hart = best player. It could be argued easily that Clarke was more valuable to his team than Orr to his, without being the better player or having the better season.

for Clarke's first Hart maybe yes and even then was anyone more valuable to his team than Orr when he played in more than 20 games a season?

Even in 73 was Clarke that much better than say Rick MacLeish compared to a 101 point Orr to Phil's 130?

Orr was a plus 56 that year, the next best on hi team was surprise his D partner Dallas Smith at plus 38.

Clarke won 3 Harts yes but we should never confuse that to guys who never won and were every bit as valuable to their team, ie a Detroit guy who didn't make the cut this round.

Lots of players are as valuable or even more valuable to their team and they never get near a Hart.

 

[BraveCanadian]

By results you mean what?

Anything other than looking good?

 

[Hardyvan123]

For me, the top four are in order:

Gretzky
Lemieux
Beliveau
Morenz

I don't see a realistic argument for any of the others breaking into the top four.

Gretzky and Lemieux are obviously on a completely different level for the rest. Yes, it could be debated that Lemieux's peak was comparable to Gretzky's, but the fact that Gretzky maintained that level of offensive greatness for so long gives him the decisive victory in my opinion. Most of the anti-Gretzky arguments ("He's protected by goons", "The league won't let anyone hit him", "He only get points because of the stars on Edmonton") have been thoroughly debunked on this board several times.


Howie Morenz was considered the greatest player in hockey during his prime. Others on the list were in contention for that title during the eras, but with Morenz it was almost unanimous. A good example of this is the voting in 1950 by the Canadian Press for the greatest hockey player from 1900-1950:

Howie Morenz - 27 votes
Maurice Richard - 4 votes
Cyclone Taylor - 3 votes
Frank Nighbor - 2 votes

Winning the poll by any margin would have been impressive enough, but it was an absolute landslide.

But I still have to put Beliveau at #3. He was just so good for so long. The only player in history to be the top centre on two separate dynasties. Certainly had a better second half to his career than the rest in this vote.

With all due respect to the Canadian Press poll, comprised of many who probably saw Morenz play never or only a hand full of games ever, his myth and legend grow due to his unfortunate death.

It's only a recent phenomenon that the sports media or even home teams press has taken a critical or more subjective view on players, in past days the media room was full of free booze and food, "reporters" didn't upset the gravy train.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Anything other than looking good?

Scoring goals, for one thing.

Hard to compare results in team sports. They were in different situations. It could be argued Mario would have been more prolific a scorer than Gretzky if he could have played for the 80s Oilers. Mario also seemed less effected by the defensive (dead puck?) era than Gretzky. In the heart of the dead puck era Lemieux still dominated offensively like no one else and at an advanced age.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

With all due respect to the Canadian Press poll, comprised of many who probably saw Morenz play never or only a hand full of games ever, his myth and legend grow due to his unfortunate death.

It's only a recent phenomenon that the sports media or even home teams press has taken a critical or more subjective view on players, in past days the media room was full of free booze and food, "reporters didn't upset the gravy train.

And hard to believe Eddie Shore garnered no votes. Perhaps his sparkling personality had something to do with it?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

True.

But played "Oilers hockey" for the Rangers.

Paced himself and picked his spots to be physical.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Top Three Centers

Which of the top three had the most complete overall game for a center, able to play any style needed, either offensively or defensively?

Team features two centers - Gretzky and Beliveau or Lemieux and Beliveau.

Who would you expect to be the team scoring leader and who would you expect to be the team leader or captain?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm fairly sure "defensive record" refers to plus-minus. Ron Andrews compiled and distributed plus-minus to NHL teams for at least the last few seasons of the O6 era before it became an official NHL stat in 1967.

If I had to guess who had the best plus-minus in those years, Mikita would be my guess*. He was the league's leading scorer, played for a strong team that lacked depth, and had better linemates and less specific attention from opponents than Hull.

Mikita might have been good defensively but I don't know if plus-minus would prove that.

*I know that Pierre Pilote had the best plus-minus for one year in the 60s, not sure who led in the other years.

Odd, but Mikita is the only Art Ross winner (other than Gretzky) to be a minus player in a year he won it (67-68) since +/- has been kept officially.