Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Centers)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look at the Penguins roster in 1995-96: their blueline was a joke, and Tom Barrasso had a really poor year from a save percentage standpoint. Mario did what he did - put up a crap ton of points. I realize he didn't do much of anything defensively, but still, hard to blame a center for all those minuses when the goaltending and defensemen are terrible

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Certainly I credit Esposito for his role on Team Canada in the 1972 Summit Series. His leadership and competitiveness were significant. It's nearly impossible to talk about how that series happened without mentioning him. Those were elite games. Though, as I will explain shortly, his elite game performances pale next to another historical great center.

Playoff performances are often overshadowed by regular season hardware and top-whatever regular season stats in discussions around here of historical worth. I recall the Oilers first Stanley Cup and Messier's Conn Smythe was richly deserved with his play against the Flames and Islanders. Elite games indeed.

It was an open question often debated in the late eighties whether Gretz or Mess was more valuable to the dynasty, a real testament to Moose, before his Rangers days. Messier had 18 great years before his Vancouver debacle, and his impact in big games goes beyond offensive stats, though he scored consistently for a decade and a half in the postseason. Everyone thinks of Gretzky and Mario's winning goal in the 1987 Canada Cup but Messier was dominant there as he was in the 1991 Canada Cup, very physical in 1987 and with timely scoring plays in 1991. In terms of elite games, Messier gets a boost in his relative worth.

If you just ranked players based on playoffs, I could see a ranking like this:

Gretzky
Beliveau/Messier
Lemieux

Trottier/Morenz
Clarke
Esposito/Mikita

That said, every center available so far was at least good in the playoffs

 

[VanIslander]

If you just ranked players based on playoffs, I could see a ranking like this:

Gretzky
Beliveau/Messier
Lemieux

Trottier/Morenz
Clarke
Esposito/Mikita

I don't see the gap here.

I think of Clarke, Esposito and Morenz as about equivalent, sandwiched between Trottier and Mikita.

That said, every center available so far was at least good in the playoffs

Indeed. No 2nd in all-time career regular season scoring Marcel Dionne yet.

 

[seventieslord]

The above were Lemieux's only two -3 games that season. But similar correlations seem to exist in the other minus games.

10-12-1995 - Lemieux -2 with a goal in a 5-1 loss
12-22-1995 - Lemieux -2 with an assist in a 4-2 loss
1-16-1996 - Lemieux -2 with a goal in a 5-2 loss
1-31-1996 - Lemieux -2 with an assist in a 4-1 loss
2-3-1996 - Lemieux -2 and scoreless in a 3-0 loss
2-21-1996 - Lemieux -2 and scoreless in a 6-3 loss
2-29-1996 - Lemieux -2 with an assist in a 7-3 loss

There were only two games that season where Lemieux was -2 in a one-goal game, and he had 3 points in those 2 games.

The Pens' record when Lemieux was a minus -- 3-1-18.
The Pens' record when Lemieux was even -- 17-4-1.
The Pens' record when Lemieux was a plus -- 24-2-0.

It doesn't look to me like it was Lemieux playing poorly, so much as him providing the bulk of his team's offense while they got stomped in every other facet of the game.

Ok. But I believe his point was, "look at all the times he scored a few points and was still a minus"

Indeed. No 2nd in all-time career regular season scoring Marcel Dionne yet.

He hasn't been 2nd for 25 years... he's now 5th.

He was only 2nd from March 1986, to January 1989.

 

[seventieslord]

**apologies for formatting... I don't put stars in my posts, they get inserted along the way**

All of those were in the high scoring half leagues that aren't directly comparable to the lower scoring consolidated NHL.

I'm talking the 20 year period between consolidation (and the NHL's first dead puck era of the late 20s) until World War 2. Howie Morenz's year to year consistency was at least as good, if not better than any other player during this time. The only player with similar consistency that I can see was Charlie Conacher, with 5 straight seasons in the top 5, but Conacher did basically nothing of note outside those 5 years, and Conacher was pure goal scorer in an era that undercounted assists (Morenz was fairly balanced although slightly more towards goals than assists). And this is just offense.

1914, 1915? 4th and 5th place finishes in those years would be like 8th and 10th place finishes in a consolidated league. (I realize Morenz's 1925 and 1926 season fall under the same category).

Hey, you asked and I answered the question literally. I wasn't talking about 4th/5th place finishes either, was I? I cut it off at 3rd, and considering Lalonde was an NHA player I think that equates to a 5th overall most often.

Morenz was a more goal-heavy player in a league where the points list favoured goals too. Their situations weren't as different as you think. And what does it matter if the "half leagues" were high scoring anyway, since we're talking about where the players ranked?

Using my old consistency projects that consolidate leagues , Morenz has a 2-7-8-8-10 in goalscoring and 1-5-7-8-8 in playmaking. (top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20). Lalonde has 3-9-10-11-11 in goalscoring and* 2-3-3-6-8 in playmaking. Their offensive profiles are practically identical.

----
As far as Mikita and Morenz are concerned, I realize the argument has been made, through polls and hart voting, that Morenz was higher up in the pecking order of his time. That's true. It's not really disputable, even.

However: we need to take level of dominance AND quality of competition into consideration. And Mikita's quality of competition was much greater. (please don't mistake this for a "he played more recently, therefore he is better" argument)

A Quick look at the top halves of our top defensemen* and goalies lists, as well as the 41 forwards on our top-70 players list from 2009 (in the absence of a newer top forwards list) shows that, out of the top 40, 30, and 20 position players of all-time, Mikita played over half of his NHL career competing with the following players for recognition and votes:

-****** Glenn Hall (#4 goalie)
-****** Terry Sawchuk (#5 goalie)
-****** Tony Esposito (#16 goalie)
-****** Bernie Parent (#17 goalie)
-****** Johnny Bower (#19 goalie)
-****** Bobby Orr (#1 defenseman)
-****** Brad Park (#11 defenseman)
-****** Tim Horton (#17 defenseman)
-****** Serge Savard (#28 defenseman)
-****** Gordie Howe (#2 forward)
-****** Bobby Hull (#4 forward)
-****** Jean Beliveau (#5 forward)
-****** Phil Esposito (#10 forward)
-****** Bobby Clarke (#11 forward)
-****** Frank Mahovlich (#28 forward)
-****** Henri Richard (#30 forward)

The same list for Howie Morenz:


-****** Clint Benedict (#12 goalie)
-****** Chuck Gardiner (#11 goalie)
-****** Roy Worters (#18 goalie)
-****** Eddie Shore (#4 defenseman)
-****** King Clancy (#12 defenseman)
-****** Dit Clapper (#24 defenseman)
-****** Bill Cook (#23 forward)
-****** Charlie Conacher (#26 forward)
-****** Frank Boucher (#27 forward)
-****** Aurele Joliat (#37 forward)

That's more elite players at every position (5-3 in goal, 4-3 in net, 7-4 at forward, 16-10 overall), and if you look at the rankings of the players it is even more pronounced:

-****** Mikita competed with the #4, 5, 16, 17 and 19 goalies, Morenz #11, 12, and 18.

-****** Mikita competed with the #1, 11, 17 and 28 defensemen, Morenz #4, 12, and 24.

-****** Mikita competed with the # 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 28 and 30 forwards, Morenz #23, 26, 27 and 37.

Yes, the fifth best forward Mikita competed against regularly is by all accounts significantly better than the best forward Morenz competed against regularly.

 

[VanIslander]

He hasn't been 2nd for 25 years... he's now 5th.

He was only 2nd from March 1986, to January 1989.

Of course. But just as Esposito was 2nd during his career, so was Dionne. He was a significant regular season scorer (the most prolific in the decade of the latter half of the 70s and first half of 80s). It's his playoff resume that's wanting, hence the relevance of bringing him up in talk of elite game play. If he was even "good" at the elite game level of any of the nine on our consideration list this round then maybe Dionne would be in this round instead of probably a few rounds from now.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Abstract Generalities

**apologies for formatting... I don't put stars in my posts, they get inserted along the way**


Hey, you asked and I answered the question literally. I wasn't talking about 4th/5th place finishes either, was I? I cut it off at 3rd, and considering Lalonde was an NHA player I think that equates to a 5th overall most often.

Morenz was a more goal-heavy player in a league where the points list favoured goals too. Their situations weren't as different as you think. And what does it matter if the "half leagues" were high scoring anyway, since we're talking about where the players ranked?

Using my old consistency projects that consolidate leagues , Morenz has a 2-7-8-8-10 in goalscoring and 1-5-7-8-8 in playmaking. (top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20). Lalonde has 3-9-10-11-11 in goalscoring and* 2-3-3-6-8 in playmaking. Their offensive profiles are practically identical.

----
As far as Mikita and Morenz are concerned, I realize the argument has been made, through polls and hart voting, that Morenz was higher up in the pecking order of his time. That's true. It's not really disputable, even.

However: we need to take level of dominance AND quality of competition into consideration. And Mikita's quality of competition was much greater. (please don't mistake this for a "he played more recently, therefore he is better" argument)

A Quick look at the top halves of our top defensemen* and goalies lists, as well as the 41 forwards on our top-70 players list from 2009 (in the absence of a newer top forwards list) shows that, out of the top 40, 30, and 20 position players of all-time, Mikita played over half of his NHL career competing with the following players for recognition and votes:

-****** Glenn Hall (#4 goalie)
-****** Terry Sawchuk (#5 goalie)
-****** Tony Esposito (#16 goalie)
-****** Bernie Parent (#17 goalie)
-****** Johnny Bower (#19 goalie)
-****** Bobby Orr (#1 defenseman)
-****** Brad Park (#11 defenseman)
-****** Tim Horton (#17 defenseman)
-****** Serge Savard (#28 defenseman)
-****** Gordie Howe (#2 forward)
-****** Bobby Hull (#4 forward)
-****** Jean Beliveau (#5 forward)
-****** Phil Esposito (#10 forward)
-****** Bobby Clarke (#11 forward)
-****** Frank Mahovlich (#28 forward)
-****** Henri Richard (#30 forward)

The same list for Howie Morenz:


-****** Clint Benedict (#12 goalie)
-****** Chuck Gardiner (#11 goalie)
-****** Roy Worters (#18 goalie)
-****** Eddie Shore (#4 defenseman)
-****** King Clancy (#12 defenseman)
-****** Dit Clapper (#24 defenseman)
-****** Bill Cook (#23 forward)
-****** Charlie Conacher (#26 forward)
-****** Frank Boucher (#27 forward)
-****** Aurele Joliat (#37 forward)

That's more elite players at every position (5-3 in goal, 4-3 in net, 7-4 at forward, 16-10 overall), and if you look at the rankings of the players it is even more pronounced:

-****** Mikita competed with the #4, 5, 16, 17 and 19 goalies, Morenz #11, 12, and 18.

-****** Mikita competed with the #1, 11, 17 and 28 defensemen, Morenz #4, 12, and 24.

-****** Mikita competed with the # 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 28 and 30 forwards, Morenz #23, 26, 27 and 37.

Yes, the fifth best forward Mikita competed against regularly is by all accounts significantly better than the best forward Morenz competed against regularly.

Still you are trying to use abstract generalities thus avoiding the point about competition that I made upthread. Also simple ranking numbers do not tell the whole picture. In fact it is debateable as to whether they clarify or confuse.

Will illustrate. Gordie Howe played over 250 NHL games against Doug Harvey spanning over 20 years. We can micro analyze this match-up over a large sample size - the equivalent of nearly 4 NHL seasons of 70 game. Break it down home/away, playoff, weaker team stronger team, etc. compare how each did to their overall NHL performance, to others - Howe vs Horton, Harvey vs Bathgate etc and get a feel for how performance varies, etc.

Modern day can look at Jagr vs Lidstrom, but they rarely played against each other, certainly not 14 times in a regular season. Never met in the playoffs. Or Lemieux vs Lidstom. Very few games to consider. Negligible impact.

In this context the #x RW all time vs the #y Dman loses meaning.

At first glance, facing the # 4 and 5 defensemen may seem tougher than the #11 and 12 but you still are left with the # of games issue and the variable team strength issue - How did Howe do against Harvey when the Wings were the dynasty, when the Canadiens were the dynasty. when Harvey was with the Rangers or St.Louis?

The Mikita/Morenz comparison above does not change much because it is rather shallow in scope - lacks the results of the competion with or against or at the same time argument. The numerical part lacks the actual results.

Specifically your contribution that Mikita competed with the #4, 5, 16, 17 and 19 goalies while Morenz competed with goalies #11, 12 and 18 is nice to know but does not advance the discussion. first by competed with, I take you mean played against in games. What is important is what each player accomplished in those games. Was Mikita above, at or below his usual performance levels when facing these goalies. Likewise for Morenz. If it happens that Morenz against #18 was above while Mikita against #19 was well below then the conclusions may be quite different than the simple listing in your post suggests.

 

[seventieslord]

Still you are trying to use abstract generalities thus avoiding the point about competition that I made upthread. Also simple ranking numbers do not tell the whole picture. In fact it is debateable as to whether they clarify or confuse.

Will illustrate. Gordie Howe played over 250 NHL games against Doug Harvey spanning over 20 years. We can micro analyze this match-up over a large sample size - the equivalent of nearly 4 NHL seasons of 70 game. Break it down home/away, playoff, weaker team stronger team, etc. compare how each did to their overall NHL performance, to others - Howe vs Horton, Harvey vs Bathgate etc and get a feel for how performance varies, etc.

Modern day can look at Jagr vs Lidstrom, but they rarely played against each other, certainly not 14 times in a regular season. Never met in the playoffs. Or Lemieux vs Lidstom. Very few games to consider. Negligible impact.

In this context the #x RW all time vs the #y Dman loses meaning.

At first glance, facing the # 4 and 5 defensemen may seem tougher than the #11 and 12 but you still are left with the # of games issue and the variable team strength issue - How did Howe do against Harvey when the Wings were the dynasty, when the Canadiens were the dynasty. when Harvey was with the Rangers or St.Louis?

The Mikita/Morenz comparison above does not change much because it is rather shallow in scope - lacks the results of the competion with or against or at the same time argument. The numerical part lacks the actual results.

Specifically your contribution that Mikita competed with the #4, 5, 16, 17 and 19 goalies while Morenz competed with goalies #11, 12 and 18 is nice to know but does not advance the discussion. first by competed with, I take you mean played against in games. What is important is what each player accomplished in those games. Was Mikita above, at or below his usual performance levels when facing these goalies. Likewise for Morenz. If it happens that Morenz against #18 was above while Mikita against #19 was well below then the conclusions may be quite different than the simple listing in your post suggests.

This has precious little to do with what I'm saying. Head to head matchups were not even touched upon; right now we're dealing with the question of why Stan mikita was not considered the best player of his time while Morenz was. The competition for publicity, recognition and mvp votes was never stiffer than it was in his prime.

Interestingly, the year mikita won his first Hart was 1967, the year many of us believe was the best ever for the nhl on a top to bottom talent basis, since for 25 years the league remained a constant size while the number of players competing for jobs steadily grew.

Which competition level argument are you referring to? The one where any original six player wins over a modern player because they faced Doug Harvey every fifth game? The same one that ignores that they players also had a proportionally higher degree of teammate support due to the league's concentration?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Where's the Beef or Proof is in the Details.

This has precious little to do with what I'm saying. Head to head matchups were not even touched upon; right now we're dealing with the question of why Stan mikita was not considered the best player of his time while Morenz was. The competition for publicity, recognition and mvp votes was never stiffer than it was in his prime.

Interestingly, the year mikita won his first Hart was 1967, the year many of us believe was the best ever for the nhl on a top to bottom talent basis, since for 25 years the league remained a constant size while the number of players competing for jobs steadily grew.

Which competition level argument are you referring to? The one where any original six player wins over a modern player because they faced Doug Harvey every fifth game? The same one that ignores that they players also had a proportionally higher degree of teammate support due to the league's concentration?

Very superficial given that the individual match-up issue is slowly building momentum throughout hockey today. Not comfortable going there, fine. No need to misrepresent the argument either. Bolded is a false representation of competition.

With or without linemates being considered. Be it 14 regular season games per season or just 2, featuring a specific match-up the issue stands. Performance is viewed in context. Knowing how the best performed against the best is a vital part of the process of building context. Is the best center being the best center against the best goalie more impressive than learning the weaker centers gave the best goalies a lot more problems? Learning that a third line player scored at a better rate against a certain elite goalie than a first line center would raise important questions.

Previously the comparable gained traction in the Darryl Sittler vs Bobby Clarke discussions. Sittler enjoyed success against Clarke, especially in the playoffs despite limited teammate support. Worthwhile knowing why.

This round features Howie Morenz. Recognized as the premier player of his era. Yet Morenz had difficulties playing against an aging Frank Nighbor. Knowing why would be beneficial. How did Frank Boucher do against Frank Nighbor? Likewise looking a Morenz's performance against Frank Boucher and other leading centers.

Best player of his time or best center of his time. We are after all comparing centers not players. looking at centers merits looking at the competition element(with and against) vis à vis the best contemporary goalies, the best contemporary wingers or defensemen.

Morenz playing without a puck carrying or puck moving defenseman on his team had different responsibilities than a contemporary with such a defenseman. Teammate elements come into play. Helps explain the scoring differential and Hart voting patterns. Worth exploring.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok. But I believe his point was, "look at all the times he scored a few points and was still a minus"

And my point is, the minuses don't prove anything about Lemieux as an individual. His teams often lost by large margins while he scored most of their goals for them... so?

 

[jigglysquishy]

It would be nice if we could bring in some video/newspaper to see what people said about Lemieux. A minus isn't just a minus. There are 4 other skaters (and a goalie) who contribute.

We are making Lemieux out to be worse defensively than he actually was.

 

[matnor]

There has been some comments regarding quality of linemates. I put together a spreadsheet for each of the candidates this round except Howie Morenz which lists who had points together with them. The spreadsheet can be accessed using this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhT4UGHHqFCgdFMwTzlMX2RRWXUwb3hzbDIwTUJGbFE&usp=sharing

Let me know if something is unclear or if would like more information about specific seasons.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Does the fact that Mikita only has one title not make him somewhat inferior to others? And he doesn't even have a "bad team" excuse.

SC is really a team thing though, for example Phil had better teams in Boston (compared to the field) than Stan did for a lot of his time with the Black Hawks.

So who underperformed more Phil or Stan in the playoffs?

It's pretty hard to judge that.

Ironically from 64-67, Phil was one of Stan's team mates that really didn't bring it in the playoffs with a 4 and 6 game playoffs with 0 points, a 6 game one with a 1-12 line and his best was a 13-3-3-6 line (good for 6th on the team).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well............... if you look at the composition of the respective teams for each player considered the answer is rather obvious.

Except for Morenz all the other players you list were the beneficiaries of puck moving, rushing defensemen.

Morenz was supported by Sylvio Mantha, Albert Leduc and Herb Gardiner, non rushing or rarely rushing, non-transition defensemen The Canadiens centers of the era had to comeback deep and lead the rush, Morenz, Lepine and to an extent LW - Aurele Joliat all played a 200 foot game.

Weiland in 1929-30 was the original goal hog hanging near the net waiting for a forward pass until the "Blue Line" rule was introduced roughly beyond the 1/3 part of the season. But Boston had Eddie Shore to rush and move the puck from the defensive zone.

Esposito always had the benefit of rushing, transition defensemen - Pilote, Orr, etc. Prime example of cherrypicking with Espo, playing basically a 60' game.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau all enjoyed excellent transition, rushing defensemen help from the back end. Coffey, Harvey, Murphy, others all facilitated the rush while creating open ice in the offensive zone.

Pilote was the beneficiary of Hull and Mikita becoming superstars more than the other way around.

Prior to 1960 and age 24-27 Pierre's production was

.40
.24
.43
.53 Hull is a 20 year old rookie
.64 Hull explodes as a force leading the team by 19 goals and 26 points
.50 Hull slips a bit, Stan is 20
.71 Hull and Mikita are now the offensive and team leaders.
.44 Mikita slips lightly in production (1 point), Hull a little more but nothing like Pierre's drop.

Not really sure how Espostio and his time in Chicago is affected by Pilote, it wasn't all that great, but we know that Orr was the man in Boston.

 

[Hardyvan123]

IMO you have to be very careful using +/- this way.

For example:

February 24, 1996
Lemieux 1g 1a -3

Looks bad until you consider..

Final score: Habs 7 Pens 3
Shots: Habs 31 Pens 25
Lemieux's goal was scored on the PP
Montreal scored a SHG, probably with Lemieux somewhere on the ice
Barrasso - 31 minutes, 6 goals on 17 shots, .647
Wregget - 29 minutes, 1 goal on 14 shots, .929

Given the circumstances, it's not surprising at all that Lemieux was a minus for that night, given he was the #1 center and likely on the ice more than anyone else during that drubbing.

You're right singling out games here and there isn't a far comparison but there are several alarming trends in Mario's elite 96 season.

2- 7 point games
4- 5 point games
10 4 point games

There are 16 really kick ass game there here he is probably the best player on the ice but there is zero carryover from those games, ie his dominance in those games doesn't carry over to any other single game.

For those 16 games he was a plus 29 and scored 74 points, so his -1 game in one of those games ( a 4 point game doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

Now down to the next tier of games where Mario scored 2 and 3 points.

13-3 point games so he had 39 points in 13 games, superstar status right? well not really as his plus minus breakdown for these games is

plus 2 in 1 game
plus 1 in 4 games
zero or even in 6 games
-1 in 2 games

so for his amazing 39 points production in 13 games he was only a plus 5 and this wasn't on a weak team by any stretch of the imagination

Now down to 2 point games of which he had 14 of them. 28 points in 14 games suggests elite play right? Well lets look at his 5-5 results.

plus 2 in 1 game
plus 1 in 2 games
zero or even in 7 games
-1 in 2 games
-2 in 1 game
-3 in 1 game

So his 28 points in 14 games left him with a -3 mark.

He had 20 1 point games in which he was a combined -17

In the other 7 games he was -7.

So if we look at the totality of his season it really isn't as good as it looks just on the surface with raw numbers.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Basically what that means is that Lemieux's team was getting destroyed if he wasn't pouring points into the net.

Again, look at how their team record correlates to his +/-, and how his +/- correlates to his scoring. IE, if the Pens were winning it was because Lemieux was scoring points to keep them above water.

 

[edinson]

There has been some comments regarding quality of linemates. I put together a spreadsheet for each of the candidates this round except Howie Morenz which lists who had points together with them. The spreadsheet can be accessed using this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhT4UGHHqFCgdFMwTzlMX2RRWXUwb3hzbDIwTUJGbFE&usp=sharing

Let me know if something is unclear or if would like more information about specific seasons.

Wow, good stuff!

Amazed Beliveau only has one career SH point. Is that a case of Montreal always having excellent role players or was he just not very effective killing penalties?

 

[Sentinel]

Failures of support players of the Hawks in the 60 are well-documented on this site.

For twenty years? With Hull, Esposito (pre-prime but still), and scores of others? At which point does one's failure to win anything starts being a detriment? To me, Yzerman's three Cups weigh pretty heavily over Mikita's one, but of course I'm a non-voter here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching Philosophy.

Wow, good stuff!

Amazed Beliveau only has one career SH point. Is that a case of Montreal always having excellent role players or was he just not very effective killing penalties?

Coaching philosophy.

Toe Blake did not believe in using stars to kill penalties preferring role players. Up front on the PK he would use an extra forward - Don Marshall and a spare defenseman. Advantage being was that the spare forward had a defined role and was fresh for the start of the penalty kill while the defenseman was better at blocking shots than a forward, could be relied on to slip back should a defenseman be slightly injured, stickless or in position to rush(Harvey) or out of position.

The other advantage that Blake wanted was the ability post PK to dictate the line match-ups with a choice of rested lines centered by first Beliveau, H.Richard, Mosdell or later Beliveau, H. Richard, Backstrom.

 

[reckoning]

For twenty years? With Hull, Esposito (pre-prime but still), and scores of others? At which point does one's failure to win anything starts being a detriment? To me, Yzerman's three Cups weigh pretty heavily over Mikita's one, but of course I'm a non-voter here.

Esposito was a total non-factor at playoff time in Chicago. The team as a whole underachieved in the playoffs during the mid-sixties, but I don't see how Mikita can be faulted for it as his production was consistently strong. There was a study on here years ago that showed that Mikita and Hull usually performed at the level a team would expect their top scorers to produce in the playoffs; it was the rest of the team that dropped off in the post-season.

Out of the players in this round, Mikita would likely rate in the bottom half as far as playoffs go. But that's hardly an insult considering how strong this group is.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nice Study

You're right singling out games here and there isn't a far comparison but there are several alarming trends in Mario's elite 96 season.

2- 7 point games
4- 5 point games
10 4 point games

There are 16 really kick ass game there here he is probably the best player on the ice but there is zero carryover from those games, ie his dominance in those games doesn't carry over to any other single game.

For those 16 games he was a plus 29 and scored 74 points, so his -1 game in one of those games ( a 4 point game doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

Now down to the next tier of games where Mario scored 2 and 3 points.

13-3 point games so he had 39 points in 13 games, superstar status right? well not really as his plus minus breakdown for these games is

plus 2 in 1 game
plus 1 in 4 games
zero or even in 6 games
-1 in 2 games

so for his amazing 39 points production in 13 games he was only a plus 5 and this wasn't on a weak team by any stretch of the imagination

Now down to 2 point games of which he had 14 of them. 28 points in 14 games suggests elite play right? Well lets look at his 5-5 results.

plus 2 in 1 game
plus 1 in 2 games
zero or even in 7 games
-1 in 2 games
-2 in 1 game
-3 in 1 game

So his 28 points in 14 games left him with a -3 mark.

He had 20 1 point games in which he was a combined -17

In the other 7 games he was -7.

So if we look at the totality of his season it really isn't as good as it looks just on the surface with raw numbers.

Nice study. Break it down by opposing teams and centers. Example against Buffalo with Hasek and Peca.

1995-96 Pittsburgh played six games against Buffalo, three home, three away. Lemieux, Hasek and Peca all missed playing time

Nov. 3, 1995 at Buff, 3-3, Lemieux did not play.
Nov. 25, 1995 at Pitt, 5-3 Pitt, Lemieux (0,1,-1).
Dec. 26, 1995 at Pitt, 6-3 Pitt, Lemieux (1,1,0).
Jan. 17, 1996 at Buff, Pitt won 1-0, Lemieux did not play.
Feb. 26, 1996 at Buff,6-3 Buff. Lemieux(0,0,-2)
March 23, 1996 at Pitt, 7-5 Buff. Lemieux(1,2,-1), Peca did not play. Trefilov allowed all the Pittsburgh goals. Hasek finished-up 22 saves on 22 shots.

Rather interesting difference. Lemieux against Hasek and Peca vs Lemieux no Hasek and Peca. Overall, Pittsburgh was well over .500 while Buffalo was not a playoff team, well under .500.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And my point is, the minuses don't prove anything about Lemieux as an individual. His teams often lost by large margins while he scored most of their goals for them... so?

The example was the 95-96 season when Pittsburgh was a really good team , as they were also the year before when he was out, not in his early days when the Pens were truly horrible as a team.

The bottom line in NHL games is about winning, scoring points is part of it, but if you can only score slightly more than the opposition to the tune 0f a plus 10 on that Pens teams then his impact certainly overall wasn't nearly as large as his 70-69-92-161 stat line suggest.

At other times in his career Mario's impact was greater no doubt but in terms of overall career play, and I'm a huge career guy, guys like Jean and Stan did more to help their teams win both in the regular season and playoffs at an excellent or elite level of play for more games than Mario did.

Excellence and consistency over a long time simple matters more IMO than scoring 8 PPG more often, those 8 points still only matter in the actual game it was played in and there is no carry over affect from game to game.

 

[seventieslord]

Very superficial given that the individual match-up issue is slowly building momentum throughout hockey today. Not comfortable going there, fine. No need to misrepresent the argument either. Bolded is a false representation of competition.

No it's not. You've used that as a way to prop up an O6 player on multiple occasions. Hey, I like Doug Harvey better than Lidstrom too, but the fact that Harvey played Gordie Howe every 5 games should have nothing to do with why.

With or without linemates being considered. Be it 14 regular season games per season or just 2, featuring a specific match-up the issue stands. Performance is viewed in context. Knowing how the best performed against the best is a vital part of the process of building context. Is the best center being the best center against the best goalie more impressive than learning the weaker centers gave the best goalies a lot more problems? Learning that a third line player scored at a better rate against a certain elite goalie than a first line center would raise important questions.

Previously the comparable gained traction in the Darryl Sittler vs Bobby Clarke discussions. Sittler enjoyed success against Clarke, especially in the playoffs despite limited teammate support. Worthwhile knowing why.

I'd prefer to focus more on how the player performed the other 95% of the time. Preferably 100% of the time. But certainly I have no interest in worrying about the 5%.

This round features Howie Morenz. Recognized as the premier player of his era. Yet Morenz had difficulties playing against an aging Frank Nighbor. Knowing why would be beneficial. How did Frank Boucher do against Frank Nighbor? Likewise looking a Morenz's performance against Frank Boucher and other leading centers.

Best player of his time or best center of his time. We are after all comparing centers not players. looking at centers merits looking at the competition element(with and against) vis à vis the best contemporary goalies, the best contemporary wingers or defensemen.

Doesn't matter. Hart votes were available to all players, not just centers, so when the argument is put forth that Morenz was the best player of his era or that he was a much bigger presence in MVP voting, my response is a valid one.

Morenz playing without a puck carrying or puck moving defenseman on his team had different responsibilities than a contemporary with such a defenseman. Teammate elements come into play. Helps explain the scoring differential and Hart voting patterns. Worth exploring.

This is an old bio with much less info than I like to provide nowadays, but there's clearly info suggesting he was able to play an offensive game: "could rush the puck"... "two way"... and of course he was top-5 in defensemen scoring 5 times so he was putting up good point totals.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=15887568&postcount=269

 

[Hardyvan123]

If you just ranked players based on playoffs, I could see a ranking like this:

Gretzky
Beliveau/Messier
Lemieux

Trottier/Morenz
Clarke
Esposito/Mikita

That said, every center available so far was at least good in the playoffs

should Stan really be that low though?

Here is his year by year ranking on his team along with some details and don't forget he was a very good defensive player throughout his career as well.

60-61

As a 20 year old he was 3rd in scoring with a 12-6-5-11 line (first in goals) and only behind Bobby Hull (14 points aged 22) and Pilote (15 points aged 29).

61-62

As a 21 year old Stan literally was the Black Hawks with a 12-6-15-21 line ahead of Hull 12-8-6-14 and stan was in on 21 (62%) of the Black Hawks 34 goals. Pilote had a 12-0-7-7 line good for 6th on the team.

62-63

Stan was tied for 4th on the team in scoring with a 6-3-2-5 line behind Hull who had 10 points, Pilote with 8 assists and points and Wharram with a 6-1-5-6 line.

63-64

Stan teid with 1st in goals (3) and led the team in assists (6) and points (9)

64-65 the top 5 were like this

Hull 14-10-7-17
Maki 14-3-9-12
Makita 14-3-7-10
Mohns 14-3-4-7
Pilote 14-0-7-7

65-66

Not a great year for Stan or the Hawks in the playoffs

Stapleton 6-2-3-5
Hull 6-2-2-4
Mikita 6-1-2-3 well you get the point not a great playoffs.

66-67

Again not a great year for Stan or the Hawks he was tied for 2nd in goals with 2 and 4th in points. Even Hull only had a 6-4-2-6 line

67-68

led the team across the board with a

Mikita 11-5-7-12
Hull 11-4-6-10
Martin 11-3-6-9
Maki 11-2-5-7

Stan was in on 12 of their 28 goals.

68-69

Despite stellar season from Hull and Mikita they didn't make the playoffs.

69-70

Hull 8-3-8-11
Mikita 8-4-6-10
D Hull 8-5-2-7
Martin 8-3-3-6
Pappin 8-3-2-5

70-71

B Hull 18-11-14-25
Mikita 18-5-13-18
Stapleton 18-3-14-17
Korroll 18-7-9-16
Pappin 18-10-4-14 8 goals at ES, perhaps he was playing ith Stan?

D Hull 18-7-6-13

71-72 Hull's last year

Mikita is tied for 2nd with 3 goals, leader had 4 and 7th in points with 4, leader had 9 (not a great year stat wise in the playoffs).

72-73 (without Bobby years)

D Hull 16-9-15-24
Mikita 15-7-13-20
Stapleton 16-2-15-17
Martin 15-10-6-16

73-74

Mikita, now aged 33, leds the Hawks with a 11-5-6-11 line ahead of D Hull 11-6-3-9 and Pappin 11-3-6-9 who I'm guessing were his wingers then?

74-75

Korroll 8-3-5-8
Marks 8-2-6-8
Mikita 8-3-4-7

Then fades for 2 years and has a 4-3-0-3 line in his age 37 playoffs and his final one.

So to recap this is where he stands in total over all of his playoffs form age 19-37 (of course the hockey reference site tool, isn't working right now...lol will update later)

Just to recap he had 8 years where he had 10 plus playoff points.

Just to compare to Clarke who played later (with more possible games/season) had 6 such seasons.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There has been some comments regarding quality of linemates. I put together a spreadsheet for each of the candidates this round except Howie Morenz which lists who had points together with them. The spreadsheet can be accessed using this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhT4UGHHqFCgdFMwTzlMX2RRWXUwb3hzbDIwTUJGbFE&usp=sharing

Let me know if something is unclear or if would like more information about specific seasons.

Great information and it's pretty clear that Mikita probably had the "lesser" line mates of the group of 8 listed here, especially at ES.