Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Wingers)

unknown33

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
3,942
150
I found something about the 1950/51 UP allstar voting in which Howe (43G/76P/T-3rd in Hart) and Richard (42G/66P/2nd in Hart)) finished 1st and 2nd. Montreal Gazette by Dink Carroll.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19510406&printsec=frontpage&hl=de
First All-Star Teams Show
[...] Detroit, April 5. - The hockey cognoscentil were scanning the All-Stars teams selected by the United Press in the hotel lobby here today and finding plenty to grouse about. They had nothing to do with the official NHL All-Star teams, but they may be considered as straws in the wind.[...]
[...] The UP picked Terry Sawchuk for goal, Red Kelly and Bill Quackenbush on the defence. Milt Schmidt at centre and Ted Lindsay and Gordie Howe on the wings. This is the same as our own first All-Stars except that we had Charlie Rayner in the nets and Rocket Richard at right wing. [...]
The Howe-Richard argument has been going on all season and picking one over the other is a tough problem. Some fellows have tried to solve it by putting one of them at centre, a position neither has played all season. Custom and tradition will likely prevail though, which means that one of them is going to be left off the first team and that is a shame. They are the best hockey players in the league beyond any doubt.
[...]
The Rocket on the Second Team
Just writing it like that makes it seem funny. There is The Rocket, the most discussed player in hockey today, on the second team. It doesn't seem to make sense. After the first two games of the present Detroit-Canadiens series here those who picked Richard for the first All-Stars felt more than justified. He had broken up both those marathons with game-winning goals and looked like the most valuable player in the game today. From what we hear, The Rocket has a grand chance to win the Hart Trophy, which is the most valuable player award. Does it seem right that a fellow who didn't make the first All-Stars should be named the most valuable player? It doesn't Vut we guess it has happened before and will happen again as long as chalk-eaters (note: he seems to be fine with either winning in the first paragraph, but calls anyone who voted for for Howe 'chalk-eaters' a paragraph later? :laugh:') continue to pick the All-Star teams. This is no rap at Gordie Howe, who is a great young hockey player coming up. But the guys who picked him did so strictly on his scoring record. He was on a powerful line with a frontrunning club. Under the same conditions, there is no telling how many goals The Rocket might have scored. One of Richard's admirers engaged in the debate in the lobby a few moments ago declared he would have racked up 75 if he'd changed places with Howe. [...]

It seemed sacrilegious to not vote for Richard.
 
Last edited:

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,763
3,691
No hatred, just a realistic view, and one shared by the all-star voters who took the extremely rare step of barely giving Jagr any consideration despite his scoring totals in 2000-01.

Practically every other message in this thread you have incorporated a jab against Jagr into whoever/whatever is being discussed or presented.

Jagr outscores every winger in VsX but it should be noted that he wasn't as good a goalscorer. Even though in general on these boards when the guy is the "straw the stirs the drink", the playmaker, and primary puck carrier of a line (Jagr!) is seen as being pretty much as valuable.

Defense comes up he is the worst (and probably is one of the worst wingers being discussed on traditional defensive play) but lets not ignore the massive contributions he made to his underpowered teams as shown by his adjusted plus minus.

Richard has down seasons -- but they aren't as bad as Jagrs.

People are actively asking to discuss other players but the little side comments keep coming and bringing Jagr back into it.

Just because Jagr didn't get (what were imo) reputation all star nods like Richard appeared to doesn't mean his season was any worse.

Objectively, Jagr was better or at least in the same neighbourhood -- especially if you take into account a 6 team league vs. 30. Where there is a lot more competition for those All Star nods, obviously.

For sure they were not good seasons by his standards and definitely not what Washington was hoping for.. not that their team was any hell around him.. the story of his prime.


Also a view shared by Washington management who dumped him for basically nothing

I'm sure it was accepted by everyone involved that the fit wasn't good but you have no idea what Washington management was thinking unless you're sitting on some citations you haven't given us.

They were also definitely cutting salary in advance of the possible lockout/cap world.


If you can find any indication that Richard ever put himself over team, please do provide it.

Again, where is the evidence that Jagr did?

I spent a lot of time researching for his ATD bio about Washington:


The Washington Years

Initially good: Jagr was working hard & players and fans were excited to have him. They resign him to a long term deal.

The Free Lance-Star said:
...
Jagr, the NHL's top scorer four years running, makes his Capitals debut tonight at home against the New Jersey Devils.
The back to back Southeast Divison champions, who acquired Jagr in a bargain of a summer trade with Pittsburgh, are soaring on a
wave of confidence like never before.

"Every year our goal is to win the Stanley Cup," Nikolishin said. "Now it's more realistic."

The thing about Jagr that has surprised the Capitals the most the No. 1 answer from virtually every player and coach-- is his work ethic.

He's often still on the ice 30 minutes after practice. He's diligent about the care of his equipment. And he stunned Peter Bondra by heading straight to the gym after a home exhibition game last week.

"It surprises me how much he does extra," Bondra said. "He's already gone to the gym and he's thinking about the next game."


Even hardworking goaltender Olaf Kolzig might have met his match.

"He's usually one of the first guys on the ice, one of the last ones to leave," Kolzig said. "That's why he's one of the greatest players in the world. He works at it."


...

And while the Capitals are adjusting to Jagr, Jagr is adjusting to the Caps.

"I was playing with the same guys for the last five years," Jagr said. "I'm playing a different style. I like to have the puck all the time. Those guys play different. We have to practice more and more and more."

"Hopefully, we're going to get better and better. It's going to take time."

LA Times said:
Jaromir Jagr signed the richest contract in NHL history, then advanced the Washington Capitals' five-year plan to win the Stanley Cup by two years.

Jagr, the league's scoring leader for five of the last six seasons, signed an eight-year, $88-million contract Thursday. The first seven years are guaranteed at $77 million with an option year to follow that could keep Jagr in a Capital uniform into 2009.

"When I came here, I didn't know what to expect," said Jagr, who had played only with Pittsburgh in an 11-year career before the PEnguins traded him in July. "Then I heard the promise to win the Stanley Cup in five years."

He paused briefly, then added: "Maybe three years now."

...

Season 1 2001-2002

CNNSI said:
Jaromir Jagr didn't seem to have any fun at the All-Star Game. And he definitely isn't having any fun with the Washington Capitals.

"Am I happy that we are out of playoffs now? No," he said Saturday. "It is a disaster for me and a disaster for the team. I want it to change."

The seven-time All-Star, in his first season with Washington, has 15 goals and 25 assists. The Capitals are 12th in the Eastern Conference, seven points out of the eighth and final playoff spot.

Jagr's World team fell behind early in Saturday's NHL All-Star Game. He told ABC's Darren Pang it was nothing new.

"I'm getting used to it from Washington. Every time we step on the ice in Washington, [we] have minus right away. But we're going to come back," he said.
...

USA Today said:
The Washington Capitals fired coach Ron Wilson, who led the team to the 1998 Stanley Cup finals but hasn't won a playoff series since.

Wilson's dismissal Friday came a month after the Capitals, who were thought to be a sure bet for the playoffs after trading for Jaromir Jagr, finished ninth in the Eastern Conference — one spot away from a postseason berth — with a 36-33-11-2 record.

General manager George McPhee said the players started to "tune things out" after five years under Wilson.

"I didn't believe it that these things had to happen, but I believe it now," McPhee said, "that at some point the players need a new message."

The Capitals were hurt by injuries to several key players, including Jagr, and owner Ted Leonsis said at the end of the season he would not make a coaching change during the offseason.
...


Season 2 2002-2003

The Caps start off the first two months very poorly. Jagr and the Caps then resurge to make the playoffs.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette said:
The Washington Capitals had a magical season in 2001-02. They took a stable of world-class talent and a $56 million payroll and made a playoff berth disappear.

Pretty amazing stuff. A feat worthy of David Copperfield or Penn and Teller.

Or even the New York Rangers, the underachievers emeritus of the National Hockey League.

But unthinkable as it was for a team built around the likes of Jaromir Jagr, Sergei Gonchar, Peter Bondra and Olaf Kolzig to sit out the postseason, the Capitals began 2002-03 intent on proving that it had been no fluke. That they really were a bad team.
...
Cassidy's incessant tinkering with line combinations and defense pairings was counterproductive, preventing the development of any chemistry among the units, and the only thing that made the Capitals' five-on-five work palatable was that their special-teams play was worse.

After shaving $6 million or so from their payroll in the summer, the Capitals looked to be in a process of slicing perhaps a dozen points off their total for the season.

But, just as their season seemed to be on the verge of unraveling, the Capitals followed the disheartening loss in Atlanta with a 4-1 victory at Mellon Arena two nights later. That sparked a turnaround that has carried them four games over .500 and to the top of the Southeast Division as they head into their game against the Penguins tonight at the MCI Center.
...
Jagr has nine goals and 10 assists in his past 10 games. Gonchar has four goals and 11 assists in that same span.
...
Jagr was one of those slow starters this season, but he has overcome a sluggish beginning to reclaim his usual spot among the league's top scorers. He hurdled numerous players recently when he piled up 11 points in two games and has been performing at a rarefied level few others can reach.
...
Jagr was nowhere near his peak earlier in the season, and there actually was talk -- unfounded or otherwise -- that the Capitals were looking to trade him
...
Those tough times are disappearing into the mists of ancient history now, and there's not much chance Jagr will have a "For Sale" sign dangling from his neck when he steps onto the ice this evening.

..


2002-2003 Playoffs

The Caps and Jagr start off the series strong, winning the first two but then fall in four straight.

Jagr's wrist is apparently bothering him in this series. After being shut down he scores two goals and two assists in Game 2.

The Free Lance-Star said:
Jaromir Jagr played like he had something to prove to everyone.

A nonfactor in the opening game of the first-round playoff series between Washington and Tampa Bay, the NHL's highest paid player asserted himself from the start yesterday afternoon in the Capitals' 6-3 victory over the Lightning.

...

Jagr, meanwhile, didn't show any signs of being bothered by a sore right wrist after being limited by the Lightning to just one shot during Game 1 on Thursday night.

The Free Lance-Star said:
...
Washington failed to meet owner Ted Leonsis' goal of winning a playoff series, despite the huge investment he's made in Jaromir Jagr and other high-paid players.

It also hurt that the money-losing Capitals failed to sell out any of their three home games in the series.
...
"I have to really reconsider the kind of commitment and investment I'm making with this team," Leonsis said.

Season 3 and Trade to New York

Before the trade:

ESPN.com said:
Whether or not a trade between the New York Rangers and the Washington Capitals for Jaromir Jagr is on again or not, Jagr wants two things to be known:

One, he is not the source of the rumor. Jagr told ESPN.com he was unaware of the reports and he did not tell confidants that there is a deal in the works. "I don't talk to anyone about those things," Jagr said. "Besides, it's a management decision."

And, two, to paraphrase a line from the classic hockey movie "Slap Shot," he feels shame.

"The bad part about all of this is that I feel I've let people down," Jagr said, "especially the owner."

Jagr made his remarks before Wednesday's game at Buffalo, a game he left with a groin injury that coach Bruce Cassidy later said he didn't know when it happened.

Before that, however, Jagr said owner Ted Leonsis made a commitment to him in the form of his salary -- which has four years and $44 million remaining -- and that he was sorry it hasn't worked out.

"Of course I want to win," he said. "I don't want to be in this situation where we are the last (place) team in the National Hockey League. He (Leonsis) brought me here to help make things better and I kind of let him down. I'm sorry for that. He had faith in me."


The mea culpa's seemed genuine, but one has to believe that the Capitals have no recourse but to trade Jagr even if it does mean eating a substantial amount of his salary. He is no longer able or willing to carry the team entirely by himself and the Capitals, a stagnant hockey franchise in a city that has never truly embraced the sport, certainly can't afford to add talent around him.
...


The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said:
Jaromir Jagr was traded to the New York Rangers yesterday, capping more than six months of off and on negotiations that brought to and end a disappointing 2 1/2 year stay with the Washington Capitals.

Jagr was traded for forward Anson Carter, but most of the negotiations centered on how much of Jagr's $11 million-per-year contract the Capitals would continue to pay as the cost-conscious NHL heads toward a possible lockout next seasons.

"This trade is a good one in that it moves the largest player contract in the NHL to a team that can absorb it, and it provides us with options as we seek to improve our team," Capitals owner Ted Leonsis said.
...
Leonsis said he had to move Jagr because of the "new economic reality" the league is facing with the expected lockout and the possible salary cap that could follow.

"With our current payroll, our ability to improve was hindered as well as our flexibility to plan for the future as we move toward a possible new NHL business model, " Leonsis said.

Jagr has not provided the payoff expected when the Capitals acquired him from Pittsburgh in 2001...
...
Attendance has sagged for a franchise that was already losing about $20 million per year.

NYTIMES said:
...
Washington recently traded Jaromir Jagr to the Rangers. Jagr is tied for 11th in scoring with 53 points. Regarding Jagr's disappointing play in Washington, Lang said:

''They put him in a situation that sort of could not work out. You can't put a player like that on a team like Washington and want him to play a defensive system. He's been winning scoring races and titles and all that because he played loose hockey and had a good support cast. They didn't really give him the cast.''


The Washington Times said:
Jaromir Jagr laughs nervously as he recalls his life from 2001 to 2004 with the Washington Capitals.

“The part I was playing there I would rather forget,” he said. “I wasn’t very good.”

You don’t have to look too far to find people who agree, from ownership through the fan base. The expectations for Jagr coming to Washington in 2001 were high. He had just wrapped up four straight seasons leading the NHL in scoring, piling up the Art Ross Trophies with the Pittsburgh Penguins. But his point production dropped from 121 his last season in Pittsburgh to 79 and then 77 in two full season with the Capitals.
...
“Maybe I didn’t play the way I should play,” he said. “Probably [the] managers or the owners, they were hoping when they got me we were going to win the Cup — at least get a little farther in the playoffs, and it just didn’t happen.”


Now, I'm not saying Jagr is better than any of Hull or Richard.. I think these three are clearly in the 2-4 range and there are cases for them to be in any order.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
UP All-Stars

UP were not the official NHL All-Star teams. The Dink Carroll column is interesting as it mentions that Bill Quackenbush was playing app. 50 minute games for Boston. Would be nice to find similar data for the wingers or centers.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PkUjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=de&pg=6917,5750384

Also telling comment about the lack of strength at LW beyond Ted Lindsay - Sid Smith and Roy Conacher were not highly regarded.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,257
138,787
Bojangles Parking Lot
unknown33 said:
note: he seems to be fine with either winning in the first paragraph, but calls anyone who voted for for Howe 'chalk-eaters' a paragraph later?

Chalk-eater is a gambling term for someone who takes safe odds. I'm pretty sure it's a comment on people voting based on stats.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,763
3,691
If we expanded the O6 into the O30, and distributed the talent accordingly, would it still be a golden age?

I think it would still be the golden age of highend wingers... Unless the best wingers also moved to C with the expansion

I think TDMM is on the right track and it could just be somewhat due to how players are sorted into positions now.

I'm pretty sure the reason so many top players are now encouraged to play center is that the defense is more active to centermen have to be as well.

They have to have the awareness to cover more ice than they did in the old days when players played mostly in lanes and the D was never out of position or pinching because they didn't come over half. :laugh:

But has anyone ever studied it to know this with some more factual basis?
 

unknown33

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
3,942
150
UP were not the official NHL All-Star teams.
That's what he says in the first sentence of the article. I will edit in the quote.
Though I don't know how that matters as the teams turns out to be exactly the same.

You are right though, it might still seems misleading. Sorry for that.

Chalk-eater is a gambling term for someone who takes safe odds. I'm pretty sure it's a comment on people voting based on stats.
Thanks. Never heard of that word, assumed it's an insult used in the 50s.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Centers

I think TDMM is on the right track and it could just be somewhat due to how players are sorted into positions now.

I'm pretty sure the reason so many top players are now encouraged to play center is that the defense is more active to centermen have to be as well.

They have to have the awareness to cover more ice than they did in the old days when players played mostly in lanes and the D was never out of position or pinching because they didn't come over half. :laugh:

But has anyone ever studied it to know this with some more factual basis?

Top wingers of the fifties and sixties, especially left wingres started as centers and then were moved to LW early in their NHL career. Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovlich, Dickie Moore, all were centers in junior / early NHL careers.

Even the early years of expansion saw the same trend - Jacques Lemaire was initially moved to LW then back to center, Lafleur was mainly a center until his last year of junior, then tried again at center with the Canadiens. Teams with depth could move centers to the wings. Teams without depth did not.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Fifties

That's what he says in the first sentence of the article. I will edit in the quote.
Though I don't know how that matters as the teams turns out to be exactly the same.

You are right though, it might still seems misleading. Sorry for that.


Thanks. Never heard of that word, assumed it's an insult used in the 50s.


That would be paste eater or mouth breather.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,489
17,920
Connecticut
Has plusandminus come out and said where he would rank Makarov? Just curious because if he did, i missed it. I think getting him into the top 4 is a massive mountain to climb, no matter which one he takes out of the top-4. It's hard to imagine anyone thinking he's more deserving than one of them. But if this is just posturing for next round, where it really gets interesting, then that makes more sense.

The fact that Makarov is eligible at all this round should serve as a huge and pleasant surprise to any Makarov booster, considering where he's been ranked in the past.

He has now.

And indeed he would have Makarov top 4, as I suspected.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
I've seen the claim a few times in this thread that Maurice Richard's 1st Team All-Star nod in 1948-49 was a "reputation vote" with no evidence presented as to why this would be so, other than the fact that he fell out of the top 10 in both points and goals that particular season (though he remained top 20 in both, and 2nd on his team).

Here is the actual voting for the All-Star teams. The 6 NHL coaches voted; coaches couldn't vote for their own players.

RIGHT WING: (41/54, 5-3-0) Maurice Richard, Mtl 23 (4-1-0); Gordie Howe, Det 11 (1-2-0); Bill Mosienko, Chi 7;

4 of 5 NHL opposing coaches voted for Richard as the 1st Team All-Star; the other voted him for 2nd Team. But I guess they didn't know what they were doing, right?

Competition for right wing was weak that year (not a single RW in the top 10 in points), so it's certainly fair to call it a weak 1st Team nod. But I find the claim that it was a "reputation vote" to be borderline outrageous, unless some form of evidence is provided.

______________

This is frankly the same kind of nonsense reasoning that posters who question Mark Messier's 1991-92 Hart Trophy use, completely ignoring the fact that that Hart was close to unanimous and that he also won the Pearson/Lindsay award.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Alternative

I've seen the claim a few times in this thread that Maurice Richard's 1st Team All-Star nod in 1948-49 was a "reputation vote" with no evidence presented as to why this would be so, other than the fact that he fell out of the top 10 in both points and goals (though he remained top 20 in both, and 2nd on his team).

Here is the actual voting for the All-Star teams. The 6 NHL coaches voted; coaches couldn't vote for their own players.

RIGHT WING: (41/54, 5-3-0) Maurice Richard, Mtl 23 (4-1-0); Gordie Howe, Det 11 (1-2-0); Bill Mosienko, Chi 7;

4 of 5 NHL opposing coaches voted for Richard as the 1st Team All-Star; the other voted him for 2nd Team. But I guess they didn't know what they were doing, right?

Competition for right wing was weak that year (not a single RW in the top 10 in points), so it's certainly fair to call it a weak 1st Team nod. But I find the claim that it was a "reputation vote" to be borderline outrageous, unless some form of evidence is provided.

Yet the "reputation vote" advocates cannot produce one candidate who was more deserving.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
I just can't quite put Makarov in the top-4, but he will be my #5 for now. That could change when we take a closer look at Bossy and Lafleur.

Howe is #1. That's an easy one. If someone plans to vote him lower, I hope they take the time to explain their rationale.

Right now I'm leaning toward Hull-Jagr-Richard. As much as I'm impressed by Richard's playoffs, I feel like Jagr's consistency and reasonably strong playoffs combine to bump him up to #3. But it's incredibly, almost painfully close.

Edit: and to be totally honest, something about the idea that the top 3 wingers in history all played simultaneously in the late 50s, and were all greater than anybody of the past 35 years... I dunno, that just doesn't seem quite right.

this pretty much sums up my feelings on this round as well, next round will get very interesting, as will each round after that.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Post expansion most of the best Canadian forwards were moved to center. In the O6, they usually played wing. Look at how poorly the O6 did on the HOH Top Centers project.

And like you say, Richard and Hull overlapped as much as Crosby and Lemieux

Spots 3,5,17,24,25,26,30,31 and 37 were centers who did poorly in their primarily 06 years.

Considering the length of careers of some of the guys is this statement really true?
 

plusandminus

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
1,404
268
this pretty much sums up my feelings on this round as well, next round will get very interesting, as will each round after that.

I had the exact same order too, except that I put in Makarov as 4th, putting M.Richard at 5th.

I understand that the majority of those who have posted here consider the top-4 players locks, and that they put Makarov at 5th as best.
Yet, I think it would have been interesting to see "fair" comparisons between Makarov and the others. Instead, it's as if "well, he's not gonna be top-4 anyway, it's just the way it is, let's not bother examine it further". Especially a comparison between Richard and Makarov would have been interesting.
I posted about regular season scoring finishes among Canadian forwards, and from that point of view Richard seems like the weakest of the top-4 "locks" (comparable to Joe Sakic).

Makarov might get some 1st votes in the next round. But on the other hand, there will likely be some who "dismisses" hockey outside of NHL who might put him 4th or 5th or even lower, so Bossy and Lafleur might very well end up higer then him. (But of course, we'll have to wait and see.)
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,489
17,920
Connecticut
I had the exact same order too, except that I put in Makarov as 4th, putting M.Richard at 5th.

I understand that the majority of those who have posted here consider the top-4 players locks, and that they put Makarov at 5th as best.
Yet, I think it would have been interesting to see "fair" comparisons between Makarov and the others. Instead, it's as if "well, he's not gonna be top-4 anyway, it's just the way it is, let's not bother examine it further". Especially a comparison between Richard and Makarov would have been interesting.
I posted about regular season scoring finishes among Canadian forwards, and from that point of view Richard seems like the weakest of the top-4 "locks" (comparable to Joe Sakic).

Makarov might get some 1st votes in the next round. But on the other hand, there will likely be some who "dismisses" hockey outside of NHL who might put him 4th or 5th or even lower, so Bossy and Lafleur might very well end up higer then him. (But of course, we'll have to wait and see.)

Of course, a big part of the Richard legacy is his playoff performances.

As for the top-4 lock, I went in thinking there was only a Top 1 lock. Guess it will be a surprise to me if the top 4 end up that clear cut.
 

plusandminus

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
1,404
268
Of course, a big part of the Richard legacy is his playoff performances.

Yes. But are his playoff performances (and stats, like points scoring finishes and accolodates(?)) necessarily better and more consistent than Makarov's performances during Canada Cups and similar? To me that is not so certain.

As for the top-4 lock, I went in thinking there was only a Top 1 lock. Guess it will be a surprise to me if the top 4 end up that clear cut.

You mean you expect voters to put players other than Howe, Hull, Jagr and Richard among top-4? Interesting. I wonder though if Makarov will get any top-4 votes. I think there might be someone putting Lafleur ahead of Jagr.
If there are persons with other top-4 candidades than the four "locks", it would have been interesting to take part of their arguments (maybe I've missed them).
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,489
17,920
Connecticut
Yes. But are his playoff performances (and stats, like points scoring finishes and accolodates(?)) necessarily better and more consistent than Makarov's performances during Canada Cups and similar? To me that is not so certain.



You mean you expect voters to put players other than Howe, Hull, Jagr and Richard among top-4? Interesting. I wonder though if Makarov will get any top-4 votes. I think there might be someone putting Lafleur ahead of Jagr.
If there are persons with other top-4 candidades than the four "locks", it would have been interesting to take part of their arguments (maybe I've missed them).

When the Top 70 players list was done in 2009, Jagr was the 5th winger on that list. Since then he has played 3 more seasons in the NHL. He can still play But I don't see that adding much to his stock. Certainly shouldn't make him a lock for top 4.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,810
16,548
Yes. But are his playoff performances (and stats, like points scoring finishes and accolodates(?)) necessarily better and more consistent than Makarov's performances during Canada Cups and similar? To me that is not so certain.

Makarov's accomplishments are certainly not on par, indeed.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,157
7,292
Regina, SK
If those all-star votes were from the coaches, why were more than six votes cast? We're they each naming two first team right wings?
 

unknown33

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
3,942
150
I've seen the claim a few times in this thread that Maurice Richard's 1st Team All-Star nod in 1948-49 was a "reputation vote" with no evidence presented as to why this would be so, other than the fact that he fell out of the top 10 in both points and goals that particular season (though he remained top 20 in both, and 2nd on his team).
It just wasn't a very good season and that's worth pointing out when All-Star team counting occurs. 51/52 Gordie Howe and 72/73 Mickey Redmond would be worth the same in this comparison.
I'm interested in the performance of the player.
 

Rob Scuderi

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
3,378
2
I've seen the claim a few times in this thread that Maurice Richard's 1st Team All-Star nod in 1948-49 was a "reputation vote" with no evidence presented as to why this would be so, other than the fact that he fell out of the top 10 in both points and goals that particular season (though he remained top 20 in both, and 2nd on his team).

Here is the actual voting for the All-Star teams. The 6 NHL coaches voted; coaches couldn't vote for their own players.

RIGHT WING: (41/54, 5-3-0) Maurice Richard, Mtl 23 (4-1-0); Gordie Howe, Det 11 (1-2-0); Bill Mosienko, Chi 7;

4 of 5 NHL opposing coaches voted for Richard as the 1st Team All-Star; the other voted him for 2nd Team. But I guess they didn't know what they were doing, right?

Competition for right wing was weak that year (not a single RW in the top 10 in points), so it's certainly fair to call it a weak 1st Team nod. But I find the claim that it was a "reputation vote" to be borderline outrageous, unless some form of evidence is provided.

______________

This is frankly the same kind of nonsense reasoning that posters who question Mark Messier's 1991-92 Hart Trophy use, completely ignoring the fact that that Hart was close to unanimous and that he also won the Pearson/Lindsay award.

Basically what unknown said. Maurice Richard had two seasons where he made the all-star team outside of the top 10 in scoring. During this instance he isn't saved by a PPG argument but rather the weak field he was facing. When we talk about Richard's strong competition for AST spots and how impressive his AST record is, it's important to note an AST selection that looks weaker.

Bobby Hull made the AST 12 times at left wing - competing against Mahovlich and Bucyk which isn't too bad - yet he only finished outside of the top in scoring one time he made the all-star team. It was in 1970 (and similar to Richard's 1952 2nd AST) as Hull finished 15th in scoring, 4th in goals, and 4th in PPG missing 15 games.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad