Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[overpass]

First off, I do have to say that I appreciate the work you've done on Hooley Smith's playoffs; I certainly don't think he was a great playoff player, but I no longer think he was the worst playoff player to come up so far.

To sort of play Devil's advocate however, you are going through his playoff game logs to find assists that would have bee awarded under modern rules; couldn't you also do that during his regular season games? If he (like all players at the time) was being denied a certain number of assists because of the way they were counted, there is no reason to believe he was being denied them at a higher rate in the playoffs than the regular season, right? In other words, it doesn't affect his % decline from the regular season to playoffs.

That wasn't the intention with which I went through his playoff game logs, it was simply something I found while examining his playoff game logs.

Yes, he may have missed out on an equal number of regular season assists. My finding doesn't necessarily disprove the percentage decline charts. But my intention isn't to do that, just to examine his impact in his bigger playoff runs. I think it shows that he was a valuable player in those playoffs when you look beyond the hockey-reference stat chart.

You could also consider that the Senators had 41 assists awarded on 86 goals in the regular season, but only 3 assists awarded on 12 goals in the playoffs.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It seems pretty clear that there was a perception around the league that the Smythe division was more wide-open.

It is the perception because it was true as far as I remember it. The west generally played more offensively that time.

That doesn't mean that the Jets had an easier time, though. I'm quite sure that during these guys respective prime years that the Nords still outscored the Jets because the Jets were just not a good team.

Bolded the specific comments on Hawerchuk. Note that his high-scoring seasons took place outside of a four-line system, and his points dropped when the Jets implemented four lines.

I get that they were changing the way their team was built etc.. but all the 1st liner star centermen played a lot of minutes during the 70s and 80s so I would expect the same thing would happen to any of them playing under 20 minutes a game. Which is a joke in the 80s.

People used to question Pat Quinn all the time for playing Sundin only 20 or so minutes a game in the late 90s and early 00s in an era of shorter and more tightly controlled shifts with TV timeouts etc.

In Buffalo, his scoring was primarily driven by playing big minutes on the point for Buffalo's strong power play.

While leading the team in scoring 3/4 years he was there (outside of Lafontaines monster season). With guys like Turgeon and Lafontaine and Mogilny on those teams lets not pretend he just fell off a cliff even before his hip started acting up.

His plus minus was pretty bad but I don't recall enough of how he was used in those days to know if that is a factor.

Anyways vladim had it right a few posts ago that these guys were considered pretty close at the time.

I don't really care either way, I just went to bat a little for him since Hawerchuk seemed to be automatic last for everyone before even considering him.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm not on board with Bowie at this point in the process, and I hope he doesn't get in without more detailed criticism of his career. Simply put, Bowie was a transcendent scorer for four seasons early in his career playing in a CAHL league which was, to all appearances, extremely shallow. When the talent pool started to expand a bit later as the league morphed into the ECAHA (starting in 1906, I believe, when Bowie was 26 years old), Bowie's former dominance disappeared.

Well he stopped dominating if you take the term completely literally. He was still right at the top of the scoring charts, he just stopped boat-racing the competition.

Players like Harry Smith, Ernie Russell and Marty Walsh started matching Bowie's per-game and per-season offensive output, and this at an age when Bowie had no excuses for no longer being at his athletic peak (he was also remarkably healthy throughout his career). Bowie was probably still the best scorer, overall, from this new group, but the margin between him and the pack is much, much smaller than it had been before, when he was competing against no-names in a league which was populated almost exclusively by players from Montreal.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind, is that Bowie was being challenged by members of Ottawa (McGee, Smith, Walsh) and the Wanderers (Russell). The Victorias were weak in comparison. Those players didn't have to play against their own teams, and in an era of 8-10 game schedules, that isn't unimportant. Ottawa and Wanderers were much better defensively than the rest of the league. An extra couple games against one of those two versus a couple vs the Victorias may have been worth several goals in the scoring race.

Were Smith, Russell and Walsh good hockey players? Yes they were, but I don't consider them top-60 all-time centers (all were centers, afaik), and if that is the baseline which Bowie only beats by a bit, I don't see why he should be in the top-40. Bowie was clearly an excellent offensive player, but there are still plenty of those left out there. Does anybody really believe that Gil Perreault would not have been ridiculously dominant in an Montreal-only league circa 1900? Does anyone think Adam Oates would not have easily outscored the likes of Smith, Russell and Walsh?

It's pretty easy to imagine dropping a modern era player into 1900 and picture them dominating. Are you imagining Gilbert Perreault in 1900 skate technology, working a day job throughout the week, using a short stick carved out of a tree trunk? And adapting to no forward passing? Or are you imaging Perreault in his Sabres jersey whizzing around the ice in modern skates picking corners with his Sherwood while Percy LeSeuer stands there wondering what the hell just happened.

I'm just not impressed by Bowie's years in a tiny, Montreal-only league. What he did later against real competition is impressive, but not impressive enough for induction at this point. I don't see any reason to seriously consider him before the rest of the high-end modern offensive centers (Oates, Perreault, Hawerchuk, Ratelle, and Savard, at least) are in.

Here, some old discussion of Bowie:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=47300955&postcount=646

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=48320455&postcount=13

Our judgment of Bowie is essentially a judgment of his era, of the size and strength of the talent pool in which he competed. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't just smaller than that of the other players in this project, but exponentially smaller. Bowie is, for this reason, probably the single hardest player in this project to peg. Let's have a real conversation about Bowie and his era before just putting him in.

These all sound like great reasons as to why Bowie shouldn't rank alongside Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, etc. despite displaying a similar level of dominance. But he's not being compared to players even close to that level at this point.

Bowie never finished worse than 3rd in a goals race in his entire career. None of those 5 players you list from the 70s/80s ever finished as high as 3rd a single time. At this point, the relative dominance gap between Bowie and those players is enormous.

 

[pluppe]

I believe the offensive difference, per game, between Datsyuk and Malkin is about 15%, correct?

something to think about:

- how much less would Malkin score if he put in as much effort as Datsyuk defensively?
- how much more would Datsyuk score if he put in as little effort defensively as Malkin?

the two are related. Some can be awesome both ways, some can't or choose to be more awesome one way or another (or team needs dictate). But it is clear that a more defensive focus by a player or team is very likely to show up in their offensive numbers. A certain degree of defensive excellence would and should overcome a 15% edge in offensive numbers. It's just that it's so difficult to quantify what that breaking point is, and whether Datsyuk exceeds it.

Not in the playoffs. Or on the national team. Or in the KHL.

 

[seventieslord]

Not in the playoffs. Or on the national team. Or in the KHL.

Ok, so 90+% of the time, then?

15% is generous anyway, if you think about the east/west differences, different roles, level of competition and zone starts - all advantages which Malkin has enjoyed compared to datsyuk.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Voting Open

Voting is now open and will close on Monday the 20th at 9pm EST. Please PM me your votes for only the top 8 centers with numbers next to each name (i.e. 1. Wayne Gretzky). You will receive confirmation that your vote has been received within 24hrs. If you do not receive confirmation please re-send votes and let me know with a post in this thread.

*PLEASE NOTE VOTING CLOSES AT AN EARLIER TIME THAN PREVIOUS VOTES

Thanks,
HT18

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Voting is now open and will close on Monday the 20th at 9pm EST. Please PM me your votes for only the top 8 centers with numbers next to each name (i.e. 1. Wayne Gretzky). You will receive confirmation that your vote has been received within 24hrs. If you do not receive confirmation please re-send votes and let me know with a post in this thread.

*PLEASE NOTE VOTING CLOSES AT AN EARLIER TIME THAN PREVIOUS VOTES

Thanks,
HT18

Just wanted to bold the deadline again. It's pretty inconsiderate to the vote tallier for multiple voters to make him stay here past the deadline he set. Of course, it happens once in awhile, but it's been happening more and more as the project goes along. If you aren't sure you can vote before 9PM EST tomorrow, please vote today. Thanks. We changed the deadline to a weekday so nobody can have the "still drunk from football" thing going on

 

[pluppe]

Ok, so 90+% of the time, then?

15% is generous anyway, if you think about the east/west differences, different roles, level of competition and zone starts - all advantages which Malkin has enjoyed compared to datsyuk.

Well, since playoffs make up over 15 % of Malkins NHL career I don't really understand were you get the 90+% from. Add the nationel team and you are over 22%.

Some would also say that these (at least the playoffs) are the most important percentages and should be given extra weight as apart to no weight as you seem to do.

I understand that it is an argument to be made that it is close but my point is that it is so much easier to make an argument the other way.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, since playoffs make up over 15 % of Malkins NHL career I don't really understand were you get the 90+% from. Add the nationel team and you are over 22%.

Some would also say that these (at least the playoffs) are the most important percentages and should be given extra weight as apart to no weight as you seem to do.

I understand that it is an argument to be made that it is close but my point is that it is so much easier to make an argument the other way.

If you think it's that easy, then answer my questions. Imagine a datsyuk who played with no regard for defense, and imagine a Malkin preoccupied with stopping the opposition's best players. Then what do their stats look like?

We're not just here to compare scoring stats, we're here to consider their overall abilities.

 

[Sturminator]

These all sound like great reasons as to why Bowie shouldn't rank alongside Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, etc. despite displaying a similar level of dominance.

That "same level of dominance" was achieved in hockey's infancy against a league that basically consisted of a bunch of Montreal prep-school kids, Bowie being the best among them. The level of competition faced by modern players was maybe a thousand times greater. That's not hyperbole; in the case of Bowie's competition during his stretch of true dominance, we are likely talking about a player universe that can be counted in the thousands, and in the case of modern players, in the millions. Let's please not take this lightly.

No, I do not think that the second-tier stars of the ECAHA measure up to second-tier modern stars like Perreault, Oates, et al. I think they were very fine players, but what are the odds that the same level of play would be achieved by all of these guys from a much smaller relative player pool? The hockey world had grown past the Montreal/Ottawa only game that was played during the early part of Bowie's career, but it hadn't grown that much yet.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

from what i saw, though i saw more of prime hawerchuk than prime stastny due to geography, they were very similar impact-wise. denis savard too; those three guys were often spoken of in the same breath as the "other" top centers in the league. i'm young enough that i only really caught these guys in the late 80s though, so my impression of their reputations is they were the guys that yzerman passed/replaced.

i think talking peak ability you would probably go stastny > hawerchuk > savard, but the difference wouldn't be much.

the one overwhelming factor, however, is stastny has good showings in multiple playoff runs (and savard is a magnitude better in that regard), while hawerchuk (whose playoff numbers look fine if you ignore the GP column) has almost no playoff significant resume at all, certainly no performances that anyone remembers.

on the other hand, hawerchuk was miles away the most important player on the jets. stastny was the best nord, but you could at least make an argument about bouchard, goulet, or even hunter. which is to say, at least he had help. and savard wasn't even the clear-cut best player on his team, though obviously he had a very good argument for that title.

it seems like history has separated these guys a distance that significantly exceeds their reputations when they played. and i think a lot of that is brownie points stastny gets for being a trailblazer, and the misleading 2nd in scoring in the 80s stat. but then i don't know that stastny maybe doesn't deserve those brownie points, though i'm too young to really remember whether he had a much rougher go of it than hawerchuk or savard.

Where are you getting this from? Savard was EASILY the best player on the Hawks from his 2nd season all the way up until the Chelios trade. I agree that he wasn't as important to the Hawks as Hawerchuk to the Jets, but he is at least on Stastny's level in terms of importance and probably a little more important than Stastny was to the Nords...The Hawks didn't have anyone as good as Goulet...the next best guy was probably Steve Larmer, and it's likely his scoring was boosted by playing with Savard whereas Goulet and Stastny played on different lines.

I see Savard and Hawerchuk as very close to each other...I believe I had them one spot apart on my original list with Hawerchuk barely ahead.

 

[overpass]

That "same level of dominance" was achieved in hockey's infancy against a league that basically consisted of a bunch of Montreal prep-school kids, Bowie being the best among them. The level of competition faced by modern players was maybe a thousand times greater. That's not hyperbole; in the case of Bowie's competition during his stretch of true dominance, we are likely talking about a player universe that can be counted in the thousands, and in the case of modern players, in the millions. Let's please not take this lightly.

No, I do not think that the second-tier stars of the ECAHA measure up to second-tier modern stars like Perreault, Oates, et al. I think they were very fine players, but what are the odds that the same level of play would be achieved by all of these guys from a much smaller relative player pool? The hockey world had grown past the Montreal/Ottawa only game that was played during the early part of Bowie's career, but it hadn't grown that much yet.

Why not compare Bowie against the best Montreal-born players over time?

Here are the best Montreal players over time (approximately). Please correct if you know better than I do where players were born or raised - this is based on a quick internet search.

1915-1925: Sprague Cleghorn
1925-1935: Nels Stewart, Sylvio Mantha
1935-1945: Phil Watson, Paul Haynes, Walt Buswell (what happened to Montreal hockey in this time period? Nelson Crutchfield probably should have been the best Montrealer of this time.)
1945-1955: Maurice Richard/Doug Harvey
1955-1970: Geoffrion/Moore/Henri Richard
1970-1980: Guy Lafleur/Serge Savard/Guy Lapointe/Rod Gilbert
1980-1990: Mario Lemieux, Raymond Bourque, Mike Bossy
1990-2000: Mario Lemieux, Martin Brodeur, Raymond Bourque, Luc Robitaille
2000-2010: Martin St. Louis, Roberto Luongo
Post-2010: Patrice Bergeron, Kris Letang

The best players from Montreal have generally been really good.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Where did You find the offensive zone stat at?

I use behindthenet.ca for most of my advanced stats.

Those offensive zone start % are at 5-on-5, so taking the special teams into consideration the gap would obviously only widen.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That "same level of dominance" was achieved in hockey's infancy against a league that basically consisted of a bunch of Montreal prep-school kids, Bowie being the best among them. The level of competition faced by modern players was maybe a thousand times greater. That's not hyperbole; in the case of Bowie's competition during his stretch of true dominance, we are likely talking about a player universe that can be counted in the thousands, and in the case of modern players, in the millions. Let's please not take this lightly.

What helps Bowie's case is that for many years afterwards, he was still considered one of the greatest ever to play the game. People that actually saw him play considered him in the same breath as the Malone's, Lalonde's, Taylor's, etc.

That 1925 all-time AST that TDMM linked to a few pages back has Bowie as the 2nd team Center. Ahead of Lalonde, who was the 3rd team, and Malone who is not listed. Those teams were voted on by a good sized panel that included writers, former players, executives, so it isn't just one guy's opinion.

I don't think these people were simply basing their opinion on statistical dominance in the scoring race.

No, I do not think that the second-tier stars of the ECAHA measure up to second-tier modern stars like Perreault, Oates, et al. I think they were very fine players, but what are the odds that the same level of play would be achieved by all of these guys from a much smaller relative player pool? The hockey world had grown past the Montreal/Ottawa only game that was played during the early part of Bowie's career, but it hadn't grown that much yet.

I don't think anyone really thinks they do. I haven't seen anybody promoting Blair Russell, Harry Smith, or Jack Marshall over Perreault and Oates. Russell Bowie was not a 2nd tier star. He was a superstar who seems to have been in the conversation for best of all time in the pre-Morenz era.

 

[Sturminator]

That 1925 all-time AST that TDMM linked to a few pages back has Bowie as the 2nd team Center. Ahead of Lalonde, who was the 3rd team, and Malone who is not listed. Those teams were voted on by a good sized panel that included writers, former players, executives, so it isn't just one guy's opinion.

I know about the MacLean's list; I'm the guy who first found it. I consider it biased towards early players and eastern players for reasons which should be obvious.

I don't think anyone really thinks they do. I haven't seen anybody promoting Blair Russell, Harry Smith, or Jack Marshall over Perreault and Oates. Russell Bowie was not a 2nd tier star. He was a superstar who seems to have been in the conversation for best of all time in the pre-Morenz era.

Bowie was not really so much better than these players when he competed against them, though.

 

[overpass]

Some comparisons in terms of ice time and roles:

(using Malkin's two Art Ross seasons and Datsyuk's two 4th place point finishes for comparison)

07-08 Datsyuk:
Offensive zone start %: 56.2
PP time per game: 4:23
SH time per game: 1:47
Avg Shift Length: 0:49

08-09 Datsyuk:
Offensive zone start %: 51.1
PP time per game: 3:23
SH time per game: 1:36
Avg Shift Length: 0:46

08-09 Malkin:
Offensive zone start %: 63.7
PP time per game: 5:33
SH time per game: 1:04
Avg Shift Length: 0:57

11-12 Malkin:
Offensive zone start %: 65.9
PP time per game: 4:21
SH time per game: 0:02
Avg Shift Length: 0:58

Just in terms of role and opportunity I think it's fair to say a player like Datsyuk probably scores more if Babcock used him in a similar vein as Malkin or the Sedin's for example.

Added one more stat - average shift length. Malkin has had more freedom than Datsyuk to extend his shift and chase one last rush or scoring opportunity at the expense of the centre following him.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I know about the MacLean's list; I'm the guy who first found it. I consider it biased towards early players and eastern players for reasons which should be obvious.

How is it biased towards early players? There is not a single player who was prominent before 1900 on the list. Without checking, I believe 12 of the 19 players appearing on the list were active after World War I, or within 7 years of the list being compiled. If there is any bias, it is a bias in favour of modern players. Organized hockey had been around for about 40 years when that list was compiled.

Bowie was not really so much better than these players when he competed against them, though.

There is nothing that suggests Harry Smith was even close to Bowie's level beyond one single year that he outscored him. Bowie far surpassed him in the other common season they played. Smith also had the advantage of playing for Ottawa. Bowie was remembered through the ages by observers from that time; Harry Smith is not even in the Hall of Fame, despite almost every prominent player from that era getting elected.

Blair Russell was Bowie's linemate, and it's pretty clear who the straw that stirred the drink was.

Ernie Russell was able to keep pace with Bowie in a couple of his peak seasons, while playing on the Wanderers. He also kept pace with Newsy Lalonde and Marty Walsh in the early years of the NHA. Ernie Russell was a fine player, not somebody Bowie should automatically be expected to trounce in scoring races.

Jack Marshall was nowhere near the scorer that Bowie was; I think they were close one season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If we're putting Malkin vs Datsyuk in context, it should also be noted that Datsyuk is generally the Wing's #1 center, especially in the regular season, while Malkin sometimes has to take a back seat to Crosby. And for whatever reason, Malkin tends to have his best seasons when Crosby is injured and he becomes the focal point of the team. So one does have to ask whether Malkin's stats would be better if he was "the guy" more often.

 

[pluppe]

If we're putting Malkin vs Datsyuk in context, it should also be noted that Datsyuk is generally the Wing's #1 center, especially in the regular season, while Malkin sometimes has to take a back seat to Crosby. And for whatever reason, Malkin tends to have his best seasons when Crosby is injured and he becomes the focal point of the team. So one does have to ask whether Malkin's stats would be better if he was "the guy" more often.

I would also say that linesmates have been advantage Datsyuk. Malkin has Neal now but has often had rubbish (relatively speaking).

 

[Sturminator]

How is it biased towards early players?

Look at the first team LW and tell me in what possible universe that guy was better than Cy Denneny. I'm not talking about really early players, I'm talking about the Bowie generation and a bit later.

Ernie Russell was able to keep pace with Bowie in a couple of his peak seasons, while playing on the Wanderers. He also kept pace with Newsy Lalonde and Marty Walsh in the early years of the NHA. Ernie Russell was a fine player, not somebody Bowie should automatically be expected to trounce in scoring races.

Yes, exactly. Ernie Russell, who kept pace with Bowie when both were at their respective peaks, also "kept pace" with an obviously pre-prime Lalonde, not with Newsy Lalonde, the legend. Bowie wasn't better than Lalonde, and he certainly didn't have a better career. I don't think anyone in their right mind really thinks that, yet the MacLean's list has him ahead of Lalonde. But you say it wasn't biased...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If you think it's that easy, then answer my questions. Imagine a datsyuk who played with no regard for defense, and imagine a Malkin preoccupied with stopping the opposition's best players. Then what do their stats look like?

We're not just here to compare scoring stats, we're here to consider their overall abilities.

Sub Malkin for Gretzky or Lemieux. How much does that change their numbers? So was Dats really as good as them?

 

[pluppe]

If you think it's that easy, then answer my questions. Imagine a datsyuk who played with no regard for defense, and imagine a Malkin preoccupied with stopping the opposition's best players. Then what do their stats look like?

We're not just here to compare scoring stats, we're here to consider their overall abilities.

The answer is of course that I don't know. But I truly believe that Malkin has offensive abilities that are clearly superior to Datsyuk. If you put Malkin with Zetterberg, Rafalski and Lidström in Detroit and Datsyuk in Pittsburgh with Crosby out injured I think Malkin still scores a bit over 100 point and I think Datsyuk still doesn't. I guess we have to agree to disagree about that one.

And I don't think it is fair implying Malkin plays with no regard to defence (It should also be noted that Zetterberg and not Datsyuk has more often been choosen to stop the oppositions best players. Who by the way peak scored as much as Datsyuk in Detroit. Does he also have a comparable peak to Malkin if let loose?).

And again, I'm not alone in thinking that Malkin is an overall better player, just look at first team all stars, Hart voting, Wolrd championship all star teams, Lester B pearson voting and Conn Smythe results.

You often have the before season rankings by the hockey news. Do you have these for Malkin and Datsyuk? I'm honestly curious.

And you started the scoring stat comparison in asking if you were correct in your 15% separation. I just told you that I did not think you were correct and added why I thought so.

 

[seventieslord]

If I was not on vacation in Florida for the next 8 days, I would get that for you right away.

That covers all of the next vote as well, assuming each of them makes it to the next vote (I think they will).

I am pretty sure though, just going by memory, that the results would surprise you.

 

[pluppe]

If I was not on vacation in Florida for the next 8 days, I would get that for you right away.

That covers all of the next vote as well, assuming each of them makes it to the next vote (I think they will).

I am pretty sure though, just going by memory, that the results would surprise you.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I think Datsyuk is awesome. And Selkes should keep a player very high in those kind of rankings. I just think Malkin is better.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Look at the first team LW and tell me in what possible universe that guy was better than Cy Denneny. I'm not talking about really early players, I'm talking about the Bowie generation and a bit later.

Tom Phillips was held in higher regard by his peers than Cy Denneny was, so that doesn't really surprise me. Phillips was considered arguably the best player in the world for a time. I don't believe Denneny ever was. Phillips was recruited as a ringer by numerous Stanley Cup challengers, and was noted for being able to carry a team by himself. I don't think Denneny over Phillips as an open and shut case, I might even take Phillips to be honest.

Yes, exactly. Ernie Russell, who kept pace with Bowie when both were at their respective peaks, also "kept pace" with an obviously pre-prime Lalonde, not with Newsy Lalonde, the legend. Bowie wasn't better than Lalonde, and he certainly didn't have a better career. I don't think anyone in their right mind really thinks that, yet the MacLean's list has him ahead of Lalonde. But you say it wasn't biased...

I think you're awfully hasty to dismiss the opinions of primary sources. Obviously a number of people who watched the careers of both Lalonde and Bowie live and in person believe Bowie was the superior player. I personally feel Lalonde had the better career as well, but perhaps this suggests Bowie needs to be re-evaluated by modern historians who have all but completely forgotten about him. Lalonde, despite being from Ontario, played the bulk of his prime years in Montreal. He's remembered as a Canadien, so I don't think a pro-Montreal bias is going to hurt him in a comparison against Bowie.

We also value Lalonde for the physical play and aggressive nature he brought to the game. I haven't seen Bowie characterized in a similar manner, he appears to have been solely playmaker and scorer. We know physical play and non-offensive attributes to be important in our modern game. But maybe they weren't as important in the early 1900's, none of us have ever seen a game played under those conditions. Perhaps Lalonde's body checking (and to be honest, outright thuggery at times) is being overvalued by modern scholars envisioning him in a modern setting. Just some food for thought.