Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[Sturminator]

Yeah, they also rated Phillips over Taylor, and Scotty Davidson (who played like, what, two seasons?) over Dye. You are being over-credulous. There were some obvious sentimental picks on that list.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Yeah, they also rated Phillips over Taylor, and Scotty Davidson (who played like, what, two seasons?) over Dye. You are being over-credulous. There were some obvious sentimental picks on that list.

Davidson and Richardson were obvious sentimental picks as active players who were killed in the Great War. Harry Watson was a highly regarded amateur who was also a war hero, so likely some sentimentality there as well (he did get lucrative offers from the NHL though, so he certainly was a great player nonetheless).

Taylor was included out of position at LW. It appears the panel didn't deem his play at the Center position alone sufficient to place him over Nighbor, Bowie, or Lalonde. But he also had great play at other positions, and my best guess is the panel felt he was simply too great of a player to leave off entirely.

I guess you can argue that the presence of sentimental picks detracts from the credibility of the entire list. That's fair. I've more or less looked past them though and focused on the positioning of players who had full careers as compared to each other. The MacLean's list isn't the only source that considers Bowie an all-time great, either. There are newspaper articles I've seen asking various contemporary players to name their all-star teams, and Bowie has been mentioned. The Trail of the Stanley Cup mentions that Bowie was listed on practically every all-star team from the era, and for years afterwards. Obviously that statement is open to some interpretation, but it's clear he left a lasting legacy on those who witnessed him.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think leaving out someone with Hooley's Hart record should be "easy" at this point, especially when you consider that he spent some years with Nels Stewart holding him back.

In Dink Carroll's 1952 column quoting Dick Irvin calling Milt Schmidt, Sid Abel, and Ted Kennedy "driving type players" who "would not be classified as playmakers," Carroll specifically listed Frank Boucher, Neil Colville, Joe Primeau, Marty Barry, Hooley Smith, and Cooney Weiland as players who could "set up plays."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=4301,1318041&dq=lach+morenz+irvin&hl=en

If Smith was a classic type of playmaker (which back then seemed to involve controlling the puck through the neutral zone as much as actually passing the puck in the offensive zone), it really would have been an adjustment of his style of play to play RW with Nels Stewart while the S Line was together.

I think Smith's poor playoff record might be enough to leave him out of my top 4, but I have a hard time leaving him out of my top 8. (edit: but then I'll have a hard time leaving the rest of the 9 out, so who knows?) What does Datsyuk have on Smith, for example?

The largest problem with Hooley is obviously his playoff resume, which for some reason people are bending over backwards to excuse here. My guess is that many of the same people might have held Dionne's resume against him but we shall see on that note I guess.

also the Hart voting record is only part of the story, his all star and Hart voting outside of those 4 seasons isn't the greatest either and it's hard to get a clear and real picture of what he was like.

Even if he was truly worthy of those Hart votes, what about the non Hart seasons?

And I'm not sure Nels held him back either Hooley was always a passenger on his teams with other guys driving the bus, or at the very least there was alot of seat sharing going on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The largest problem with Hooley is obviously his playoff resume, which for some reason people are bending over backwards to excuse here. My guess is that many of the same people might have held Dionne's resume against him but we shall see on that note I guess.

also the Hart voting record is only part of the story, his all star and Hart voting outside of those 4 seasons isn't the greatest either and it's hard to get a clear and real picture of what he was like.

Even if he was truly worthy of those Hart votes, what about the non Hart seasons?

And I'm not sure Nels held him back either Hooley was always a passenger on his teams with other guys driving the bus, or at the very least there was alot of seat sharing going on.

Generally, "passengers" on their teams don't finish top 4 in Hart voting 3 times.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

voted earlier in the week and haven't seen anything to alter my view but I might have time tommorrow to look at the thread and resubmit.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

voted earlier in the week and haven't seen anything to alter my view but I might have time tommorrow to look at the thread and resubmit.

Please vote in the allotted time frame if you want your vote to count.

If we allow you to vote early every week, then everyone else will start voting early, and there will be no point to having these discussion threads.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Generally, "passengers" on their teams don't finish top 4 in Hart voting 3 times.

I'm on limited time here, passenger in the sense of a Henri Richard but heck he was never the man, not even on that Olympic team.

Quite simply being elite and the focus on one's team, like Lindros, Malkin, Dats, Hawerchuk and Perreault all have should count for something one would think.

Hooley's playoff record is just plain really weak for thsi group and his Hart seasons have to be considered along with his not showing up on those lists in other seasons or doing quite poorly.

consistency should count for something as well right?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I did a detailed analysis of Dionne's playoff record because I was tired of everybody calling him a choker without looking into the details. I looked at all of the box scores, the context about opponents and matchups, and reviewed the commentary of the journalists who watched him play. The analysis showed that he was a consistently weak playoff performer, so his reputation was justified. Nobody is "bending over backwards" for Smith, but people are digging into his playoff resume with the same attention to detail that I once did for Dionne - this is a good thing as it expands our knowledge.

There are a very limited number of players who received serious Hart consideration in more than three seasons - at this point almost all of them have already been included in the list. Smith likely has the 3rd best Hart trophy voting results of this round's eligible players - and if we use the "what has he done outside of his Hart years" argument, the only two players ahead of him (Lindros and especially Malkin) have done virtually nothing that would make them worthy of our list.

 

[seventieslord]

Are we evaluating 1930s centers in the right order? As in, is there anyone else from the era we should be looking at first? If not, and Hooley is the right choice, can we really justify putting in yet another center active in 1981 over him? I agree that there should be more Hooley/perreault caliber players in later years too... but to that degree?

 

[MXD]

Are we evaluating 1930s centers in the right order? As in, is there anyone else from the era we should be looking at first? If not, and Hooley is the right choice, can we really justify putting in yet another center active in 1981 over him? I agree that there should be more Hooley/perreault caliber players in later years too... but to that degree?

I think a (very bad) case can be made for one of his "sorta" contemporaries. I have only six of them left in my intial list, including three ranging from 75 to 77.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Are we evaluating 1930s centers in the right order? As in, is there anyone else from the era we should be looking at first? If not, and Hooley is the right choice, can we really justify putting in yet another center active in 1981 over him? I agree that there should be more Hooley/perreault caliber players in later years too... but to that degree?

Marty Barry has significantly better regular season stats that Hooley, and he was likely the most "clutch" player of the decade. Hooley has a significantly better Hart and a somewhat better All-Star record than Barry. Barry got into the HHOF first, if that matters to anyone.

I had Barry over Hooley on my initial list, though I am uncertain if I would keep them in that order if I were to do it today.

There are a very limited number of players who received serious Hart consideration in more than three seasons - at this point almost all of them have already been included in the list. Smith likely has the 3rd best Hart trophy voting results of this round's eligible players - and if we use the "what has he done outside of his Hart years" argument, the only two players ahead of him (Lindros and especially Malkin) have done virtually nothing that would make them worthy of our list.

Malkin, Lindros, and Smith are the only three centers who were top 5 in Hart voting 3 times who we have yet to add.

I agree with Hardy somewhat in that the criteria for the Hart was different in the 20s and 30s, however - it really did seem to be about "most valuable" rather than "best" player, so Hooley Smith being the best player on a declining Senators team or a Maroons team that had traded away Stewart might be at an advantage over a player who played on a more stacked team (even moreso than in modern times). (Of course, that makes the idea that Smith was a "passenger" even more absurd).

Also, Hart voters really seemed to put a very high premium on "leadership" in the late 20s and 30s (see Red Dutton).

 

[MXD]

Marty Barry has significantly better regular season stats that Hooley, and he was likely the most "clutch" player of the decade. Hooley has a significantly better Hart and a somewhat better All-Star record than Barry. Barry got into the HHOF first, if that matters to anyone.

I had Barry over Hooley on my initial list, though I am uncertain if I would keep them in that order if I were to do it today.

Another plus on Hooley's side : About 40% more longevity. Hooley was GP's leader for a while, up 'till he was by Clapper... I think.

 

[edinson]

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

I have THN from 2007 to 2009 and TSN from 2010 to 2013. Here they are (from 2007 to 2013):

Datsyuk: 36, 4, 4, 7, 3, 5, 5
Malkin: 44, 9, 3, 4, 22, 2, 2

Datsyuk also has placements of 37, 31 and 35 from 2004 to 2006 (THN).

 

[seventieslord]

Just so we're clear, those are "best player in the league" rankings, not fantasy points or anything... correct?

 

[edinson]

Correct.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

THN 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 editions:

2010-2011:
4) Datsyuk
8) Malkin

2011-2012:
2) Datsyuk
6) Malkin


I don't have the voting info on 2010-2011, but the 2011-2012 edition was voted by the players. They had 5 players per team vote for who they thought the top 5 players were. Players couldn't vote for their own teammates.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

THN 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 editions:

2010-2011:
4) Datsyuk
8) Malkin

2011-2012:
2) Datsyuk
6) Malkin


I don't have the voting info on 2010-2011, but the 2011-2012 edition was voted by the players. They had 5 players per team vote for who they thought the top 5 players were. Players couldn't vote for their own teammates.

I'm assuming these were published at the beginning of the season? So summer of 2010 and summer of 2011 respectively?

 

[silkyjohnson50]

I'm assuming these were published at the beginning of the season? So summer of 2010 and summer of 2011 respectively?

Correct.

I don't believe they had one for 2012-2013 due to the lockout.

The edition for this 2013-2014:
7) Malkin
11) Datsyuk

I don't have the info on the voting process.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

At the very least we can see that the media and/or players viewed both Malkin and Datsyuk among the top 5-10 players in the NHL for a number of years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assists and Perceptions

Assists or unattributed assists by modern standards applied to pre O6 NHL/NHA hockey.

Let's agree that players were shorted by modern standards. Also true that the reports do not meet modern standards due to the range of the source - wire story, intern, part timer, columnist. Combine with playoff reporting being more detailed, home and away stories and there may be a greater proportion of playoff assists discovered. I just recognize that the under attributing happened. Trying to find a ratio or metric is akin to trying to organize cats.

The 1925 MacLean's list. Suggest reviewing previously posted Georges Vezina account. The list is what it is and reflects hockey as perceived in the middle of the season in question. Not what happened later to change perceptions.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The six highest-scoring centres of the 1930s were Nels Stewart (28th on the list), Marty Barry, Cooney Weiland, Frank Boucher (16th), Howie Morenz (4th) and Hooley Smith.

I don't think Weiland deserves serious consideration for the list. He greatly benefited from the fluky 1930 season (the NHL modified several important rules about passing and offsides, which led to some teams, including Weiland's Bruins, exploiting loopholes, until the NHL changed the rules mid-season). Weiland scored 22% of his career points that year, in 9% of his career games. His 73 points were almost double his next best season's offensive output. Weiland was a good player and had a solid career but never again contended for the Hart or Art Ross. He's clearly a step down from the others.

Let's compare the other two centres who can claim being a top centre of the 1930s - Toronto's Reginald "Hooley" Smith and Quebec City's Marty "Goal-A-Game" Barry.

Offense
- Barry has a superior "VsX" score, both over a seven year period (89.9 to 78.8) and over a ten year period (83.5 to 71.6).
- Both players have six top-ten finishes, but Barry ties or beats Smith's career high (4th place) four times.
- Barry appears to have been more of a catalyst on his team. In those six years as a top ten scorer, Barry led his team in scoring all six times (once tied); Smith led his team three times (once tied). I haven't dug into the other years where they weren't top ten scorers.
- Barry was more of a goal-scorer and Smith was more of a playmaker. If we compare strengths, they're virtually even - Barry's goal-scoring (7 times in the top ten, 3 times in the top five) and Smith's playmaking (7 times in the top ten, 3 times in the top five) are even. Barry's playmaking (3 times in the top ten, 2 times in the top five) and Smith's goal-scoring (4 times in the top ten, once in the top five) are fairly similar.

Defense
- There's glowing commentary about Smith's defensive play. Nalyd's post (link) describes him as an "expert defensively", "a dogged checker", a player who "developed into one of the game's most complete performers" and was "one of the greatest defensive players in hockey". Smith was also a tough, fierce physical presence.
- I can't find much (positive or negative) about Barry's defensive play. Unless someone has specific evidence, we should consider him average.

Playoffs
- Barry's scoring increasing during the playoffs (up very slightly from 0.76 ppg to 0.77 ppg) - an excellent performance during a decade when playoff scoring dropped precipitously.
- As discussed extensively, Smith's scoring nosedived in the postseason (down from 0.59 ppg to 0.35 ppg). Research has shown that some of the decrease was due to Smith being injured in the spring (but still contributing defensively) but still, he was not a strong playoff performer.
- Barry finished in the top ten in scoring during four playoffs: 1st, T1st, T5th and T6th. Smith finished T4th and T10th. Note: in many of those years, as little as 3-4 points could land you in the top ten.
- If we're "Cup counting", both won Lord Stanley's mug twice (1927 and 1935 for Smith, 1936 and 1937 for Barry).

Award voting
- Smith finished 2nd, 3rd, T4th and 12th in Hart voting. All of those were "significant" finishes (ie more than 5% of the maximum number of votes). Barry finished 5th.
- Smith was a first-team all-star in 1936 and second-team all-star in 1932. He was an unofficial third-team all-star in 1933 and 1934. He very likely would have been an all-star in 1926 (all-star teams were not awarded until 1931). Barry was a first-team all-star in 1937.
- Barry won a Lady Byng (which was an important and distinguished award during the twenties and thirties). Smith never won (with his style of play, he would have had no chance).

Other factors
- Barry was remarkably healthy - from 1930 to 1939, he missed just two games (played in 99.6% of possible games over his healthiest ten consecutive years). Smith was very healthy too (played in 95.8% of possible games over his healthiest ten consecutive years).
- Barry was much less likely to take penalties (0.45 PIM per game compared to Smith's 1.42 PIM per game). Both took more penalties during the playoffs (0.79 PIM per game for Barry compared to 2.02 PIM per game for Smith).
- Smith was more versatile - although he was primarily a centre, he also played both wings and defense (which explained some of his decrease in scoring over the last five years of his career). Barry occasionally played on the wing.
- Smith has a clear edge in longevity - his career spanned 1925 to 1941. Barry played from 1930 to 1940 (plus nine games in 1928). When he retired in 1941, Smith had played more NHL games than any other player (715; Aurel Joliat was a distant second with 655).
- I can't find any information about how either player performed on face-offs.
- Barry never played in any international tournaments. Smith won the gold medal at the 1924 Olympics in Chamonix, France (a charming town at the foot of the Alps). He scored 18 goals in five games (third on the team) as Canada won by laughable margins.
- Barry was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1965; Smith was inducted posthumously in 1972.

Overall
It's a close comparison. Barry was clearly the superior offensive player (both in terms of raw statistics, and his role as the offensive catalyst on his team). He was also a superior playoff performer. Smith, as evidenced from Hart and all-star voting, was regarded as the superior player by contemporaries (presumably, his defensive and physical play more than made up for Barry's offense). The difference in their playoff portfolios is significant, and that's what makes this comparison a lot closer than their regular season resumes suggests. I'd rank Smith the fourth best centre of the 1930s (after Morenz, Boucher and Stewart) and Barry fifth.

 

[MXD]

What I consider very ironic regarding Marty Barry : Spent most of his years on what is probably THE team that deserves the choker label, ie, 30ies Bruins.

Edit : I don't know which word to use with Retro Awards, but Hooley Smith was given such honor. Selke, 1935-36.

 

[reckoning]

Where would Igor Larionov's Soviet years rate in comparison to the top NHL centres of the 80s? I'm just asking because he had a very impressive run in the NHL; overall better than his teammates that came over with him. So if he did that well after age 29, it makes you wonder how good he would've been in his prime. But then again, during his Soviet years, wasn't he considered as the weakest member of his line?

 

[MXD]

Where would Igor Larionov's Soviet years rate in comparison to the top NHL centres of the 80s? I'm just asking because he had a very impressive run in the NHL; overall better than his teammates that came over with him. So if he did that well after age 29, it makes you wonder how good he would've been in his prime. But then again, during his Soviet years, wasn't he considered as the weakest member of his line?

Long post lost in edit.

But in the end, I can't see how he can top Hawerchuk. He has some defensive play advantage and a slight longevity advantage. But even then, one can argue that post-28Hawerchuk brought more total value than post 28 Larionov. FWIW, Larionov was my un official 9th this round. Malkine would have passed him if the current exercise would have been made in 6 months.

 

[pluppe]

I have THN from 2007 to 2009 and TSN from 2010 to 2013. Here they are (from 2007 to 2013):

Datsyuk: 36, 4, 4, 7, 3, 5, 5
Malkin: 44, 9, 3, 4, 22, 2, 2

Datsyuk also has placements of 37, 31 and 35 from 2004 to 2006 (THN).

Thank you very much. The 22 is a bit weird and I might have a bit more separation but other than that this really provides a good argument for both these players in this round.