Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

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.

I appreciate your comments here but Lindros and Malkin both have much higher peaks, primes ect than Hooley ever did.

There has been some suggestion that Hooley's playoff resume might have been hurt from untimely injuries.

Hopefully the same context can be extended to Lindros and Malkin both of whom played many more games at an elite level than Hooley ever did, despite what the hart records might indicate.

I would also through Dats into that mix as well.

there is also little doubt that a guy like Hawerchuck would have suffered in Hart voting due to his lack of team mates support as for the start of his career the Jets were dale and then everyone else quite a notch down.

Hooley has the Hart voting but much like Clarke my guess is that many people aren't really looking at Hooley as critically as some other players in this round.

Simply put too many players have better resumes overall than Hooley for him to be a serious contender for top 4 this round.

 

[MXD]

I appreciate your comments here but Lindros and Malkin both have much higher peaks, primes ect than Hooley ever did.

There has been some suggestion that Hooley's playoff resume might have been hurt from untimely injuries.

Hopefully the same context can be extended to Lindros and Malkin both of whom played many more games at an elite level than Hooley ever did, despite what the hart records might indicate.

I would also through Dats into that mix as well.

there is also little doubt that a guy like Hawerchuck would have suffered in Hart voting due to his lack of team mates support as for the start of his career the Jets were dale and then everyone else quite a notch down.

Hooley has the Hart voting but much like Clarke my guess is that many people aren't really looking at Hooley as critically as some other players in this round.

Simply put too many players have better resumes overall than Hooley for him to be a serious contender for top 4 this round.

Is that an argument centered around the absolute number of games, or an argument that Lindros and Malkin has to be preferred to Smith due to their longevity ?

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.



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).

I went through the hart and all star voting during Hooley's career and it's very sporadic and hard to make of how or what teh voters thought of hooley. IMO his case would be much strong if it was in a peak or shorter time frame but there is so much seperation in terms of years and time for his Hart voting that it raises some suspicions for me.

His 1st Hart year in 26 where he was tied for 4th and behind team mate Nighbour in Hart voting is interesting to say the least.

He was tied for 2nd in points along with Frank (with 25)but played in 28 games compared to Frank who played in 35.

team scoring leader Cy Denney played in 36 games and had 36 points and was 2nd in the league in points and 4th in goals but wasn't one of the 14 guys getting any Hart votes either.

His year s receiving Hart votes are in 26, 32 and 36 but unless I missed something he wasn't getting votes in other years when 6-8 players were.

One thing we can measure is his offense in each season they break down like this.

1925- 11th in points
1926- 8th in points (4th in Hart voting)
1927- out of top 20 he had 15 points 20th guy had 20 points
1928- tied 16th in points
1929- tied for 10th in points (along with 6 other guys)
1930- 3 points behind 20th guy
1931- 3 points behind 20th place
1932- 6th in points (3rd in Hart voting)
1933- tied 4th in points (3rd team center)
1934- 8th in points (5 guys got hart votes but none for Hooley 3rd team Center)
1935- 7 points out of 20th place
1936 4th in points 2nd in Hart
1937 12 points from 20th place and then played till 41 but was really never better than average offensively at best.

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.

The longevity was impressive but consistency of peak and prime isn't.

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).

Maybe different Hart results but more time as elite players, would add Lindros and Bowie to that mix as well but obvious context difference for Bowie

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?

Igor is a tough case as he didn't score at the rate of the other Russian 5 in his unit during his time in Russia but had the best NHL career, by quite a bit as well, despite his small frame.

94-95, although he didn't play full seasons he was excellent in the regular season and playoffs and even more so considering his age, just a glimpse of how good he and Makarov could have been in their prime in the NHL.

Their winger (in 94) was Johan Garpenlov until he was traded at age 26 for a 5th round draft choice to Florida.

Igor's playoff record is extremely impressive as well when one considers it is entirely age 30 and more, no doubt if he was allowed to play in the NHL at an earlier age it would be very impressive indeed.

His international record hints at this along with his success in the NHL.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Is that an argument centered around the absolute number of games, or an argument that Lindros and Malkin has to be preferred to Smith due to their longevity ?

Hooley has very impressive longevity this round, probably the best along with Igor when context is taken into account but for absolute # of elite games (even when season schedule is considered) Malkin, Dats and Lindros are way ahead of Hooley in that metric IMO.

Bowie, Oates, Hawerchuck, and Perreault as well.

Hooley is more in the Ratelle, Delvechhio, Larinov tier.

 

[MXD]

I totally concur with Hooley in the same tier than Delvecchio.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I totally concur with Hooley in the same tier than Delvecchio.

I can see why some would here but it's ironic and Hooley's strength of Hart voting is Delvecchio weakness.

I think Alex rates higher for what it is worth.

Hopefully that won't instigate my modern preference eh?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I totally concur with Hooley in the same tier than Delvecchio.

I don't see it. Not when their playoff records are so different.

That said, I think Delvecchio could have gone last round, so that isn't necessarily an indictment of Hooley.

 

[MXD]

I can see why some would here but it's ironic and Hooley's strength of Hart voting is Delvecchio weakness.

I think Alex rates higher for what it is worth.

Hopefully that won't instigate my modern preference eh?

Having Delvecchio and Smith at the bottom-end of this group tells me anything I need to know.

 

[MXD]

I don't see it. Not when their playoff records are so different.

That said, I think Delvecchio could have gone last round, so that isn't necessarily an indictment of Hooley.

I had slightly overrated Smith going in and dropped him accordingly.

Considering what I said on Delvecchio throughout this very round, it should come as no surprise that I have him comfortably in my Top-4. If anything, I kinda tried to come up to a group consensus to have him all in the Top-4. His drops kindof reminds me the drop of Reardon in the D-Men project -- with the difference that Delvecchio isn't 10-15 spots too low, merely one or two (at least at this point). My efforts were possibly half-assed or just a bit too subtle though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sorry guys. New job, been in and out...I don't want to just throw together a vote just to vote...my interest is still here, but my time is not. Next round, I should be able to be more active...my apologies.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Congrats on the new job!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sorry guys. New job, been in and out...I don't want to just throw together a vote just to vote...my interest is still here, but my time is not. Next round, I should be able to be more active...my apologies.

You could have really had your way with this vote.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Igor is a tough case as he didn't score at the rate of the other Russian 5 in his unit during his time in Russia but had the best NHL career, by quite a bit as well, despite his small frame.

94-95, although he didn't play full seasons he was excellent in the regular season and playoffs and even more so considering his age, just a glimpse of how good he and Makarov could have been in their prime in the NHL.

Their winger (in 94) was Johan Garpenlov until he was traded at age 26 for a 5th round draft choice to Florida.

Igor's playoff record is extremely impressive as well when one considers it is entirely age 30 and more, no doubt if he was allowed to play in the NHL at an earlier age it would be very impressive indeed.

His international record hints at this along with his success in the NHL.

OT but this just got me thinking-- larionov also had an extremely weird NHL career in that almost every step of the way he had another soviet/russian guy on his wing, with the exception of his disastrous second year in vancouver and his last year in new jersey. comes over with krutov; has the bad year after vlad flames out; breaks through as an NHLer while breaking bure in as a rookie; holds out, then goes to SJ to spend two years with makarov, including that monster playoff run; goes to detroit which needs no explanation; goes to florida to play with bure again (plus the other kozlov), fails, goes back to detroit for cup number three.