Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
During his prime Clarke was always the clear cut best offensive player on his team. The same can't be said of Nighbor...on the other hand Nighbors teams were more successful...both of these can be attributed to different team situations. Tough call.

This is true, Nighbor spent a large part of his prime (but not all of it) with Cy Denneny. On the other hand, it is easier to be the clear cut best offensive player on your team post-expansion

And when Clarke's team won their Cups, Bernie Parent was playing as good as any goalie ever played all time, while I don't think Clint Benedict was ever that important to any particular Cup run in Ottawa (while having a better career than Parent overall).
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
I still don't understand how a player with such short list of career victories can be thought of so highly. Mikita, that is.

Sakic would never touch Yzerman's peak. Hell, he couldn't even touch Fedorov's.
 

Wrath

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
2,184
186
I still don't understand how a player with such short list of career victories can be thought of so highly. Mikita, that is.

More cups=better player? Guess that Bobby Hull guy was just a bum too.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Difference Makers

More cups=better player? Guess that Bobby Hull guy was just a bum too.

Recognizing the difference makers is a large part of the project. Players like Nighbor, Beliveau, Trottier, some others that are open to debate or will be considered shortly had the difference maker quality. Others did not.

Participants weigh this quality by their own standards.
 

Wrath

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
2,184
186
I just feel that judging career victories to be equal to being a "difference maker" is too much of a reaching argument, i.e. career victories doesn't imply being a difference maker, and more importantly, lack of career victories doesn't imply not being a difference maker (or not being a good leader, not being clutch, etc.).

As I understand Mikita was highly regarded by his peers, the media, and hockey fans all around while he was a player, to label him as somebody who wasn't a difference maker because "he shoulda won more cups" seems a bit contrived.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Nighbor's achievements are becoming overinflated here.

Frank was clearly the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz. He was such a great defensive player that he won the first ever Hart trophy at the age of 31 in a season in which he was only the third leading scorer on his own team, behind even one of the Ottawa defensemen, Georges Boucher.

Contemporary commentators speak of him with a palpable awe, and it is not by chance that he was given the nickname "Peerless Frank" - a moniker with strong parallels to the latter day title "The Great One". Frank Nighbor's accomplishments are emphasized by some posters on this board, including me, because there are other posters who are mostly unaware of his greatness. He belongs in the top-4 of this round. I am strongly considering him for 2nd on my list, after Mikita.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Bad Penalties

I just feel that judging career victories to be equal to being a "difference maker" is too much of a reaching argument, i.e. career victories doesn't imply being a difference maker, and more importantly, lack of career victories doesn't imply not being a difference maker (or not being a good leader, not being clutch, etc.).

As I understand Mikita was highly regarded by his peers, the media, and hockey fans all around while he was a player, to label him as somebody who wasn't a difference maker because "he shoulda won more cups" seems a bit contrived.

Overlooking his history of bad penalties thru the 1964 - 1965 season especially in the 1965 playoffs - 35 in game minutes, all served in the finals, 53 minutes total.

Clarke and Trottier playing 3-4 series never came close to such numbers.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
I just feel that judging career victories to be equal to being a "difference maker" is too much of a reaching argument, i.e. career victories doesn't imply being a difference maker, and more importantly, lack of career victories doesn't imply not being a difference maker (or not being a good leader, not being clutch, etc.).

As I understand Mikita was highly regarded by his peers, the media, and hockey fans all around while he was a player, to label him as somebody who wasn't a difference maker because "he shoulda won more cups" seems a bit contrived.

A good point can be made that, if the Hawks would have won, say, 5 cups during Mikita's tenure, that would probably propel him above Beliveau. And no, that's not a cup-counting argument.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Frank was clearly the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz. He was such a great defensive player that he won the first ever Hart trophy at the age of 31 in a season in which he was only the third leading scorer on his own team, behind even one of the Ottawa defensemen, Georges Boucher.

Contemporary commentators speak of him with a palpable awe, and it is not by chance that he was given the nickname "Peerless Frank" - a moniker with strong parallels to the latter day title "The Great One". Frank Nighbor's accomplishments are emphasized by some posters on this board, including me, because there are other posters who are mostly unaware of his greatness. He belongs in the top-4 of this round. I am strongly considering him for 2nd on my list, after Mikita.

I definitely think Nighbor was the best player in NHA/NHL history before Morenz, but is it completely clear that he was better than Taylor?

I had Nighbor ahead of Taylor on my submitted list (I had both Nighbor and Sakic in my top 8), but I don't think it's completely clearcut, is it?
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Frank was clearly the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz. He was such a great defensive player that he won the first ever Hart trophy at the age of 31 in a season in which he was only the third leading scorer on his own team, behind even one of the Ottawa defensemen, Georges Boucher.

Contemporary commentators speak of him with a palpable awe, and it is not by chance that he was given the nickname "Peerless Frank" - a moniker with strong parallels to the latter day title "The Great One". Frank Nighbor's accomplishments are emphasized by some posters on this board, including me, because there are other posters who are mostly unaware of his greatness. He belongs in the top-4 of this round. I am strongly considering him for 2nd on my list, after Mikita.

Thanks for evidencing my statement. I have him above Taylor, for the record.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
During his prime Clarke was always the clear cut best offensive player on his team. The same can't be said of Nighbor...on the other hand Nighbors teams were more successful...both of these can be attributed to different team situations. Tough call.

Bobby was the clear-cut best offensive player on the Flyers for a few seasons during his prime. Other times, guys like MacLeish and Barber were arguably more important to the Flyers' attack. Bobby was the team's best offensive player, overall, during his peak in Philly, but it was often not clear-cut in any given season.
 

unknown33

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
3,942
150
Frank was clearly the greatest player in hockey history before Howie Morenz.
What are the reasons that this opinion was forgotten during the past decades and Lalonde, Taylor or even Malone are seen as superior among mainstream media? The status of player from early eras is not as statbased anyways compared to now so 'Nighbor didn't have offensive numbers' doesn't make much sense to me.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
What are the reasons that this opinion was forgotten during the past decades and Lalonde, Taylor or even Malone are seen as superior among mainstream media? The status of player from early eras is not as statbased anyways compared to now so 'Nighbor didn't have offensive numbers' doesn't make much sense to me.

Primarily, stats. Nighbor was a pass-first player who spent much of his prime in an NHA that didn't record assists at all, then an NHL that barely counted them. Lalonde and Malone were shoot-first players.

Also, the Montreal Canadiens organization does a great job of celebrating their history as a franchise, so Lalonde is much more well-known to the common fan than Nighbor.

The mainstream media doesn't know anything about Malone, except for his stats in 1917-18 (the year he beat up on an Ottawa team that was missing Frank Nighbor due to WW1).
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Primarily, stats. Nighbor was a pass-first player who spent much of his prime in an NHA that didn't record assists at all, then an NHL that barely counted them. Lalonde and Malone were shoot-first players.

Also, the Montreal Canadiens organization does a great job of celebrating their history as a franchise, so Lalonde is much more well-known to the common fan than Nighbor.

The mainstream media doesn't know anything about Malone, except for his stats in 1917-18 (the year he beat up on an Ottawa team that was missing Frank Nighbor due to WW1).

I can say that Lalonde isn't much revered by the franchise. It basically start with Morenz and Joliat.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I can say that Lalonde isn't much revered by the franchise. It basically start with Morenz and Joliat.

Better than the original Senators, who went bankrupt during the Great Depression.

You're probably right. I think most of the traditional record for Lalonde comes from his goal scoring stats found in The Trail.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Thanks for evidencing my statement. I have him above Taylor, for the record.

If you think that what I wrote was evidence of the correctness of your statement, you misunderstand the word. What I wrote is an example of what you are complaining about. In order for it to be evidence of your claim, you would actually have to deal with the arguments in favor of Nighbor and claim persuasively that they are overblown. If you are prepared to do that, then go ahead.

Here is some reading on Frank Nighbor, from nik jr's definitive profile of him (now three years old).

There's also some excellent discussion of Nighbor on this page. Here's a simple bit of whooping about Frank being the greatest of all time, circa 1927.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
I definitely think Nighbor was the best player in NHA/NHL history before Morenz, but is it completely clear that he was better than Taylor?

I had Nighbor ahead of Taylor on my submitted list (I had both Nighbor and Sakic in my top 8), but I don't think it's completely clearcut, is it?

Nothing regarding Cyclone Taylor is clear-cut, given the relative obscurity of the leagues in which he spent his best years. That being said, based on what we know, Nighbor has many more advocates, and is consistently held up as the gold standard of his era. Perhaps the western press simply doesn't do Taylor justice? Stranger things have happened, and Taylor's career will probably always remain somewhat mysterious, but I would say that a strong preponderence of the evidence points to Nighbor as the greatest of that generation.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Better than the original Senators, who went bankrupt during the Great Depression.

You're probably right. I think most of the traditional record for Lalonde comes from his goal scoring stats found in The Trail.

Sure, obviously.
But why Taylor then ?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Sure, obviously.
But why Taylor then ?

Taylor was really historically important as the first superstar to play in Western Canada, basically the face of the PCHA. Incredibly exciting player to watch, too, by all accounts (nicknamed "Cyclone" after all).
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Nothing regarding Cyclone Taylor is clear-cut, given the relative obscurity of the leagues in which he spent his best years. That being said, based on what we know, Nighbor has many more advocates, and is consistently held up as the gold standard of his era. Perhaps the western press simply doesn't do Taylor justice? Stranger things have happened, and Taylor's career will probably always remain somewhat mysterious, but I would say that a strong preponderence of the evidence points to Nighbor as the greatest of that generation.

Possibly. But above guys like all the bottom-5 of last
Round ? Its more in that light, as opposed to his competition, that I see him as being a tad overvalued here.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Taylor was really historically important as the first superstar to play in Western Canada, basically the face of the PCHA. Incredibly exciting player to watch, too, by all accounts (nicknamed "Cyclone" after all).

Good point. Style points ?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Good point. Style points ?

Possibly, also people who lived out west never saw a better player than Taylor, since top tier professional hockey wouldn't return for basically a lifetime after the PCHA and WHL folded. Whereas Nighbor was quickly followed by Morenz in the east.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,289
Dick Irvin and Jack Adams thought Syl Apps were better than both Morenz & Taylor. Nighbor wasn't mentioned. Must be Leafs bias. ;)

Irvin Tags Apps as All-Time Great! The Leader-Post, November 22, 1939.

Lester Patrick thought Cyclone Taylor was the best, while "Bullet Joe" Simpson held Morenz higher.

N.Y. Coaches Pick Stars Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 10 January, 1934
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->