Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

[overg]

Yzerman as the poster-boy for skilled-guy-playing-hard-game-sacrificing-for-the-team-gritty-leader has become a trope amongst fans that don't want to look too deeply into things. Some fans are content with the two-dimensional media version of a player and want to go with that. Sakic never 'looked' as intense as Stevie Y on the ice, and I suspect there's a lot of fans who were quite young and impressionale when Yzerman won a Cup on a busted knee. Sakic was as gritty as anyone but his most famous injury was at the hands of a snow-blower. He doesn't have an iconic 'damn, this guy is a warrior' moment like that.

This seems like it might be the answer. Not that the other things mentioned don't also influence the general population, but Yzerman has become a legendary "sacrifice for the team" story, which is one thing Sakic does not have. Not that Sakic wasn't a warrior or was in any way a selfish player, but there is the narrative that Yzerman sacrificed his personal stats (and later on, money) to make the team better, and I suspect that's the story which has resonated with the casual fan and caused him to be thought of more highly.

You have to wonder if Sakic's reputation would be closer if he hadn't signed that offer sheet with the Rangers. I'm not sure the general public really even remembers that happened, but it might be one of those things which caused the legend of Sakic not to grow as quickly as the legend of Yzerman.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yzerman as the poster-boy for skilled-guy-playing-hard-game-sacrificing-for-the-team-gritty-leader has become a trope amongst fans that don't want to look too deeply into things. Some fans are content with the two-dimensional media version of a player and want to go with that. Sakic never 'looked' as intense as Stevie Y on the ice, and I suspect there's a lot of fans who were quite young and impressionale when Yzerman won a Cup on a busted knee. Sakic was as gritty as anyone but his most famous injury was at the hands of a snow-blower. He doesn't have an iconic 'damn, this guy is a warrior' moment like that.

That, and Red Wings of the last twenty years tend to recieve a lot (more than is warranted, IMO) of praise and attention. It is what it is.

Big-****ing-go.

Yes being one of the focal points of a team with double the next teams current consecutive playoff streak is really over rated...right?

funny I didn't see these comments for Jean or Wayne last round?

Maybe great players make their teams great?

 

[Hardyvan123]

How was Mikita an impact player for so much longer than Esposito?

Mikita's last good season was when he was 34 (36-50-86). Never had 60 points again.

Espo had season's of 38-43-81 at age 35, 42-36-78 at age 36, 34-44-78 at age 37.
Also, Rangers went to the finals in that 2nd season with Espo leading the team in playoff scoring.

Stan also had a much better start to his career, Phil doesn't really get rolling until the Orr days and Phil was simply horrible in the playoffs in Chicago..people complain about Mikita only having one cup, well at least it wasn't his fault a much more consistent and longer peak/prime.

Also your last 60 point season is a bit misleading he scores 57 in 48 games as a 35 year old and 49 in 57 games at 36.

Years 37 and 38 he "drops" down to 59 and 55 points.

Quite simply Stan had a more longer more productive career than Phil did.

 

[Sentinel]

In the leadership department, Yzerman > Sakic.

TDMM: You can argue for Sakic over Yzerman until the Lightning fans come home, but Sakic simply does not have anything close to a 155 point season. Not in his wildest dreams. You can give him the what if benefit all you want.

If it makes you feel any better, I rank Sakic over Mikita. For a 5X Art Ross winner with Hull and Hall on your team, winning only one Cup is just weak. And naturally I rank Yzerman over them both. The only centers in the past 30 years that above Yzerman are G, L, and Trottier. Clarke gets points off for being a *********. Messier does too (plus his teammates were quite a bit better than Yzerman's, hence his record).

P.S. What's wrong with Cup counting?

 

[MXD]

I might be a bit boring, and that might be a bit against the spirit of the project...

But I mainly look to establish the top of my list for any round... And then rounding out the bottom. Sure, sometimes, the bottom is a bit obvious, but that's not my point.

Anyways... My current situation? The bottom of vote 1 basically became the top of vote 2.

Anybody has some insight regarding Espo vs. Sakic? Other than the obivous "Espo has 5 Art Ross vs. Sakic's 16 years prime".

 

[Hardyvan123]

Please, do not put Esposito in the same category as Mario defensively. Lemieux and Gretzky were in a tier of their own. And as I recall Espo killed penalties for the Bruins as soon as they got him, leading me to think he may have done some PK work in Chicago also. Pappy, any recollection of that?

Perhaps I'm too young but I don't recall watching Espostio as being a 2 way force (and none of the video backs up that claim either. I mean if he was even have decent defensively his scoring edge should have bridged the Hart gap with Clarke a couple of times...right? but then again the hart voters do some weird things too)) by any means, being better than Mario defensively isn't really that hard to do.

 

[seventieslord]

YeahThe Esposito-Mikita paradox, in a nutshell:

People place a mental asterisk in front of Esposito's accomplishments, due to being a teammate of Orr and potting points in competition against players in the early years of the expansion era.

People do not place a mental asterisk in front of Mikita's accomplishments, in spite of being a teammate of Hull and acquiring a reputation for two-way play in competition against players in the early years of the expansion era.

Well jeez, one of those asterisks is just a wee bit bigger than the other, dontcha think?

 

[MXD]

In the leadership department, Yzerman > Sakic.

TDMM: You can argue for Sakic over Yzerman until the Lightning fans come home, but Sakic simply does not have anything close to a 155 point season. Not in his wildest dreams. You can give him the what if benefit all you want.

If it makes you feel any better, I rank Sakic over Mikita. For a 5X Art Ross winner with Hull and Hall on your team, winning only one Cup is just weak. And naturally I rank Yzerman over them both. The only centers in the past 30 years that above Yzerman are G, L, and Trottier. Clarke gets points off for being a *********. Messier does too (plus his teammates were quite a bit better than Yzerman's, hence his record).

P.S. What's wrong with Cup counting?

Sakic, unlike Dennis Maruk, doesn't have a 136 point season as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just don't see a case for Yzerman over Sakic.

The one thing Yzerman has over Sakic is a slightly better regular season offensive prime. And I say "slightly better" because of how much higher scoring the late 80s was than the early 00s. In 2000-01, Sakic beat everyone not named Jagr by more than 20 points! And he was way ahead of Jagr too before Mario Lemieux unretired.

As far as better peak overall? It's really hard for me not to take Sakic, considering he had developed into a very good two-way player by this point, while Yzerman was clearly sacrificing defense for offense at his offensive peak (not that he couldn't play well defensively when asked, he just doesn't seem to have been asked to).

If you could combine Yzerman's offensive peak and his defensive peak and have that player over the course of Yzerman's career, I'd take him over Sakic (and he'd have a very good case for #1 this round!). But that just didn't happen.

And that's before getting into Sakic's 18 years as a top offensive threat, though I realize he was only a strong two-way player for the second half of it.

I would also take Sakic over Yzerman in the playoffs, despite Yzerman's extra Cup. Colorado had much less depth than Detroit, New Jersey, or Dallas, and they sank or swam with their stars. And Sakic was a single point in 1997 away from leading the playoffs in scoring 3 times, despite only playing in 2 finals.

I don't even think Yzerman is overrated per se (at least not on the history board), just that Sakic is underrated, as his greatness kind of creeped up on us. As I said before, I think Sakic deserves a fair comparison with the players who were left over from last round.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Please tell me Sentinel's last post... 155 points... cup counting... no. Just no.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Perhaps I'm too young but I don't recall watching Espostio as being a 2 way force (and none of the video backs up that claim either. I mean if he was even have decent defensively his scoring edge should have bridged the Hart gap with Clarke a couple of times...right? but then again the hart voters do some weird things too)) by any means, being better than Mario defensively isn't really that hard to do.

Off course its not hard to do. That's my point. I didn't say Esposito was great defensively but he at least played some defense. You put him on the same level as Lemieux and you still insist on not mentioning the only guy close to Mario's lack of defense was Gretzky.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Stan also had a much better start to his career, Phil doesn't really get rolling until the Orr days and Phil was simply horrible in the playoffs in Chicago..people complain about Mikita only having one cup, well at least it wasn't his fault a much more consistent and longer peak/prime.

Also your last 60 point season is a bit misleading he scores 57 in 48 games as a 35 year old and 49 in 57 games at 36.

Years 37 and 38 he "drops" down to 59 and 55 points.

Quite simply Stan had a more longer more productive career than Phil did.

Mikita:

1392-541-926-1467 +157

Esposito:

1282-717-873-1590 +197

Esposito scored more goals per game, more assists per game and more points per game. More Cups, more Art Ross Trophies, a significant international performance.

By more productive career do you mean he played more games?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Subordinating

Teams win cups not individual players.....and individual players is what this discussion is about.

How individual players subordinate their own interests in order to win.

 

[VanIslander]

The 1970's were arguably the weakest for the NHL given there was the WHA paying twice to three times more in salary, the Soviets and Czechoslovakians were world class but unable to play in the NHL, and there were several weak expansion NHL teams to inflate stats against.

Mikita in the Original Six years versus Esposito in the seventies are two quite different worlds of hockey in terms of level of competition and inclusion of the world's best.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

The 1970's were arguably the weakest for the NHL given there was the WHA paying twice to three times more in salary, the Soviets and Czechoslovakians were world class but unable to play in the NHL, and there were several weak expansion NHL teams to inflate stats against.

Mikita in the Original Six years versus Esposito in the seventies are two quite different worlds of hockey in terms of level of competition and inclusion of the world's best.

This is why I had Clarke third out of the Messier/Trottier/Clarke troika coming into the project, before taking Clarke over Trottier last round. Shouldn't Clarke have dominated offensively in his era compared to the others?

Here's what I have for weighted vsX scores:

|7 year score|10 year score
Clarke|88.5|83.2
Mikita|109.6|104.7
Messier|90.2|86.6
Trottier| 95.9|89.8

Here's the other eligible candidates

|7 year score|10 year score
Esposito|125|116.8
Sakic|99.1|96
Yzerman|94.4|90.8

10 year weighted as followed, scores times 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 divided by 146
7 year weighted as followed, scores times 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 divided by 113

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Yes being one of the focal points of a team with double the next teams current consecutive playoff streak is really over rated...right?

funny I didn't see these comments for Jean or Wayne last round?

Maybe great players make their teams great?

Knew this was coming. There's a difference there (which, given the examples you cite, really SHOULDN'T need explanation) despite how much you want to tilt the scales in favour of 90s players.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

In the leadership department, Yzerman > Sakic.

TDMM: You can argue for Sakic over Yzerman until the Lightning fans come home, but Sakic simply does not have anything close to a 155 point season. Not in his wildest dreams. You can give him the what if benefit all you want.

If it makes you feel any better, I rank Sakic over Mikita. For a 5X Art Ross winner with Hull and Hall on your team, winning only one Cup is just weak. And naturally I rank Yzerman over them both. The only centers in the past 30 years that above Yzerman are G, L, and Trottier. Clarke gets points off for being a *********. Messier does too (plus his teammates were quite a bit better than Yzerman's, hence his record).

P.S. What's wrong with Cup counting?

Translation: I want Yzerman to place highly so I'm going to ignore or skew all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Mikita:

1392-541-926-1467 +157

Esposito:

1282-717-873-1590 +197

Esposito scored more goals per game, more assists per game and more points per game. More Cups, more Art Ross Trophies, a significant international performance.

By more productive career do you mean he played more games?

Phil didn't really get going until he was 2nd fiddle to Orr in Boston and sure he aged well, but the center he switched places with aged better.

Mikita had a more consistent run and started right from 21 as a superstar (heck his age 20 season was really good too).

I just think too much of Phil's resume depends on the intersection with Orr and at this stage of the voting I give the nod to guys who had a better start (Mikita, Trotts, Sakic, Yzerman ect.), even if they didn't have quite the Orr aided peak.

Phil deserves to be on this list really soon, no doubt, but there are too many other guys with better more complete resumes and with less questions at this point IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Knew this was coming. There's a difference there (which, given the examples you cite, really SHOULDN'T need explanation) despite how much you want to tilt the scales in favour of 90s players.

Look I don't care when a player played but his competition, now that you bring it up as I sure didn't here except to note that the 90's is probably the best decade for centers out there, is extremely important isn't it?

The consecutive playoff streak by Detroit is simply at an all time great level period or are you going to deny it?

Good luck with that effort.

A large part of their success is from 4 guys who should get consideration for the top 60 centers project here, much like the early 50's Red Wings team.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The 1970's were arguably the weakest for the NHL given there was the WHA paying twice to three times more in salary, the Soviets and Czechoslovakians were world class but unable to play in the NHL, and there were several weak expansion NHL teams to inflate stats against.

Unfortunately we don't have enough of the top Czech or Russian players coming over but one guy, big Ned, did have two better offensive seasons in the NHL than Clarke did in the early 80's, sure Clarke was older then but Ned was 4 years older so it raises some questions for me about the 70's NHL centers.

Sometime in the late 60's to early 70's and probably growing until they came over later in the 80's and 90's there were great players who never had a chance to play in the NHL and maybe if there was full integration or looking at how players stack up in the world at the time some of the 70's guys might slip a bit?

The Clarke/Nedomansky example surely must raise some questions and needs looking at right?

The amazing fluctuation in talent and leagues shifting back and forth pre NHL also makes it very hard to accurately address those guys, a problem I admit is hard to work around for me when it comes to Taylor and Nighbor.

Mikita in the Original Six years versus Esposito in the seventies are two quite different worlds of hockey in terms of level of competition and inclusion of the world's best.

They are quite different worlds indeed.

 

[seventieslord]

The 1970's were arguably the weakest for the NHL

Not as weak as 1943-1953.

 

[Plural]

the answer is, very simply, 155.

I honestly think casual fan hears "highest offensive season outside Mario/Wayne" and just assumes Yzerman had the third highest peak ever.

I remember when I was just lurking around HF boards few years back, I actually thought to myself that people who consider Sakic>Yzerman are crazy. And that was based practically 100% on the 155.

 

[sr edler]

I've dug up some articles on Nighbor, Lalonde and Taylor.

Nighbor recalls another hockey era by Ben Ward, Ottawa Citizen, February 16, 1963.

Amongst other things the article above touches on Nighbor's defensive wizardry, his "sweep check" and his "poke check".

Here's an article saying King Clancy claimed Nighbor as the greatest of all time → Recalling 'Greats' Of Canadian Hockey by Charles Edwards, The Calgary Daily Herald, January 27, 1943.

Here's an article on Lalonde, about both his Hockey & Lacrosse career. Amongst other things it comments on his rough playing style and calls him the "Ty Cobb of Hockey" as well as a "tricky calculating smoothie of the ice" → Old Newsy Lalonde Voted Greatest Lacrosse Player of Last 50 Years Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, December 23, 1950

Cyclone Taylor said Lalonde was "the best opportunist in hockey" and that he "had the situation sized up before he got the puck always. He continually had the jump on the other fellow" → Fred Cyclone Taylor Remembers First Skating Defense of 1903, Arrival of Six Man Hockey, and Recalls Feats of Present Coaches, The Vancouver Sun, March 14, 1936

Here's a piece on Cyclone himself → Hockey Star of yesteryear dies 'Cyclone' Taylor dies at 94 The Montreal Gazette, June 11, 1979.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Here's a piece on Cyclone himself → Hockey Star of yesteryear dies 'Cyclone' Taylor dies at 94 The Montreal Gazette, June 11, 1979.

Cool stuff...

One of the last 60-minute men: football parallel- Bednarik
Played every position except goalie: baseball parallel- Martin Dihigo

Hard to make a case for one of these old-timers over another-- especially since we have to look through the prisms of different leagues AND different rules... but is there any reason to believe that Taylor doesn't deserve to be at least mentioned in the same breath as Nighbor?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I honestly think casual fan hears "highest offensive season outside Mario/Wayne" and just assumes Yzerman had the third highest peak ever.

I remember when I was just lurking around HF boards few years back, I actually thought to myself that people who consider Sakic>Yzerman are crazy. And that was based practically 100% on the 155.

Yet we seem to be in a big rush here to go the other way, don't we?

How many centers here won a LBP as voted on by the other players over a prime Lemieux and Gretzky?

These are the guys people often remove from scoring comparisons because they were automatic.

Yes, that season was that special. Maybe it isn't the third best peak ever but it is pretty damn good.