Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

[Canadiens1958]

Mikita vs Detroit

Do you also have the numbers for Mikita against delvecchio and ullman to complete the analysis?

Yes, Stan Mikita 20-7-12-19.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yes, Stan Mikita 20-7-12-19.

Thank you

 

[Hardyvan123]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=73890937&postcount=143


Gee, after all that research on Messier's longevity prior to joining the Canucks in response to the Trottier's/Clarke's last years vs. Messier's last years argument, I was at least hoping to hear someone tell me to take off the Rangers jersey and that I wasn't persuasive.

Really the onlt thing bigger and more likely to pump up the Moose would be his ego.

I hate him as a player, it's a bias I still carry over from him chopping down my Gradin when I was a kid, but he has to be a lock for top 4 here right?

His only real weakness in this group is that others have better offensive peaks.

Similar guys are Clarke and Nighbor but does anyone have them as being better than Moose?

If so why?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Compelling

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=73890937&postcount=143


Gee, after all that research on Messier's longevity prior to joining the Canucks in response to the Trottier's/Clarke's last years vs. Messier's last years argument, I was at least hoping to hear someone tell me to take off the Rangers jersey and that I wasn't persuasive.

Persuasive perhaps but not compelling.

Specifically Messier's leadership stems from his role with the Oilers defeating the championship Islanders in 1984. 1990 and 1994 the SC wins were against hopefuls not champions or former champions.

Contrast to Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard in 1956, 1965, 1971 eliminating reigning SC champions en route to winning SCs

Perhaps a slight playoff edge to Messier over Clarke, Trottier, Yzerman, Esposito, Sakic, Mikita but these players' regular season performances tend to equal if not surpass Messier.

Internationally, nice to have, preferable to Steve Yzerman, better than Mikita, short of Esposito, Sakic, Clarke unless 1972 is heavily penalized.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Specifically Messier's leadership stems from his role with the Oilers defeating the championship Islanders in 1984. 1990 and 1994 the SC wins were against hopefuls not champions or former champions.

Contrast to Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard in 1956, 1965, 1971 eliminating reigning SC champions en route to winning SCs

Well, when you play in a six-team league, aren't you more likely to run into a former champion in the Finals than you are in a 21/26-team league? The difference, of course, being that the Finalist in the 21/26-team league has already won three rounds compared to the Finalist in the six-team league having only won one? I'm not sure that playing against "hopefuls" who are hot enough to have won three rounds is necessarily less impressive...

 

[Canadiens1958]

1971

Well, when you play in a six-team league, aren't you more likely to run into a former champion in the Finals than you are in a 21/26-team league? The difference, of course, being that the Finalist in the 21/26-team league has already won three rounds compared to the Finalist in the six-team league having only won one? I'm not sure that playing against "hopefuls" who are hot enough to have won three rounds is necessarily less impressive...

1971 was a 14 team league, three rounds. Beating the SC champions in any round is sufficient.

 

[quoipourquoi]

1971 was a 14 team league, three rounds. Beating the SC champions in any round is sufficient.

I don't think that one season (Beliveau's last - who if I am not mistaken, was already named the third center on the list) changes my point as to why it's a silly complaint.

Given the format of the league from the Original Six, how many teams didn't face a recent champion in any round? The 1953, 1957, 1959, and 1960 Montreal Canadiens seem to be the only ones. They were playing 33% of the league in the playoffs. In most seasons, unless a team drew both Chicago and New York, they were probably playing a recent champion.

You're basically arguing that everyone in the Original Six must have been a better leader because 80-90% of them had to face a champion.

When the Oilers dynasty began, the past eight Stanley Cup champions were either New York or Montreal. Before that Philadelphia. They beat New York. They beat Philadelphia in 1985 (but you don't count them because they were too far removed from their Stanley Cup days). What exactly are their options if no other Stanley Cup champions existed - especially not in the Western Conference? Are they supposed to beat themselves in order to fit into your ridiculous requirements for demonstrating leadership?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

1971 was a 14 team league, three rounds. Beating the SC champions in any round is sufficient.

Either way, the more teams and rounds the less likely you are to get a shot at a former champion. You can't really knock someone for not succeeding at an opportunity they never had.

Also, aren't there other aspects of leadership to consider?...

Maintaining a high standard after losing key pieces (Messier after Gretzky left, Sakic in 01 with Forsberg out injured, Beliveau and Richard losing players from both the 50's and 60's teams and winning later, to a lesser extent Mikita making it to the 73 Finals after Hull leaves)

Another would be bringing a championship culture to a new team (Messier - Edmonton to New York, Nighbor - Vancouver to Ottawa, Gretzky and Esposito came up short with trips to the Finals) This one is something many players simply never had a chance to do because they always remained with the same franchise.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Champions

I don't think that one season (Beliveau's last - who if I am not mistaken, was already named the third center on the list) changes my point as to why it's a silly complaint.

Given the format of the league from the Original Six, how many teams didn't face a recent champion in any round? The 1953, 1957, 1959, and 1960 Montreal Canadiens seem to be the only ones. They were playing 33% of the league in the playoffs. In most seasons, unless a team drew both Chicago and New York, they were probably playing a recent champion.

You're basically arguing that everyone in the Original Six must have been a better leader because 80-90% of them had to face a champion.

When the Oilers dynasty began, the past eight Stanley Cup champions were either New York or Montreal. Before that Philadelphia. They beat New York. They beat Philadelphia in 1985 (but you don't count them because they were too far removed from their Stanley Cup days). What exactly are their options if no other Stanley Cup champions existed - especially not in the Western Conference? Are they supposed to beat themselves in order to fit into your ridiculous requirements for demonstrating leadership?

To be a champion it is more impressive to beat the champion. To remain a champion you have to beat everyone.

Championship teams are defined by who they beat. 1984 Oilers have often commented about learning to win from their 1983 loss to the Islanders. What did the 1990 Oilers or 1994 Rangers learn from winning the SC? Nice wins but like the 1953 Canadiens, weaknesses were masked and the team was not ready to defend the championship.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Because they are so far ahead of everybody else offensively that it outweighs their relative lack of defensive contributions. This offense/defense balance is somewhat played out not only in how we weigh their careers in this project, but also in where they expended effort during their actual playing days. Both men were so offensively talented that it was generally not the best use of their energy to hustle a lot on defense.

Gretzky, specifically, could play both ways when he really wanted to, and was actually quite good at reading plays, getting his stick into passing lanes, etc. on defense when so inclined, as he often was in the playoffs. But most of the time he glided on defense, like many of those Oilers, because it simply wasn't the best use of his finite energy. Mario, I dunno. I'm not sure I ever saw him backcheck. It is also of course the case that the best defense is a good offense, and the offensive players who are able to drive possession for long periods of time at even strength are playing a form of de facto defense by not letting the other team have the puck. It's an effect that's difficult to quantify, but it's there. Again, this applies moreso to Gretzky than to Lemieux, who was, relatively speaking, more of a powerplay specialist.

But then again, I'm one of those people who thinks that Mario is somewhat overrated due to being "spectacular". I still rated him second, though I had to think a lot about whether I wanted to put Beliveau there. In retrospect, I probably should have had Beliveau second, although playing lots of defense was also not really his role, either (though he clearly could do it).

If I rephrased it as "I'm not sure why we should weigh goals scored more than goals prevented", would it make more sense to you?

Yes, that is better.

I realize Gretzky & Lemieux are a weird paradox in that they may be the worst defensive centers ever only because you would have to be so great offensively to be able to be playing in NHL with that kind of defense for a center. Neither were good on faceoffs either. I just think a lot of fans don't realize they were both incomparable on more than just the obvious level.

As for the players currently being ranked, I still see offense as the bigger factor in ranking them. Defense next, just above leadership and presence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opportunity

Either way, the more teams and rounds the less likely you are to get a shot at a former champion. You can't really knock someone for not succeeding at an opportunity they never had.

Also, aren't there other aspects of leadership to consider?...

Maintaining a high standard after losing key pieces (Messier after Gretzky left, Sakic in 01 with Forsberg out injured, Beliveau and Richard losing players from both the 50's and 60's teams and winning later, to a lesser extent Mikita making it to the 73 Finals after Hull leaves)

Another would be bringing a championship culture to a new team (Messier - Edmonton to New York, Nighbor - Vancouver to Ottawa, Gretzky and Esposito came up short with trips to the Finals) This one is something many players simply never had a chance to do because they always remained with the same franchise.

Question of recognizing the difficulty of opportunities. Your point reduces to "not all opportunities are equal". I just recognized this fact.

So if you recognize Sakic for his leadership when Forsberg was injured in 2001 then it is reasonable to recognize a Henri Richard for leadership when Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured in the 1959 playoffs while Harvey played injured.

Vancouver - 1915, Taylor played for the 1909 Ottawa SC champiosns and Nighbor later integrated the same Ottawa culture.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

To be a champion it is more impressive to beat the champion. To remain a champion you have to beat everyone.

Championship teams are defined by who they beat. 1984 Oilers have often commented about learning to win from their 1983 loss to the Islanders. What did the 1990 Oilers or 1994 Rangers learn from winning the SC? Nice wins but like the 1953 Canadiens, weaknesses were masked and the team was not ready to defend the championship.

All good points about teams.

Not sure it has anything to do with individuals comparative leadership.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Teams

All good points about teams.

Not sure it has anything to do with individuals comparative leadership.

Teams are collections of individuals. Some individuals lead, most follow.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Question of recognizing the difficulty of opportunities. Your point reduces to "not all opportunities are equal". I just recognized this fact.

So if you recognize Sakic for his leadership when Forsberg was injured in 2001 then it is reasonable to recognize a Henri Richard for leadership when Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured in the 1959 playoffs while Harvey played injured.

Vancouver - 1915, Taylor played for the 1909 Ottawa SC champiosns and Nighbor later integrated the same Ottawa culture.

Yes, and I had Richard ranked fairly highly on my Round 1 list (top 20), but he is not up for discussion yet. Let's try to stick to making cases for/against the players that are eligible this round.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't think that one season (Beliveau's last - who if I am not mistaken, was already named the third center on the list) changes my point as to why it's a silly complaint.

Given the format of the league from the Original Six, how many teams didn't face a recent champion in any round? The 1953, 1957, 1959, and 1960 Montreal Canadiens seem to be the only ones. They were playing 33% of the league in the playoffs. In most seasons, unless a team drew both Chicago and New York, they were probably playing a recent champion.

You're basically arguing that everyone in the Original Six must have been a better leader because 80-90% of them had to face a champion.

When the Oilers dynasty began, the past eight Stanley Cup champions were either New York or Montreal. Before that Philadelphia. They beat New York. They beat Philadelphia in 1985 (but you don't count them because they were too far removed from their Stanley Cup days). What exactly are their options if no other Stanley Cup champions existed - especially not in the Western Conference? Are they supposed to beat themselves in order to fit into your ridiculous requirements for demonstrating leadership?

Very fair point, it must be said.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Teams are collections of individuals. Some individuals lead, most follow.

True, but doesn't address the question.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Question.

True, but doesn't address the question.

No question was phrased. Comes down to recognizing the type, extent and quality of leadership amongst the players, the ability to integrate and mature with a team or in a league.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Longevity As An Impact Offensive Player

In an attempt to get a grasp on the longevity of the eligible candidates I have looked at their vs.#2 scores, and made a table that shows the range of years between their earliest score of 80% and latest score of 80%. The last column shows how many of those years they actually scored 80% or better.

For example: Mark Messier's earliest score of 80% was in 1983 and his latest in 1997, which is a range of 15 years; however, he only hit the 80% mark in 9 of those years.

I have done the exact same thing with a score of 70%.

The first 2 tables will show all eligible candidates this round (excluding Nighbor, Taylor, and Lalonde). The tables that follow will show comparable players whose careers started within a few years of the eligible candidates. This is to try to give some perspective on how each player's longevity compares to his own generation.

Notes Before Reading Tables
- This only measures regular season offensive performance and in no way measures defensive performance or playoffs.
- Vs#2 benchmarks have been changed in some years to account for offensive anomalies (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) and their affect on teammates.
- Please use this information as a way to get a GENERAL idea about a player's longevity, not to make tight rankings about players with close numbers...This system is not precise enough for that.

Player | Earliest >80 | Latest >80 | Range | Seasons >80
Sakic | 1990 | 2007 | 18 | 13
Messier | 1983 | 1997 | 15 | 9
Yzerman | 1987 | 2000 | 14 | 10
Mikita | 1962 | 1974 | 13 | 12
Trottier | 1976 | 1987 | 12 | 7
Esposito | 1968 | 1975 | 8 | 8
Clarke | 1973 | 1976 | 4 | 4

Player | Earliest >70 | Latest >70 | Range | Seasons >70
Messier | 1983 | 2001 | 19 | 12
Sakic | 1990 | 2007 | 18 | 15
Yzerman | 1984 | 2000 | 17 | 14
Mikita | 1962 | 1975 | 14 | 13
Clarke | 1971 | 1983 | 13 | 9
Trottier | 1976 | 1987 | 12 | 10
Esposito | 1967 | 1976 | 10 | 10

Player | Earliest >80 | Latest >80 | Range | Seasons >80
Mahovlich | 1961 | 1974 | 14 | 8
Mikita | 1962 | 1974 | 13 | 12
Hull* | 1960 | 1972 | 13 | 11
Ullman | 1965 | 1974 | 10 | 6
Ratelle | 1968 | 1976 | 9 | 6
Esposito | 1968 | 1975 | 8 | 8
Gilbert | 1968 | 1975 | 8 | 5

Player | Earliest >70 | Latest >70 | Range | Seasons >70
Ullman | 1960 | 1974 | 15 | 11
Mikita | 1962 | 1975 | 14 | 13
Mahovlich | 1961 | 1974 | 14 | 10
Hull* | 1960 | 1972 | 13 | 12
Gilbert | 1964 | 1976 | 13 | 10
Esposito | 1967 | 1976 | 10 | 10
Ratelle | 1968 | 1977 | 10 | 10

*Hull left NHL year after latest

Player | Earliest >80 | Latest >80 | Range | Seasons >80
Dionne | 1973 | 1987 | 15 | 11
Trottier | 1976 | 1987 | 12 | 7
Perreault | 1971 | 1980 | 10 | 5
Bossy | 1979 | 1986 | 8 | 7
Lafleur | 1975 | 1980 | 6 | 6
Sittler | 1974 | 1978 | 5 | 3
Clarke | 1973 | 1976 | 4 | 4
Federko | 1984 | 1986 | 3 | 3

Player | Earliest >70 | Latest >70 | Range | Seasons >70
Dionne | 1973 | 1987 | 15 | 15
Perreault | 1971 | 1984 | 14 | 9
Clarke | 1971 | 1983 | 13 | 9
Trottier | 1976 | 1987 | 12 | 10
Bossy | 1978 | 1987 | 10 | 10
Sittler | 1973 | 1981 | 9 | 7
Federko | 1979 | 1986 | 8 | 7
Lafleur | 1975 | 1980 | 6 | 6

Player | Earliest >80 | Latest >80 | Range | Seasons >80
Gretzky | 1980 | 1998 | 19 | 17
Lemieux | 1986 | 2003 | 18 | 10
Francis | 1987 | 2002 | 16 | 8
Messier | 1983 | 1997 | 15 | 9
Yzerman | 1987 | 2000 | 14 | 10
Oates | 1990 | 2002 | 13 | 10
Gilmour | 1987 | 1997 | 11 | 5
Hawerchuk | 1984 | 1992 | 9 | 7
Stastny* | 1981 | 1988 | 8 | 6
Savard | 1982 | 1988 | 7 | 6
Kurri | 1983 | 1989 | 7 | 6

Player | Earliest >70 | Latest >70 | Range | Seasons >70
Francis | 1983 | 2002 | 20 | 14
Gretzky | 1980 | 1998 | 19 | 17
Messier | 1983 | 2001 | 19 | 12
Lemieux | 1986 | 2003 | 18 | 12
Yzerman | 1984 | 2000 | 17 | 14
Oates | 1989 | 2002 | 14 | 13
Gilmour | 1987 | 2000 | 14 | 10
Hawerchuk | 1982 | 1993 | 12 | 11
Stastny* | 1981 | 1989 | 9 | 9
Savard | 1982 | 1989 | 8 | 8
Kurri | 1983 | 1990 | 8 | 8

*Stastny year before earliest stuck behind iron curtain

Player | Earliest >80 | Latest >80 | Range | Seasons >80
Selanne | 1993 | 2011 | 19 | 9
Sakic | 1990 | 2007 | 18 | 13
Jagr* | 1994 | 2007 | 14 | 12
Recchi | 1991 | 2004 | 14 | 9
Turgeon | 1989 | 2001 | 13 | 8
Sundin | 1993 | 2004 | 12 | 5
Fedorov | 1992 | 2003 | 12 | 4
Modano | 1994 | 2003 | 10 | 6
Roenick | 1991 | 2000 | 10 | 4
Lindros | 1994 | 2002 | 9 | 6
Forsberg | 1996 | 2003 | 8 | 6

Player | Earliest >70 | Latest >70 | Range | Seasons >70
Selanne | 1993 | 2011 | 19 | 10
Sakic | 1990 | 2007 | 18 | 15
Sundin | 1992 | 2008 | 17 | 13
Modano | 1992 | 2006 | 15 | 10
Jagr* | 1994 | 2007 | 14 | 13
Recchi | 1991 | 2004 | 14 | 10
Fedorov | 1992 | 2004 | 13 | 8
Turgeon | 1989 | 2001 | 13 | 10
Roenick | 1991 | 2002 | 12 | 8
Forsberg | 1995 | 2006 | 12 | 8
Lindros | 1994 | 2002 | 9 | 7

*Jagr left NHL year after latest

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Very interesting, and appreciate the work that went into all that. This is going to sound annoying, but hear me out... what does it look like for >90%? I know it's just 10% the other way, but for pre-expansion years there were only about 100 forwards in the league, so top 10% very, VERY loosely aligns with being "top 10", so to speak. I know the number of forwards is double in, say, 1968, but the >90% limit might present an interesting, maybe even similar, picture nonetheless.

Obviously I'm particularly interested in how the 50s/60/70s guys "measure up" against each other.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Very interesting, and appreciate the work that went into all that. This is going to sound annoying, but hear me out... what does it look like for >90%? I know it's just 10% the other way, but for pre-expansion years there were only about 100 forwards in the league, so top 10% very, VERY loosely aligns with being "top 10", so to speak. I know the number of forwards is double in, say, 1968, but the >90% limit might present an interesting, maybe even similar, picture nonetheless.

Obviously I'm particularly interested in how the 50s/60/70s guys "measure up" against each other.

It's not percentage of all players...it's percentage of the #2 scorer. So if the #2 scorer gets 100 pts you would have to get 80pts to qualify.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's not percentage of all players...it's percentage of the #2 scorer. So if the #2 scorer gets 100 pts you would have to get 80pts to qualify.

So Mark Messier's 10th place scoring finish in 1994-95 misses the cut by three points while Bryan Trottier's 14th place scoring finish in 1986-87 makes the cut by one point? And somehow Sakic's 10th place scoring finish in 1989-90 makes the cut in the >80 chart despite actually being 79% of 2nd place's 129 points? Or is Gretzky out of the equation entirely, allowing him to sneak in by a fraction of a point on 3rd place's 127 points?

And what about Mikita? Somehow he only misses one season in his range: Is it 1971 (51.8%) or 1972 (55.5%)? Why does 1973 count, when he's marginally under 80% of 104 points as the 17th scorer? Same in 1974 when he's a good 17 points under 80% of 2nd place's 122 points as the 13th scorer? Bobby Orr becomes an exception in an offensive category? Is Bobby Orr really more of an offensive exception than Jaromir Jagr?

I feel like the chart doesn't tell enough of the story to not be misused with assigning binary good/bad labels to seasons - and you're not even telling us which seasons they are. It looks like Messier is getting boned because Jagr and Lindros shared a scoring title, making the 2nd place scoring finish the same as the high-water mark. I mean, is anyone else losing a top-ten scoring finish on the >80 chart? Because it sure looks like Mikita is gaining years where he was far beyond the top-ten.

Good in theory, but your subjective execution of where to set the 2nd place scorer is leaving me wanting more.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think that if you're going to start removing Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr from these things to equalize the competition, you have to start removing all Europeans, as well.

Or you could make the "outliers" mathematically based (if anyone in the top 5 scorers has more than 10% more points than the next scorer, etc).

Either way, Messier is someone hurt by seasonal metrics, as he routinely missed about 10 games per season during his prime (and usually no more, which is how he got to so many total games played), while rarely missing games in the playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think that if you're going to start removing Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr from these things to equalize the competition, you have to start removing all Europeans, as well.

Or you could make the "outliers" mathematically based (if anyone in the top 5 scorers has more than 10% more points than the next scorer, etc).

Either way, Messier is someone hurt by seasonal metrics, as he routinely missed about 10 games per season during his prime (and usually no more, which is how he got to so many total games played), while rarely missing games in the playoffs.

Which is why when you look at seasons in which the players were top-ten in either points or points-per-game, only Joe Sakic has more seasons than Messier's ten (with Mikita and Esposito having ten as well).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Which is why when you look at seasons in which the players were top-ten in either points or points-per-game, only Joe Sakic has more seasons than Messier's ten (with Mikita and Esposito having ten as well).

It's amazing how good Sakic looks, no matter what metric you use, right? When I started my Round 1 list, I was not expecting Sakic's resume to stand out nearly as much as it does.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's amazing how good Sakic looks, no matter what metric you use, right? When I started my Round 1 list, I was not expecting Sakic's resume to stand out nearly as much as it does.

The only problem I have with Sakic is the 1999 and 2000 playoffs, and that's only because we're comparing him to some of the absolute best Centers in history. Beyond that, the guy was consistently reliable. Possible top-four this round?