Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Canadiens1958]

PIMs

to me

You're right of course.

I remembered that Abel finished higher than Lindsay in Hart voting the year Lindsay won the Art Ross, and got it mixed up with the year Abel won the Hart.

This was the Hart voting in 1949-50, when Lindsay won the Art Ross:

1949-50
HART: (108/108, 18-18-18)
1. Chuck Rayner, NYR G 36 (8-6-0)
2. Ted Kennedy, Tor C 23 (4-3-5)
3. Maurice Richard, Mtl LW 18 (3-2-5)
4. Sid Abel, Det C 10 (0-3-4)
T5. Bill Durnan, Mtl G 6 (2-0-0)
T5. Milt Schmidt, Bos C 6 (1-1-1)
T6. Edgar Laprade, NYR C 3 (0-1-1)
T6. Ted Lindsay, Det LW 3 (0-1-1)

Sure doesn't make Lindsay look all that good...

Looking through the Hart voting, Lindsay looks like a guy who regularly received 2 or 3 votes but no more. Even his 4th and 5th place finishes were with very few votes.

Yeah... Hart voting definitely doesn't make Lindsay look all that great.

PIMs and their impact on the team were part of the Hart consideration, especially when coaches were involved.

 

[MXD]

is about the only appropriate response to the above.

Any evaluation of players that doesn't have AO in the top 18 wingers of all time would have serious logical flaws, even if AO had a Marcel Dionne type of playoff metric (which he obviously doesn't).

Obviously Glenn Anderson should be top 10 using your metric eh?

While I agree with your second paragraph (see my long post, above), replying to an exaggeration by an even worse exaggeration makes the first exaggeration look reasonable...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

PIMs and their impact on the team were part of the Hart consideration, especially when coaches were involved.

The coaches voted for the All-Star teams at this time, but did they vote for the Hart? The voting records show 18 votes to go around.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First of all, it was a joke, so relax.

Second of all, is that what you are really accusing me of? I placed the more modern players high specifically of when they played (even though, to me, Lafleur and Bossy certainly aren't "modern", they're old-timers). Even after I went exchanged several posts with TDMM giving my reasons of why I had the players where I did.

I'm sorry if not going through my reasons again is not honourable. And I don't really appreciate being accused of being biased and not doing my research considering the amount of time of my summer I have already given to this project, and will continue to do so.

I think we all need a big group e-hug after this round.

But anyway, I am with 70s on your views of the WCHL. There is no reason to see it as inferior to the NHL at the time. In fact, we have strong evidence that the 1924/25 and 1925/26 WCHL was probably just a little bit better than the NHL at the time. Speaking quality of the players (what's relevant to this project), not financials (which isn't).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaches

The coaches voted for the All-Star teams at this time, but did they vote for the Hart? The voting records show 18 votes to go around.

Coaches and their ability/willingness to control players. Dick Irvin Sr vs Toe Blake and the handling of Maurice Richard, as an example.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1921-24 Recession

I think we all need a big group e-hug after this round.

But anyway, I am with 70s on your views of the WCHL. There is no reason to see it as inferior to the NHL at the time. In fact, we have strong evidence that the 1924/25 and 1925/26 WCHL was probably just a little bit better than the NHL at the time. Speaking quality of the players (what's relevant to this project), not financials (which isn't).

Both matter as a few players left the west early to play in the east due to the impact of the 1921-24 recession.

 

[MXD]

I think we all need a big group e-hug after this round.

But anyway, I am with 70s on your views of the WCHL. There is no reason to see it as inferior to the NHL at the time. In fact, we have strong evidence that the 1924/25 and 1925/26 WCHL was probably just a little bit better than the NHL at the time. Speaking quality of the players (what's relevant to this project), not financials (which isn't).

Lol, those are usually needed way later in the process

 

[Hardyvan123]

While I agree with your second paragraph (see my long post, above), replying to an exaggeration by an even worse exaggeration makes the first exaggeration look reasonable...

not really looking at the OP and his over emphasis on playoff team success one can only conclude that his metric would value Glenn Anderson absurdly high.

and yes the first exaggeration does lead to the 2nd if one follows that logic.

It's simply an absurd statement to say that AO isn't one of the top 18 wingers of all time at this point.

 

[seventieslord]

First of all, it was a joke, so relax.

Second of all, is that what you are really accusing me of? I placed the more modern players high specifically of when they played (even though, to me, Lafleur and Bossy certainly aren't "modern", they're old-timers). Even after I went exchanged several posts with TDMM giving my reasons of why I had the players where I did.

I'm sorry if not going through my reasons again is not honourable. And I don't really appreciate being accused of being biased and not doing my research considering the amount of time of my summer I have already given to this project, and will continue to do so.

You misunderstood. I wasn't saying you were ranking players based on when they played, I was specifically saying TDMM wasn't. i.e., he's not "pro modern", he's just ranking players like I think anyone should - on their merits.

so... about the WCHL, are we all good or what?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Voting Ends Tonight At 9:00 PM EST

 

[Hardyvan123]

Trophy counting is not part of the process. Al Rollins has one Hart Trophy - more than most goalies on the HOH Goalie list.

PLMK where Al Rollins is ranked either on the list or by you.

That's funny counting Harts was a huge reason, brought up by many voters and posters, when we did the best Dman and centers list, why wouldn't it be here?

Myself I'd rather look at the whole record and the fact that he has outscored every single player in goals in his 9 years in the league by over 100 (112 to be exact) goals simply must elevate him to the top tier in this round one would think.

He also was 1st in points by 41 over Joe Thorton.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

 

[Canadiens1958]

Others

That's funny counting Harts was a huge reason, brought up by many voters and posters, when we did the best Dman and centers list, why wouldn't it be here?

Myself I'd rather look at the whole record and the fact that he has outscored every single player in goals in his 9 years in the league by over 100 (112 to be exact) goals simply must elevate him to the top tier in this round one would think.

He also was 1st in points by 41 over Joe Thorton.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Sounds like a metric for others that were mainly goal scorers - Brett Hull, Mike Gartner, etc.

The game is not about individuals simply scoring goals. Elevating the team to team success is what matters and AO has not done this at any level.

 

[unknown33]

Trophy counting is not part of the process. Al Rollins has one Hart Trophy - more than most goalies on the HOH Goalie list.
PLMK where Al Rollins is ranked either on the list or by you.

The game is not about individuals simply scoring goals. Elevating the team to team success is what matters and AO has not done this at any level.

Translation: Ovi hasn't won the Cup Part 20.

 

[MXD]

Translation: Ovi hasn't won the Cup Part 20.

Alternate translation : Ovi didn't do what he didn't do.

 

[unknown33]

Alternate translation : Ovi didn't do what he didn't do.

Ovi never elevated his team to success? News to me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lol, those are usually needed way later in the process

I had a feeling when I saw the list of eligible this round... it might get just a little heated in here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

List

Ovi never elevated his team to success? News to me.

Then provide a list of examples. AO elevating his team to success.

 

[MXD]

Ovi never elevated his team to success? News to me.

He didn't do what he didn't do.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Voted. This was a rather difficult round to sort out. Nearly player has a strong argument for top-4 status.

 

[Batis]

PS. Seems that Kharlamov doesn't get much consideration during this round. Hopefully there's more discussion on him in the next round.

Over the last month I have rewatched the 1972 and 1974 Summit Series along with the 1976 Super Series and while watching them play it feels so obvious that Kharlamov was clearly a level above Mikhailov and Petrov in his prime. But then you look at the statistics and the awards and it doesnt feel as obvious anymore. I have never understood and i dont think i will ever understand how Kharlamovs dominance on the ice did not translate better to the scoresheet. I mean the man seemed to be flying at times and to be able to create scoring opportunities pretty much when he wanted to.

One of the few places where Kharlamovs on-ice dominance really shines through may be when comparing him to other forwards in MVP-voting at his peak. So excluding Tretiak and Vasiliev.

Soviet MVP voting, Forwards only (1972-1976)

1972
1. Alexander Maltsev 130
2. Valeri Kharlamov 130
3. Vladimir Vikulov 35

1973
1. Valeri Kharlamov 107
2. Vladimir Petrov 104
3. Boris Mikhailov 34

1974
1. Boris Mikhailov 67
2. Alexander Maltsev 38
3. Valeri Kharlamov 26

1975
1. Valeri Kharlamov 81
2. Alexander Yakushev 58
3. Vladimir Petrov 49

1976
1. Valeri Kharlamov 107
2. Viktor Shalimov 38
3. Alexander Maltsev 28

So during his 5 season long extended peak Kharlamov was always top 3 among forwards in the soviet mvp voting. Three times number one and once losing out only because of having less first place votes than the winner Maltsev.

 

[steve141]

The game is not about individuals simply scoring goals. Elevating the team to team success is what matters and AO has not done this at any level.

Well, the Caps did win the Presidents Trophy in 2010, surely that is some level of team success, isn't it?

It's not much compared to a Bossy or Lafleur, but it's not nothing either. Would they have finished first in the league without Ovy?

 

[Captain Bowie]

@Seventies @TDMM

 

[Hardyvan123]

Then provide a list of examples. AO elevating his team to success.

Teams wins games not individual players.

the reality is that in a 30 team league some great players aren't going to win SC's....period.

Before this last season, although in a shorter time frame due to the length of his career was AO's playoff resume really any worse than Bobby Hull's?

As for Ovi he scored goals at a more elite level than any player this round over a period of 9 freaking years, if he was a Selke candidate all those 9 years Mr Howe might have competition for #1 right?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

there are, however, a few degrees of defensive performance between liability and selke candidate.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

there are, however, a few degrees of defensive performance between liability and selke candidate.

The problem, though, is that Ovechkin's career is likely not even half over, and we don't really know what the future will bring. So far, there have been basically two versions of Ovechkin: vintage, and Russian Brett Hull.

Vintage Ovechkin (2005-2011) always wanted to be the puck carrier, and so he always chased and battled for the puck in all zones. Now, this doesn't mean he had any special defensive awareness, but his speed and strength meant that he would get the puck more often than not. In 475 games played, he had a stat line of 301-313-614 with a plus-minus of +88.

"Russian Brett Hull" Ovechkin (2012-2014) was different. Not quite as fast as before, he was told by Oates to rely on his teammates to get him the puck. This resulted in good use of his one-timer (and netted him 2 more goal-scoring titles), but it also made him less likely to chase after the puck like he used to. In 126 games played, he had a stat line of 83-52-135 with a plus-minus of -33.

(Then, there's that lost year of Ovechkin in 2011-12. That was weird.)

Maybe Trotz will make Ovechkin into a more complete player. Maybe it'll be a disaster. But it's probably too soon to accurately define Ovechkin as he will be viewed after all is said and done.