Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Hardyvan123]

Hardy, please abstain from quoting my posts if you're to distort them. Thank you.

I put in bold what you stated, my comments are directly directed towards those statements and I stand by them, the terms decent, good and needing to be absolutely the best offensively aren't defensible (the last one perhaps if context is ignored is debatable but the 1st 2 are clearly wrong in your statement which I bolded.

CezhYourmath had a great post about it last thread.

 

[MXD]

Sorry for not being up to your linguistic standards when I'm typing a 1000+ word message on a cell phone all the while being extremely careful at which words I use so my settings doesn't revert to my first language.

 

[Batis]

2/3. Jarome Iginla - I think he has the best record of the 4 post-expansion NHLers. I don't think he's far enough behind Brett Hull as a scorer to make up for everything else he brings. His stats were put up with basically no help. Iginla led his team in scoring 11 times, tied with Jaromir Jagr for second most all-time among wingers: (Source). Hull led his teams in scoring 9 times, by the way, also quite good.

Not that it makes Iginlas feat any less impressive but he is actually third behind Howe and Jagr now as that list does not include Jagr leading the Devils in scoring last season. But being third behind Howe and Jagr is of course really impressive. Especially at this stage of the project.

4/5. Boris Mikhailov - Hopefully Batis can post more today before I actually vote. I'm not totally sure of this position. But Mikhailov was a star player for a long time in the USSR. Long term team captain, in addition to his stats. Being voted Player of the Year twice is impressive, even if it happened in the gap between Kharlamov and Makarov.

While it is true that Mikhailovs two Soviet MVP awards was won in the gap between prime Kharlamov and prime Makarov it should also be noted that he still won them while competing with Tretiak. And when it comes to Soviet MVP voting not even prime Kharlamov and Makarov was as tough to compete with as Tretiak who won the award 5 times and was top 3 in the voting 10 times.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Good to see the Iginla support. Has anyone up for voting in this project had to do so much with so little?

I found room for Hull. Barely. The thing about him for me is, his production is not the only thing to judge him by. He was a very specialized player at finishing, but he needed all the other moving parts to be working well for him to be able to finish.

A team of 5 Brett Hulls would get destroyed by a team of 5 of anyone else in this round. I know that's a weak way to judge a player singularly, but there are other elements to everyone else here and not him.

Some good points about Hull. With hockey being a team sport, players can afford to specialize to create a greater sum than the individual parts...We'd all take a Hull and Oates over 2 Oates or 2 Hulls. Hull also proved to be successful at this in multiple situations...St. Louis, Dallas, Detroit, Team USA.

I also do think he is a very good playoff performer (at least offensive production-wise)...

Take out his first two and last two playoff seasons (age 21/22 as a low line player in Calgary and age 38/39 in Detroit) and his playoff line looks like this:

180 GP - 98 G - 83 A - 181 Pts, and a little more than half of those are 1997 - 2002 (dead puck era).

His Best on Best numbers are 25 GP - 14 G - 17A - 31 Pts (not including 2 games played at age 40)

All that being said, I doubt he'll make my top 4, but probably will make my Top 8.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Sorry for not being up to your linguistic standards when I'm typing a 1000+ word message on a cell phone all the while being extremely careful at which words I use so my settings doesn't revert to my first language.

I don't think it's linguistic standards at play here, you are very clear in your posts but sorry to term Hull are merely good or decent in his offense isn't just a matter of semantics it is clearly wrong at this stage and in this round, he is an elite offensive guy, both regular season and playoffs, peak, prime, longevity...you name it.

 

[MXD]

I don't think it's linguistic standards at play here, you are very clear in your posts but sorry to term Hull are merely good or decent in his offense isn't just a matter of semantics it is clearly wrong at this stage and in this round, he is an elite offensive guy, both regular season and playoffs, peak, prime, longevity...you name it.

Okay, okay. You won, no longer any long posts explaining accurately my rankings and the reasoning behind them, so that way I'll avoid being misunderstood.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just my opinion, but....

Seems we may be getting snowballed by the 1950's dynasty Canadiens.

Currently we have Doug Harvey as #2 all-time defenseman.
Jean Beliveau #3 all-time center.
Jacques Plante #3 all-time Goalie.
Maurice Richard #3 all-time winger.

Henri Richard #17 all-time center (2nd line).
Boom Boom Geoffrion #12 all-time winger (Really?)

Now it appears we are about to add Dickie Moore as a top 20 all-time winger.

My God, how did they ever lose a game?

Just can't see Dickie Moore yet.

 

[MXD]

Just my opinion, but....

Seems we may be getting snowballed by the 1950's dynasty Canadiens.

Currently we have Doug Harvey as #2 all-time defenseman.
Jean Beliveau #3 all-time center.
Jacques Plante #3 all-time Goalie.
Maurice Richard #3 all-time winger.

Henri Richard #17 all-time center (2nd line).
Boom Boom Geoffrion #12 all-time winger (Really?)

Now it appears we are about to add Dickie Moore as a top 20 all-time winger.

My God, how did they ever lose a game?

Just can't see Dickie Moore yet.

That team will have a lower proportion of its players than the 20ies Sens, and I don't see you arguing to keep Denneny out because of that.

Because, let's see...

Gerard
Nighbor
Benedict
(Cleghorn)/(Clancy)
G. Boucher

and then Denneny

Counting Cleghorn and Clancy as one, cause they were never there at the same time, and not counting Boucher, because his input was somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And I'm not even counting Hooley Smith due to not being there for the whole time ... That's way more than 50% of the team, and we have good reasons to have the 50ies NHL in slightly higher esteem than the 20ies NHL...

EDIT : Look... It's certainly a valid concern. I just don't think you went with the right case.

 

[steve141]

I found room for Hull. Barely. The thing about him for me is, his production is not the only thing to judge him by. He was a very specialized player at finishing, but he needed all the other moving parts to be working well for him to be able to finish.

Show me a time when he wasn't able to finish.

By my count he kept up a PPGish pace though at least 10 different centers during his career.

I agree with you though that it would be wrong to judge him on his scoring alone.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That team will have a lower proportion of its players than the 20ies Sens, and I don't see you arguing to keep Denneny out because of that.

Because, let's see...

Gerard
Nighbor
Benedict
(Cleghorn)/(Clancy)
G. Boucher

and then Denneny

Counting Cleghorn and Clancy as one, cause they were never there at the same time, and not counting Boucher, because his input was somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And I'm not even counting Hooley Smith due to not being there for the whole time ... That's way more than 50% of the team, and we have good reasons to have the 50ies NHL in slightly higher esteem than the 20ies NHL...

There is no comparison here.

None of these players are top 5 at their positions on anyone's lists here.

Canadiens have four top 3's. No one is close.

Cleghorn or Clancy close to Harvey?

How about Benedict to Plante?

Nighbor to Beliveau?

Anyone to Richard?

Be serious.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Era

There is no comparison here.

None of these players are top 5 at their positions on anyone's lists here.

Canadiens have four top 3's. No one is close.

Cleghorn or Clancy close to Harvey?

How about Benedict to Plante?

Nighbor to Beliveau?

Anyone to Richard?

Be serious.

Yet all are arguably the best of each era.

Just a question of the two wings.

 

[seventieslord]

Show me a time when he wasn't able to finish.

It's not the point. He was very good at finishing but was not a good defensive or possession player. Someone had to win the puck battle, someone had to get the puck up ice to him, someone had to pass the puck to him. That's a gross oversimplification, I realize...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Okay, okay. You won, no longer any long posts explaining accurately my rankings and the reasoning behind them, so that way I'll avoid being misunderstood.

That's weak man, this is an area for discussion, if I misread your post it's one thing but I'm guessing I didn't.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just my opinion, but....

Seems we may be getting snowballed by the 1950's dynasty Canadiens.

Currently we have Doug Harvey as #2 all-time defenseman.
Jean Beliveau #3 all-time center.
Jacques Plante #3 all-time Goalie.
Maurice Richard #3 all-time winger.

Henri Richard #17 all-time center (2nd line).
Boom Boom Geoffrion #12 all-time winger (Really?)

Now it appears we are about to add Dickie Moore as a top 20 all-time winger.

My God, how did they ever lose a game?

Just can't see Dickie Moore yet.

We need to also add for 4 years late in the 50's Henri Richard #17

And Elmer Lach for 4 years at the beginning of the decade as the # 26 center

Pretty much this, it is too early for Moore, even if you are a peak guy IMO.

Also for all the recent focus on Hull and Oates, how does Oates stack up to those Habs in terms of help?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Voted, hoping for some deserved fresh blood and candidates next round as several of my top 8 are behind guys not up yet, pretty sure this will be the case for most voters here as after the elite wingers opinions are going to differ wildly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just my opinion, but....

Seems we may be getting snowballed by the 1950's dynasty Canadiens.

Currently we have Doug Harvey as #2 all-time defenseman.
Jean Beliveau #3 all-time center.
Jacques Plante #3 all-time Goalie.
Maurice Richard #3 all-time winger.

Henri Richard #17 all-time center (2nd line).
Boom Boom Geoffrion #12 all-time winger (Really?)

Now it appears we are about to add Dickie Moore as a top 20 all-time winger.

My God, how did they ever lose a game?

Just can't see Dickie Moore yet.

Well, this is a team that went to 10 straight Cup finals from 1951-1960, including 5 straight Cups from 1956-1960 without ever needing a game 7. So they obviously lost games, but they are pretty much the closest ever to "never losing a game" over an extended stretch.

Also, keep in mind that the 1950s might have been the most unbalanced the NHL ever was. Other than Andy Bathgate, basically every star forward was on either Montreal or Detroit.

That said, I'm glad you brought this up. Dickie Moore is the one player who did very little outside of the dynasty years (though as C1958 pointed out, he did have a strong playoffs coming out of retirement for the 1967-68 expansion Blues).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's weak man, this is an area for discussion, if I misread your post it's one thing but I'm guessing I didn't.

I think you misread his post. I believe he said Brett Hull wasn't top 4 overall for him, and you responded by going off on how you can't believe he doesn't think Hull is top 4 offensively, etc.

Anyway, now that I said that, there is, in fact, a case that Hull isn't even top 4 this round as an offensive player, though that case would tend to value goals and assists relatively evenly. In other words, looking strictly at point production.

As a point producer in his prime, Hull is behind Martin St. Louis and Busher Jackson, no matter what metric you use. Almost certainly behind Cy Denneny (who is probably better than Jackson but it's tough to tell for sure with pre-consolidation players). So just as a prime point producer, Hull is 4th at best this round, and that's before trying to figure out what to make of Mikhailov or looking at guys who are close. Hull obviously gains ground in goal scoring and longevity though.

I mean, whatever, I guess I'll end up ranking Hull over Jackson because of longevity and playoffs, but I don't think the case for his offense is as cut-and-dry as you seemed to think with your "seriously?" and "what kind of flawed metrics are you using?" stuff. (Not to mention, I'm pretty sure MXD wasn't just talking about his offense).

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's not the point. He was very good at finishing but was not a good defensive or possession player. Someone had to win the puck battle, someone had to get the puck up ice to him, someone had to pass the puck to him. That's a gross oversimplification, I realize...

That sounds a lot like the guy you have as your lock #1 Denneny doesn't it?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think you misread his post. I believe he said Brett Hull wasn't top 4 overall for him, and you responded by going off on how you can't believe he doesn't think Hull is top 4 offensively, etc.

Yes that is possible readign back on the psot but in 2 replies it wasn't mentioned so it's unclear.

Anyway, now that I said that, there is, in fact, a case that Hull isn't even top 4 this round as an offensive player, though that case would tend to value goals and assists relatively evenly. In other words, looking strictly at point production.

sure but 2 important differences are here

1) Wayne and Mario being in the league

2) the influx of many elite non Canadians over the time period in question, it becomes an apples to oranges comp, if it is done straight up on top 10 finishes ect...

As a point producer in his prime, Hull is behind Martin St. Louis and Busher Jackson, no matter what metric you use. Almost certainly behind Cy Denneny (who is probably better than Jackson but it's tough to tell for sure with pre-consolidation players). So just as a prime point producer, Hull is 4th at best this round, and that's before trying to figure out what to make of Mikhailov or looking at guys who are close. Hull obviously gains ground in goal scoring and longevity though.

I mean, whatever, I guess I'll end up ranking Hull over Jackson because of longevity and playoffs, but I don't think the case for his offense is as cut-and-dry as you seemed to think with your "seriously?" and "what kind of flawed metrics are you using?" stuff. (Not to mention, I'm pretty sure MXD wasn't just talking about his offense).

we saw how his goal scoring was on par with Iggy, even after his 3 peak years were taken out, it's a pretty good indicator on how elite Hull was at something, much like Richard who wasn't a great points guy (retaliative to his high ranking).

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Voting Ends At 9pm EST Today

 

[amnesiac]

2-way/defense rank?

Kurri
Joliat
Moore
?

 

[Batis]

This is how Mikhailov did internationally in his MVP winning seasons compared to a prime Marcel Dionne.

WHC 1978
Boris Mikhailov 10 gp, 9 g, 3 a, 12 pts
Marcel Dionne 10 gp, 9 g, 3 a, 12 pts

Challenge Cup 1979
Boris Mikhailov 3 gp, 3 g, 0 a, 3 pts
Marcel Dionne 2 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts

WHC 1979
Boris Mikhailov 8 gp, 4 g, 8 a, 12 pts
Marcel Dionne 7 gp, 2 g, 1 a, 3 pts

Total
Boris Mikhailov 21 gp, 16 g, 11 a, 27 pts, 1.286 ppg
Marcel Dionne 19 gp, 11 g, 5 a, 16 pts, 0.842 ppg

Now the sample size is quite small and I am definitly not saying that Mikhailov was a more talented offensive player than Marcel Dionne and I highly doubt that Mikhailov would ever have won a Art ross trophy. Especially considering that he never led the soviet league in scoring, although he was very close on a couple of occasions (75,78). But I still find it impressive that Mikhailov at age 33-34 managed to put up a combined 1.286 point per game during these 3 tournaments while Dionne at the age of 26-27 "only" managed to score at a 0.842 point per game. And I personally think that it is very likely that Mikhailov would have been a consistent top 5-10 scorer and top 3-5 goalscorer if he had got the opportunity to play in the NHL. And when you combine that with great leadership and physical play you have got yourself a extremely useful player.

 

[MXD]

2-way/defense rank?

Kurri
Joliat
Moore
?

Blake

 

[amnesiac]

Blake

over MSL?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

So far votes received from: seventieslord, unknown33, Canadiens1958, ted1971, tony d, Art of Sedinery, Dennis Bonvie, Hardyvan123, TDMM, Johnny Engine, reckoning, intylerwetrust, MXD


If you sent a list and don't see your name above please re-send it to me.