Runoff Poll: Mike Bossy Versus Stan Mikita

[GlitchMarner]

Who's the better player in an all-time sense?

Click to read more...

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Mikita come on now

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Bossy. Please- Bossy.

I saw Mikita's post-seasons. There were 18 in all. He fell short of reasonable expectations in at least fourteen of them. Maybe about half the time, the orderly had to be called in. ["We need a change of bedsheets, here!"]

Keep this in mind when you vote. Please?

 

[sr edler]

You need better arguments than "I saw him play" and "please".

 

[authentic]

You need better arguments than "I saw him play" and "please".

He asked nicely. No but to be fair Bossy delivered in the playoffs big time, but I'm still inclined to say that Mikita was the slightly better all time player. It's almost too close to call for me though.

 

[CHGoalie27]

He asked nicely. No but to be fair Bossy delivered in the playoffs big time, but I'm still inclined to say that Mikita was the slightly better all time player. It's almost too close to call for me though.

I take playoff performers over regular season performers 100000000000000000000000000000000000000% of the time.

Why on earth did the Rangers trade Gartner???! ...to win the Cup.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

You need better arguments than "I saw him play" and "please".

Stan Mikita's 18 years in the playoffs ~ 18 holes of Championship Golf:
1. Bogie
2. Birdie
3. Eagle
4. Par
5. Bogie
6. Other
7. Par
8. Hockey-stick (and NOT in a good way)
9. Bogie

So- we're already in black numbers at the clubhouse turn- but check out this back-nine:

10. Bogie
11. Birdie
12. Snowman
13. Bogie
14. Par
15. Bogie
16. Other
17. Other
18. Snowman

Hard-pressed to think of a consensus top-50 player I'd rather NOT have for a playoff run than Mikita. Eddie Shore, maybe? I don't even know if I'd go THAT far.

 

[LordNeverLose]

For the love of god, please, I'm a lifelong Isles fan and Bossy's probably my favorite player ever, but Mikita was better than him AINEC (one of the rare times this is actually applicable).

 

[authentic]

I take playoff performers over regular season performers 100000000000000000000000000000000000000% of the time.

Why on earth did the Rangers trade Gartner???! ...to win the Cup.

Yeah I hear ya but he had 11 points in 12 games when they won the cup then had 21 in 12 the following season. 18 in 18 in 71' then 20 in 15 in 73' when he was older and a really good defensive player. Doesn't really strike me as a Thornton type.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

For the love of god, please, I'm a lifelong Isles fan...

So... not a whole lot of life-experience with inexcusable playoff underperformance, I take it. Do you believe the following:

Mikita>Trottier?
Bo. Hull>Bossy?
Glenn Hall>Billy Smith?

(I'll give you Potvin over Pilote, natch, and Gillies over Kenny Wharram.) Front-line talent no worse than similar, maybe better for the 'Hawks. But the Isles extracted more from their talent when it mattered most.

Yeah, there's more to this equation than gaudy regular-season point totals.

 

[LordNeverLose]

So... not a whole lot of life-experience with inexcusable playoff underperformance, I take it. Do you believe the following:

Mikita>Trottier?
Bo. Hull>Bossy?
Glenn Hall>Billy Smith?

(I'll give you Potvin over Pilote, natch, and Gillies over Kenny Wharram.) Front-line talent no worse than similar, maybe better for the 'Hawks. But the Isles extracted more from their talent when it mattered most.

Yeah, there's more to this equation than gaudy regular-season point totals.

Not sure what comparison you're getting at, but I'd say

Mikita > Trottier (very close though)
Bobby Hull > Bossy (by a lot)
Hall > Smith (I'm not great with goalies though)

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Summarized in one easy-to-digest sentence:

If my goal is to have a player pose next to the Art Ross trophy, I'll choose Stan Mikita- but if my goal is to have a player come through for me in the Stanley Cup Playoffs, I'll choose Mike Bossy.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Bossy. Please- Bossy.

I saw Mikita's post-seasons. There were 18 in all. He fell short of reasonable expectations in at least fourteen of them. Maybe about half the time, the orderly had to be called in. ["We need a change of bedsheets, here!"]

Keep this in mind when you vote. Please?

Yeah I hear ya but he had 11 points in 12 games when they won the cup then had 21 in 12 the following season. 18 in 18 in 71' then 20 in 15 in 73' when he was older and a really good defensive player. Doesn't really strike me as a Thornton type.

Hey ChiTownPhilly 18 seasons - 14 seasons is 4 seasons....might those 4 seasons be 1961, 62, 71, and 73?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Hey ChiTownPhilly 18 seasons - 14 seasons is 4 seasons....might those 4 seasons be 1961, 62, 71, and 73?

61-62-71: Better than expectations
63-66-74: Met expectations
60-64-68-70-73-75: Moderate disappointment
65-76-77: Soiled the undergarments
67-71-78: Fertilized the Land

[73: gaudy opening rounds (including that well-known cat play-toy of the playoffs during that era, St Louis), but reverted to form in the Final.]

 

[CHGoalie27]

61-62-71: Better than expectations
63-66-74: Met expectations
60-64-68-70-73-75: Moderate disappointment
65-76-77: Soiled the undergarments
67-71-78: Fertilized the Land

[73: gaudy opening rounds (including that well-known cat play-toy of the playoffs during that era, St Louis), but reverted to form in the Final.]

I do have to ask, why did you consider him a moderate disappointment about 20 pts in 15 games in 73?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I do have to ask, why did you consider him a moderate disappointment about 20 pts in 15 games in 73?

Close to half of that output was against the hapless sub-.500 Blues. He dummied them- which is what you'd expect against a team whose most famous players are... damn- I don't know- Gary Unger & the Plager brothers?

Then, the next two rounds, he was a combined -5 with one power-play goal. [When you see a star have a (-) {minus}, first place you look is- maybe he contributed with the man-advantage? No- not so much.]