Sedins.

[crobro]

what about the esposito brothers

 

[reckoning]

I'd rate them (only using 2 brothers per family):

1. Maurice and Henri Richard
2. Phil and Tony Esposito
3. Max and Doug Bentley
4. Charlie and Lionel Conacher

After that it gets tough: the Bouchers, Thompsons, Cooks, Hulls, Mahovlichs, Stastnys, Sedins and many others I'm probably forgetting would have legitimate claims to being in the top 10.

I wouldn't put the Sutters in because you can't compare 6 to 2. The two best Sutters (Brent and Brian) would come up a bit short compared to the others mentioned. I wouldn't put the Niedermayers in either, as both brothers should exceed a certain level of play which Rob doesn't come close to.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Ironically, the most productive brothers of all-time haven't even been mentioned yet. Brent, Keith and some guy named Wayne.

In all seriousness, the Sedins aren't in the class of the Richards. Nobody is. In his book, Phil Esposito remarked that Henri Richard was the best centre that Espo ever played against. Ahead of Mikita, Beliveau, Clarke, Trottier and Dionne. Some of that is probably a match-up, a style of play thing, that allowed Henri Richard to cause so many problems for Espo. But the point remains. And now realize that Henri Richard was the lesser brother.

(Incidentally, I've said it many times before: any top 50 that doesn't include Henri Richard is incomplete).

 

[coo1beans]

Leading a 6 team league in scoring = 1/108 regular line-up players
Leading a 30 team league = 1/540
Everyone is bigger, faster, stronger. Goalies don't let in unscreened slappers from the blue line. (if they do it's a softie, you get the idea)

Rag on the sedins all you want about them not even being in the same class. They're definitely in the same class if not leading it. What they have been able to do in today's game is at least equally impressive to me.

The talent pool is exponentially larger and superior to that era it's not even comparable.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'd rate them (only using 2 brothers per family):

1. Maurice and Henri Richard
2. Phil and Tony Esposito
3. Max and Doug Bentley
4. Charlie and Lionel Conacher

After that it gets tough: the Bouchers, Thompsons, Cooks, Hulls, Mahovlichs, Stastnys, Sedins and many others I'm probably forgetting would have legitimate claims to being in the top 10.

I wouldn't put the Sutters in because you can't compare 6 to 2. The two best Sutters (Brent and Brian) would come up a bit short compared to the others mentioned. I wouldn't put the Niedermayers in either, as both brothers should exceed a certain level of play which Rob doesn't come close to.

nice list. i'd add sprague and odie cleghorn.

i don't know a great deal about these guys, but sprague is generally regarded as one of the toughest and dirtiest SOBs of the early years of pro hockey, as well as one of its best defensemen, and is a hall of famer. he led the league in PIMs (doubling the next guy) while still scoring at a PPG+ pace as a defenseman, and another time he scored a PPG while finishing one PIM behind the leader.

odie was not a hall of famer, but was a scoring star, finishing second behind newsy lalonde in goals and points in his best year and finishing in the top ten in goals on two other occasions (including two more top fives). he also apparently was the first coach to use three lines and invented changing on the fly. http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2008/07/odie-cleghorn.html (see comments).

they both won multiple cups, and, in keeping with the theme of this thread, for a period played together (winning two cups).

 

[shazariahl]

Leading a 6 team league in scoring = 1/108 regular line-up players
Leading a 30 team league = 1/540
Everyone is bigger, faster, stronger. Goalies don't let in unscreened slappers from the blue line. (if they do it's a softie, you get the idea)

Rag on the sedins all you want about them not even being in the same class. They're definitely in the same class if not leading it. What they have been able to do in today's game is at least equally impressive to me.

The talent pool is exponentially larger and superior to that era it's not even comparable.

Not to be a jerk, but this is a rather pointless arguement. If you're going to assume that the Sedins are better just because they play in today's league, then there is no point even having this discussion. By your standard, "best" means "newest". If so, then the Sedins are nothing special either - someone else newer will come along, and therefor be better.

Besides, whether scoring was easier or harder back in the Richard's day is irrelevant - it was the same conditions for everyone else in his league and he was simply more dominant. You may be right that it is harder to dominate today, but the gap isn't even remotely close. Maurice alone has more top 5 finishes than both Sedins together. I'm sorry if you think 2 great seasons is somehow better than M. Richard's career of steady greatness in an earlier era. Most people in the HoH section will disagree with you though, myself included.

That's not to knock the Sedins - if they can keep this level of play up for a few more years they will certainly move ahead of most the other brothers teams the league has seen. I just think beating the Richards (or Espositto's for that matter) is very unlikley, given the large gap in their careers at this stage. It would take more than 1 or 2 more good years to do that.

 

[reckoning]

Leading a 6 team league in scoring = 1/108 regular line-up players
Leading a 30 team league = 1/540
Everyone is bigger, faster, stronger. Goalies don't let in unscreened slappers from the blue line. (if they do it's a softie, you get the idea)

Rag on the sedins all you want about them not even being in the same class. They're definitely in the same class if not leading it. What they have been able to do in today's game is at least equally impressive to me.

The talent pool is exponentially larger and superior to that era it's not even comparable.

It's the Bilros argument: they play today, therefore they're better. Which would mean that if you took the Sedins exactly as they are today and transported them back 50 years, and they played exactly as they did today, they wouldn't be that good because they'd only be in a 6 team league? Quality of competition should obviously be considered, but to make sweeping generalizations like that doesn't prove anything.

Of course, one could bring up the fact that the biggest reasons for the Sedins back-to-back Art Rosses are Ovechkin missing 10 games last year and Crosby missing half the season this year.

 

[coo1beans]

No I'm not saying they're better because they play today. Trying to point out the fact that they are on par because people think they're not even close.

If people can make the argument how much the richards dominated their era, they should realize dominating an era with less players/talent is much easier. It's probably better if we just marvel at what's been done, and appreciate what is being done.

 

[tomf]

It's the Bilros argument: they play today, therefore they're better. Which would mean that if you took the Sedins exactly as they are today and transported them back 50 years, and they played exactly as they did today, they wouldn't be that good because they'd only be in a 6 team league? Quality of competition should obviously be considered, but to make sweeping generalizations like that doesn't prove anything.

Of course, one could bring up the fact that the biggest reasons for the Sedins back-to-back Art Rosses are Ovechkin missing 10 games last year and Crosby missing half the season this year.

No, it's statistical argument. If we assume that quality of league has not changed (that is, league in 60s is roughly of same quality as league now) then being in top-5 in 60s is roughly the same as being in top-30 now. It doesn't have anything to do with overall quality of the league being better now (that's probably not true). It's based general concepts of probability and statistics.

 

[overpass]

No, it's statistical argument. If we assume that quality of league has not changed (that is, league in 60s is roughly of same quality as league now) then being in top-5 in 60s is roughly the same as being in top-30 now. It doesn't have anything to do with overall quality of the league being better now (that's probably not true). It's based general concepts of probability and statistics.

I assume you mean the quality of the average player/team. Why assume that has been constant?

Would you assume the league average quality remained the same from 1966-67 to 1967-68, when the league expanded from 6 to 12 teams?

General concepts of probability and statistics are only worth as much as the underlying assumptions.

As to the specific topic, there aren't any assumptions compatible with the History of Hockey board that can get the Sedins anywhere near the Richards.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

So if Daniel wins the Hart + Art Ross this season, will him and Henrik go down as the best brothers to have ever played in the NHL together?


or are they already?

Not close to the best, but somewhere around 5 I would think at this point in time

 

[tomf]

I assume you mean the quality of the average player/team. Why assume that has been constant?

Would you assume the league average quality remained the same from 1966-67 to 1967-68, when the league expanded from 6 to 12 teams?

General concepts of probability and statistics are only worth as much as the underlying assumptions.

You are obviously right. The problem is that there is no way I am aware of that would account for that with any kind of precision. Just two questions to illustrate my point:

1. Since 60s till now there were factors that reduced league quality (increasing number of teams, creation of WHA) and there were factors that increased league quality (merging with WHA, top talent from scandinavia , hockey boom in USA after 1980, top talent from CZE & SVK & former SSSR). After accounting for all of these factors do you think league quality is smaller now than in 60s?

2. When comparing players, do you account for differencies in league quality in their top-5 & top10 finishes, trophy winnings, all star teams and point totals?

For both questions it takes a lot of effort to account for changes in league quality. And answers are still as questionable as the ones with simplified assumption. Therefore assumtion that quality of league remained constant throughout the history (even though differing heavily for some seasons) is generally good enough for me.

This is the top ten point finishes of Henri Richard:

2,4,5,9,9,9,10.

This is the combined top ten finishes of the Sedins (assuming current standings):

1,1,4.

I think Richard's numbers are enough to consider him a great player. Sure, the Sedins peaked higher, but even if you combine their careers they have not shown the consistancy of Henri Richard.

In a league with 6 teams Sedins would have been expected to have these top 10 finishes (with expectation that their position doesn't change for 2010-11 season):
1,1,1,2,3,3,4,5,5,5,8,9

Richards had these top 10 finishes (all during O6 era):
2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,4,5,6,6,6,8,9,9,9

It's still a longshot, but quite a lot closer than the first glance. And also there are other things that make a hockey player great, not just top-10 finishes.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Sedins are getting overrated.Big Big Big Time.

Not to mention every award they win is because of another player getting injured.

Now people are trying to dismiss earlier era's accomplishment which is absurd.Mario Lemieux played in 1986 , and was still better than anybody in the league today , even with their training and diet.It doesn't matter what the average of the league is when we're talking about elite performances , elite players level of play can vary from era to era and not necessarily always in the same direction , exactly like the top level of players in the NHL was better 20-25 years ago than it is today.Some humans are just better and have natural raw talent , which can't be acquire by training or anything else the ''new world'' can provide.The Sedins are good players , but there's no way they are close to the Richards.I'm 100% certain if you put Maurice Richard today and give him a couple ofm onthes to adapt he would still be one of the league top players every year.Same with Gordie Howe , Bobby Orr , Guy Lafleur , Jean Béliveau , Bobby Hull , Doug Harvey ect...Now would the ''below-average 2nd liner'' be capable of such a transition? I have my doubt , but it's possible.

 

[shazariahl]

Sedins are getting overrated.Big Big Big Time.

Not to mention every award they win is because of another player getting injured.

Now people are trying to dismiss earlier era's accomplishment which is absurd.Mario Lemieux played in 1986 , and was still better than anybody in the league today , even with their training and diet.It doesn't matter what the average of the league is when we're talking about elite performances , elite players level of play can vary from era to era and not necessarily always in the same direction , exactly like the top level of players in the NHL was better 20-25 years ago than it is today.Some humans are just better and have natural raw talent , which can't be acquire by training or anything else the ''new world'' can provide.The Sedins are good players , but there's no way they are close to the Richards.I'm 100% certain if you put Maurice Richard today and give him a couple ofm onthes to adapt he would still be one of the league top players every year.Same with Gordie Howe , Bobby Orr , Guy Lafleur , Jean Béliveau , Bobby Hull , Doug Harvey ect...Now would the ''below-average 2nd liner'' be capable of such a transition? I have my doubt , but it's possible.

I agree with this, given that we've seen players like Chelios, Bourque, Messier to some degree, Lidstrom, Selanne, etc all manage to adapt to the modern game (and plenty of others too, who have been mentioned time and again on these boards) and be successful in their later years, despite starting in other eras. If a player like Richard was given time to train and condition his body to today's game, he would be fine (especially in his prime). We have seen plenty of examples of people who have managed to do so already.

 

[JackSlater]

In a league with 6 teams Sedins would have been expected to have these top 10 finishes (with expectation that their position doesn't change for 2010-11 season):
1,1,1,2,3,3,4,5,5,5,8,9

How did you get those finishes?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How did you get those finishes?

Magic?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Magic?

probably

 

[canucksfan]

Leading a 6 team league in scoring = 1/108 regular line-up players
Leading a 30 team league = 1/540
Everyone is bigger, faster, stronger. Goalies don't let in unscreened slappers from the blue line. (if they do it's a softie, you get the idea)

Rag on the sedins all you want about them not even being in the same class. They're definitely in the same class if not leading it. What they have been able to do in today's game is at least equally impressive to me.

The talent pool is exponentially larger and superior to that era it's not even comparable.

This argument is so ridiculous. If you made the NHL six teams what players wouldn't make either of the six teams that wouldn't compete for major awards? Zero. If the league expanded to 60 teams next year what type of players would be added? Fringe players would be added. Just because there are more players doesn't mean the competition is tougher.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

How did you get those finishes?

contracted all the teams with players who have finished ahead of the sedins in the scoring race?

 

[tomf]

How did you get those finishes?

Based on idea that being 5th in 100 player league or 25th in 500 player league are equivalent finishes (you are in the same percentil). Again, assumed that league in both cases is of equal quality. And it's also assuming similar distribution in player skill in both leagues. It is not guaranteed finish but very probable, that why it is expected finish had the league contracted (and mantained the same quality, so you can't simply take 1/6 of best players in league in contraction).

Sedins finishes:

1,4 (expected in 2011), 1,12 (2010),14,15 (2009),24,27 (2008),....

would then result in

1/6 = 1, 4/6 = 1, 1/6 = 1, 12/6 = 2 and so on

 

[Unaffiliated]

Based on idea that being 5th in 100 player league or 25th in 500 player league are equivalent finishes (you are in the same percentil). Again, assumed that league in both cases is of equal quality. And it's also assuming similar distribution in player skill in both leagues. It is not guaranteed finish but very probable, that why it is expected finish had the league contracted (and mantained the same quality, so you can't simply take 1/6 of best players in league in contraction).

Sedins finishes:

1,4 (expected in 2011), 1,12 (2010),14,15 (2009),24,27 (2008),....

would then result in

1/6 = 1, 4/6 = 1, 1/6 = 1, 12/6 = 2 and so on

Just because something makes some mathematical sense doesn't mean it's a practical assumption.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Also, where do the Stastnys fit into all this? I don't know much about them so I won't even try.

 

[JackSlater]

Based on idea that being 5th in 100 player league or 25th in 500 player league are equivalent finishes (you are in the same percentil). Again, assumed that league in both cases is of equal quality. And it's also assuming similar distribution in player skill in both leagues. It is not guaranteed finish but very probable, that why it is expected finish had the league contracted (and mantained the same quality, so you can't simply take 1/6 of best players in league in contraction).

Sedins finishes:

1,4 (expected in 2011), 1,12 (2010),14,15 (2009),24,27 (2008),....

would then result in

1/6 = 1, 4/6 = 1, 1/6 = 1, 12/6 = 2 and so on

If you're going to attempt to do this, at least try to look at the talent pool instead of just the number of teams. The model is pretty poor as is; you should consider the example given earlier about the league doubling in 1968. Taking a look at league scoring trends, it is pretty clear that the sixtieth highest scorer today does not equate to the tenth highest scorer from 1967.

 

[tomf]

If you're going to attempt to do this, at least try to look at the talent pool instead of just the number of teams. The model is pretty poor as is; you should consider the example given earlier about the league doubling in 1968. Taking a look at league scoring trends, it is pretty clear that the sixtieth highest scorer today does not equate to the tenth highest scorer from 1967.

I am quite aware that it's a very simple and flawed model. It was given as an example to why you can't simply use say top 10 finishes without context because that's as poor model as mine.

And two tough questions for you. Do you think that considering all factors the league quality now (in 2011) is lower than in 67? And if yes, by how much (just rough estimate)?

 

[reckoning]

Might be a better idea to compare them only to the other players in their division, and try to isolate that as a simulated small league. But that would only be five teams and not six. Maybe use all 6 Canadian teams. How many top 10 finishes would they have if we only looked at players from those 6 teams. They'd obviously have more, but I'd wager they'd still trail the Richards by a wide margin.

And also there are other things that make a hockey player great, not just top-10 finishes.

Absolutely, but that would work out more in the Richards favor. Neither of the Sedins have "intangibles" comparable to Maurice's playoff clutch reputation or Henri's Selke-quality defence.