So why is Makarov not in the HHOF?

[patnyrnyg]

But what about Canada Cup 81? And the whole hockey world saw how good Makarov was in Canada Cup 87. If he'd had as much TOI then, as Gretzki and Lemieux, I'm sure, he'd have scored even more points, but Soviet system was different. I mean, they had all 4 lines playing on PP.

Yes, I would say what he did personally in the 3 Canada Cups and the Championship of 81, will carry a lot more weight than the 84 and 88 Olympics.

My point was I doubt the 84 and 88 Olympics are taken seriously by the voting committee as that was listed amongst the accomplishments.

 

[Big Phil]

Fetisov and Larionov? I think they still would have been in.

I think there are three contributing factors: a) These players' excellence on the International stage against NHLers (Rendez Vous, Canada Cups), b) Their role as critics of Tikhonov and the old system, c) Their NHL accomplishments.

The NHL accomplishments are not irrelevant, but I think A) and B) is what makes these players special in North American hockey lore.

No, they wouldn't have gotten in. I mean come on, Kharlamov was adored by Canadians even (check out the ovation he got in the pregame in Toronto during Game 2 of the 1972 Summit Series when they introduce him, and this is after a loss) and he didn't get in until 2005 with no NHL experience.

Larionov was not a better player than Makarov, there is no two ways around it. If he retired in 1995 like Makarov did from the NHL you couldn't put him in before Makarov, people would wonder why. The Cups gave Fetisov and Larionov more notoriety.

Now, this doesn't mean I agree with this, since I think Makarov should be in regardless and personally I think Fetisov and Larionov would have earned it regardless of their NHL resume, but again, I'm just saying, this is how the committee works............in very mysterious ways.

 

[Sentinel]

Can somebody tell me, which game is this goal from, and who are the Canadian players wearing #7 and #8?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pfLSpF2hto&t=2m56s

 

[Batis]

Can somebody tell me, which game is this goal from, and who are the Canadian players wearing #7 and #8?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pfLSpF2hto&t=2m56s

That is from the USSR-Canada final round game at the 1986 WHC. Number 8 is Denis Potvin. And unless I´m mistaken Number 7 is Phil Sykes.

 

[Fantomas]

No, they wouldn't have gotten in. I mean come on, Kharlamov was adored by Canadians even (check out the ovation he got in the pregame in Toronto during Game 2 of the 1972 Summit Series when they introduce him, and this is after a loss) and he didn't get in until 2005 with no NHL experience.

Larionov was not a better player than Makarov, there is no two ways around it. If he retired in 1995 like Makarov did from the NHL you couldn't put him in before Makarov, people would wonder why. The Cups gave Fetisov and Larionov more notoriety.

Now, this doesn't mean I agree with this, since I think Makarov should be in regardless and personally I think Fetisov and Larionov would have earned it regardless of their NHL resume, but again, I'm just saying, this is how the committee works............in very mysterious ways.

Kharlamov is a bad example. It didn't take him until 2005 to get in because he wasn't an NHLer. Rather the efforts to lobby for non-NHLers did not begin until around this time.

 

[Sentinel]

A pretty nifty interview with Makarov (in Russian). He doesn't give many interviews, so it's nice to finally hear from him. Lots of footage, starting at 3.00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGkqAbB6Ek

 

[Batis]

I'm starting to suspect foul play by Larionov. Maybe he is trying to dismiss talks of favoritism by lobbying against Makarov. Makarov was always too quiet (unlike Larionov and Fetisov).

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/35303/hall-of-fame-debate-sergei-makarov

Based on this article it certainly does not look like Larionov would be lobbying against Makarov. Here is some of the things that Larionov said about Makarov.
“His speed, his skill and his hockey sense. His eagerness to be the best every single shift, every single game, every single tournament, his goal was to the best every time he was on the ice. It didn’t matter if it was the Soviet league, or world championships, or Canada Cup, or Olympics, he was always the guy that was hungry to score goals and to be successful and at the end of the day, to be the guy at the top spotâ€

I think that Larionov does a great job at giving an explanation for Makarovs consistency as a player. It is in my opinion perhaps Makarovs most impressive quality. His ability to remain the top scorer season after season in the Soviet League and produce at a very high level tournament after tournament internationally. Don’t get me wrong Makarov clearly started to decline after his peak in the early/mid 80´s but even when he was declining he still remained a very consistent scorer. Here is Makarovs points per game average season by season from his first full season in the Soviet League to his last relatively full season in the NHL.

77/78: 0.86 (Age 19, Soviet League)
78/79: 0.89 (Age 20, Soviet League)
79/80: 1.55 (Age 21, Soviet League)
80/81: 1.61 (Age 22, Soviet League)
81/82: 1.63 (Age 23, Soviet League)
82/83: 1.40 (Age 24, Soviet League)
83/84: 1.66 (Age 25, Soviet League)
84/85: 1.63 (Age 26, Soviet League)
85/86: 1.55 (Age 27, Soviet League)
86/87: 1.33 (Age 28, Soviet League)
87/88: 1.33 (Age 29, Soviet League)
88/89: 1.23 (Age 30, Soviet League)
89/90: 1.08 (Age 31, NHL)
90/91: 1.01 (Age 32, NHL)
91/92: 1.03 (Age 33, NHL)
92/93: 0.80 (Age 34, NHL)
93/94: 0.85 (Age 35, NHL)
94/95: 0.56 (Age 36, NHL)

To me this is the numbers of a very consistent scorer who managed to remain consistent even when declining. After his jump in scoring between the 78/79 season and the 79/80 season his numbers was slowly and steadily improving up until his statistical peak season in 83/84 (with one exception in the 82/83 season where he got a shoulder injury and his points per game average dropped abit possibly due to him being somewhat affected by the injury even in some of the games that he did play in). After his statistical peak in 83/84 Makarovs domestic numbers started to slowly decline season by season instead.

 

[Batis]

Speaking about Makarov and Larionov I wonder if any player outside of the HHOF has ever outscored a longtime linemate that is inducted in the HHOF as much as Makarov outscored Larionov throughout their overlapping careers? From Larionovs first relatively full season in the Soviet League in 78/79 until Makarovs last relatively full NHL season in 94/95 they played with or against each other in the same league every season except for Larionovs one season in Switzerland (92/93). This is how much Makarov outscored Larionov head to head during that timeframe.

Makarov vs Larionov: 78/79-91/92 and 93/94-94/95
Sergei Makarov 821 gp, 419 g, 586 a, 1005 pts, 1.224 PPG (Age 20-33 and 35-36)
Igor Larionov 754 gp, 274 g, 380 a, 654 pts, 0.867 PPG (Age 18-31 and 33-34)

Per 82 games:
Makarov 100 pts
Larionov 71 pts

Being two years older obviously gave Makarov an advantage in the very beginning of that time frame but on the other hand Larionov had the advantage of being younger at the end of the time frame.
In my opinion Larionovs very best period offensively was between 80/81 and 87/88. All of his top 10 scoring finishes in the Soviet League was collected during that time frame. This is how they compare during that period.

Makarov vs Larionov: 80/81-87/88
Sergei Makarov 340 gp, 235 g, 282 a, 517 pts, 1.521 PPG (Age 22-29)
Igor Larionov 346 gp, 172 g, 207 a, 379 pts, 1.095 PPG (Age 20-27)

Per 82 games:
Makarov 125 pts
Larionov 90 pts

Something that I find interesting with Larionovs longevity as a good player is that it gives us an opportunity to compare how Makarov outscored Larionov during their long career overlap with how the European NHL stars of the 90´s and early 00´s outscored the older version of Larionov during their relatively long career overlaps. It should of course be taken into consideration that the 90´s stars had the big advantage of being far younger than Larionov when they outscored him while Makarov outscored Larionov when they were in the same age group.

When I took a look at how players like Jagr, Selänne, Forsberg, Sundin, Bure and Fedorov compared to Larionov head to head over the course of their entire overlapping careers and also head to head during Larionovs best period of his NHL career between 91/92 (when he finally managed to adjust to the North American game) and 98/99 it became clear that Makarovs dominance over Larionov measures up very favourably to the 90´s stars dominance over Larionov.

Even if we don´t take into consideration that Makarov was competing with Larionov when they were in the same age group the only two of the 90´s stars who clearly outscored Larionov more on a per game basis than Makarov did was Jagr and Forsberg. Selännes and Bures dominance over Larionov on a per game basis over the entire career overlap was roughly on the same level as Makarovs. Makarov however outscored Larionov more than Fedorov and Sundin managed to do head to head. If we then take into consideration the age advantage that the 90´s stars had I think that it is fair to say that Makarov was closer to Jagrs level offensively than he was to Selännes level for example. Meaning that I believe that the young version of Makarov would have dominated the old version of Larionov way more than he actually did when they were in the same age group. Anyway here is the numbers if anyone is interested. Note: I am not pretending that this is a perfect comparison but I thought it was a fun and interesting exercise to search for and compare the data. Edit: I dont mean that Makarov was on Jagrs level offensively only that I believe that Makarov was closer to Jagr than Selänne was to Makarov.

Jagr vs Larionov: 90/91-91/92 and 93/94-03/04
Jaromir Jagr 946 gp, 503 g, 712 a, 1215 pts, 1.284 PPG (Age 18-19 and 21-31)
Igor Larionov 847 gp, 152 g, 448 a, 600 pts, 0.708 PPG (Age 30-31 and 33-43)

Per 82 games:
Jagr 105 pts
Larionov 58 pts

Jagr vs Larionov: 91/92 and 93/94-98/99
Jaromir Jagr 501 gp, 284 g, 427 a, 711 pts, 1.419 PPG (Age 19 and 21-26)
Igor Larionov 446 gp, 99 g, 283 a, 382 pts, 0.857 PPG (Age 31 and 33-38)

Per 82 games:
Jagr 116 pts
Larionov 70 pts

Selänne vs Larionov: 93/94-03/04
Teemu Selänne 795 gp, 376 g, 443 a, 819 pts, 1.030 PPG (Age 23-33)
Igor Larionov 711 gp, 118 g, 383 a, 501 pts, 0.705 PPG (Age 33-43)

Per 82 games
Selänne 84 pts
Larionov 58 pts

Selänne vs Larionov: 93/94-98/99
Teemu Selänne 401 gp, 237 g, 275 a, 512 pts, 1.277 PPG (Age 23-28)
Igor Larionov 374 gp, 78 g, 239 a, 317 pts, 0.848 PPG (Age 33-38)

Per 82 games
Selänne 105 pts
Larionov 70 pts

Forsberg vs Larionov: 94/95-00/01 and 02/03-03/04
Peter Forsberg 580 gp, 216 g, 525 a, 741 pts, 1.278 PPG (Age 21-30)
Igor Larionov 581 gp, 89 g, 313 a, 402 pts, 0.692 PPG (Age 34-43)

Per 82 games
Forsberg 105 pts
Larionov 57 pts

Forsberg vs Larionov: 94/95-98/99
Peter Forsberg 344 gp, 128 g, 312 a, 440 pts, 1.279 PPG (Age 21-25)
Igor Larionov 314 gp, 60 g, 201 a, 261 pts, 0.831 PPG (Age 34-38)

Per 82 games:
Forsberg 105 pts
Larionov 68 pts

Sundin vs Larionov: 90/91-91/92 and 93/94-03/04
Mats Sundin 1006 gp, 418 g, 557 a, 975 pts, 0.969 PPG (Age 19-20 and 22-32)
Igor Larionov 847 gp, 152 g, 448 a, 600 pts, 0.708 PPG (Age 30-31 and 33-43)

Per 82 games:
Sundin 79 pts
Larionov 58 pts

Sundin vs Larionov: 91/92 and 93/94-98/99
Mats Sundin 533 gp, 226 g, 316 a, 542 pts, 1.017 PPG (Age 20 and 22-27)
Igor Larionov 446 gp, 99 g, 283 a, 382 pts, 0.857 PPG (Age 31 and 33-38)

Per 82 games:
Sundin 83 pts
Larionov 70 pts

Bure vs Larionov: 88/89 and 91/92 and 93/94-02/03
Pavel Bure 651 gp, 394 g, 301 a, 695 pts, 1.068 PPG (Age 17 and 20 and 22-31)
Igor Larionov 765 gp, 153 g, 429 a, 582 pts, 0.761 PPG (Age 28 and 31 and 33-42)

Per 82 games:
Bure 88 pts
Larionov 62 pts

Bure vs Larionov: 91/92 and 93/94-98/99
Pavel Bure 356 gp, 207 g, 177 a, 384 pts, 1.079 PPG (Age 20 and 22-27)
Igor Larionov 446 gp, 99 g, 283 a, 382 pts, 0.857 PPG (Age 31 and 33-38)

Per 82 games:
Bure 88 pts
Larionov 70 pts

Fedorov vs Larionov: 86/87-88/89 and 90/91-91/92 and 93/94-03/04
Sergei Fedorov 1036 gp, 419 g, 558 a, 977 pts, 0.943 PPG (Age 17-19 and 21-22 and 24-34)
Igor Larionov 968 gp, 212 g, 518 a, 730 pts, 0.754 PPG (Age 26-28 and 30-31 and 33-43)

Per 82 games:
Fedorov 77 pts
Larionov 62 pts

Fedorov vs Larionov: 91/92 and 93/94-98/99
Sergei Fedorov 454 gp, 209 g, 297 a, 506 pts, 1.115 PPG (Age 22 and 24-29)
Igor Larionov 446 gp, 99 g, 283 a, 382 pts, 0.857 PPG (Age 31 and 33-38)

Per 82 games:
Fedorov 91 pts
Larionov 70 pts

 

[Sentinel]

I always take these comparisons with a few grains of salt. Larionov and Fedorov were used in far more defensive roles than Makarov (notice I didn't say "more defensively minded than Makarov," who was an elite two-way player in his own right), hence changing their point dynamics.

Overall I rank Larionov higher than most people, because he was still VERY useful to his team in his 40s, which is not something many people with higher point totals can say about themselves. Not only he remained a defensive stalwart on the 00s Wings, but his line, no matter who was on it (Lapoint, Shanahan, Homer, Luc) was always a legitimate offensive threat because he centered it. Plus that triple OT goal. There can be an argument made that he was more useful to the Wings than Trottier to the Penguins.

That said, Makarov was still miles ahead.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since when was Makarov an "elite two-way player?" I've heard that line twice now - both times in 2015.

 

[Sentinel]

He was a premier PKer for both CSKA and CCCP. I'm pretty sure he even killed more penalties than Larionov. Quite competent in his own zone. He was no Fedorov, but still a two-way force.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He was a premier PKer for both CSKA and CCCP. I'm pretty sure he even killed more penalties than Larionov. Quite competent in his own zone. He was no Fedorov, but still a two-way force.

Yes, he was a very good penalty killer; so was Krutov. So were Pavel Bure and Mario Lemieux and Peter Bondra. It says nothing about his two-way ability at even strength.

Like I sort of said in the other thread, I love watching video clips of Makarov play. And I will be the first one to say that he's arguably the best Soviet of All-Time. But the pro-Makarov rhetoric is really getting out of control; that's not directed at you in particular, it's coming from a lot of corners.

 

[Sentinel]

Yes, he was a very good penalty killer; so was Krutov. So were Pavel Bure and Mario Lemieux and Peter Bondra. It says nothing about his two-way ability at even strength.

Like I sort of said in the other thread, I love watching video clips of Makarov play. And I will be the first one to say that he's arguably the best Soviet of All-Time. But the pro-Makarov rhetoric is really getting out of control; that's not directed at you in particular, it's coming from a lot of corners.

I thought he was better in his own zone than all of the players you mentioned. But that's more of an eyetest though. How do you quantify the two-way skill?

"Makarov was a very mobile player. He was everywhere, went up and down, and was really good at helping his defensmen. That's why Viktor Vasilyevich Tikhonov often had him kill penalties." (Victor Kuzkin, Soviet defenseman)

 

[Kshahdoo]

It's hard to say how good Makarov was in his own zone, because a) there is no as much statistics about that time (especially considering the Soviet league) as we have nowadays and b) the KLM style was all about pushing hard and playing in opponent's zone, they forechecked so hard, that even NHL teams usually had big problems with getting out of their zone.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Yesterday, I was listening to the morning sports show here in Edmonton, they were discussing next year's class with Darren Dregehr...

Recchi, Roenick, Andreychuk, Lowe were all brought up as serious candidates. Makarov wasn't mentioned.

Its really quite shocking how far off the radar he is for the MSM.

 

[Hobnobs]

Yes, he was a very good penalty killer; so was Krutov. So were Pavel Bure and Mario Lemieux and Peter Bondra. It says nothing about his two-way ability at even strength.

Like I sort of said in the other thread, I love watching video clips of Makarov play. And I will be the first one to say that he's arguably the best Soviet of All-Time. But the pro-Makarov rhetoric is really getting out of control; that's not directed at you in particular, it's coming from a lot of corners.

Makarov was very Datsyukian.

 

[Kshahdoo]

What modern player is the closest to Makarov by style and skill? Before MSL got retired, I'd say it was him.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I always take these comparisons with a few grains of salt. Larionov and Fedorov were used in far more defensive roles than Makarov (notice I didn't say "more defensively minded than Makarov," who was an elite two-way player in his own right), hence changing their point dynamics.

Overall I rank Larionov higher than most people, because he was still VERY useful to his team in his 40s, which is not something many people with higher point totals can say about themselves. Not only he remained a defensive stalwart on the 00s Wings, but his line, no matter who was on it (Lapoint, Shanahan, Homer, Luc) was always a legitimate offensive threat because he centered it. Plus that triple OT goal. There can be an argument made that he was more useful to the Wings than Trottier to the Penguins.

That said, Makarov was still miles ahead.

There is zero argument here Larinov was much more valuable to the Red Wings than Trottier to those Pens teams.

Makarov deserves to be in like 10 years ago.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yesterday, I was listening to the morning sports show here in Edmonton, they were discussing next year's class with Darren Dregehr...

Recchi, Roenick, Andreychuk, Lowe were all brought up as serious candidates. Makarov wasn't mentioned.

Its really quite shocking how far off the radar he is for the MSM.

Recchi and Roenick I can see having a case and it was in Edmonton and sure Lowe gets brought up but he would be a veterans committee type of selection.

Andreychuk just doesn't have a strong case at all simply a compiler, really lacking any great or even close to great stretch in his career.