Stan Mikita or Bobby Clarke

[canucks4ever]

I am one of those people that strongly suggest Mikita is a beneficiary of the era that he dominated. The era he played in was good, but lets face it, he would have had a career that would totally resemble Peter Stastny's if he played during the same time that Gretzky did. On the other hand, if Bobby Clarke could beat out Bobby Orr for Hart Trophies due to his ridiculous +/- and great two play I could see him grab a Hart Trophy in the 80's. He would also grab those selke trophies like he actually did due to his excellent two way play. I could also see his team win 1 or 2 cups in the 80s. They came close in 85, put Bernie Parent in the net and have the same team as they did in 74-75 and he would still have a ring.

The only way you can compete against Gretz for the Hart Trophy in his prime was if you were a goalie/defensemen having a ridiculous season, or if you totally dominated the goal scoring competition like Brett Hull. Mikita is a playmaker and I really dont see him out-assisting Gretzky, so the chance of him ever being a first team all star or art ross/hart trophy winner is slim to none if he played from 1980-1994.

Mikita may rank higher, but Bobby Clarke's greatness would be the same in every era, while Mikita's would fluctuate depending on which era he played in.

Click to read more...

 

[Ogopogo*]

Just winning a trophy isn't all there is to hockey. Mikita is great and would be just as great no matter the era.

 

[canucks4ever]

Just winning a trophy isn't all there is to hockey. Mikita is great and would be just as great no matter the era.

Really he would get the same accomplishments in the 80s, uh I doubt it.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Really he would get the same accomplishments in the 80s, uh I doubt it.

Believe what you want. When you are one of the very best players of your era that means you would be one of the very best of any era.

Think of it this way, take Mikita's brain out and put it in Pat Hughes' head. Suddenly Hughes is a HOFer and one of the game's all time greats

Mikita would have dominated any era.

 

[canucks4ever]

Believe what you want. When you are one of the very best players of your era that means you would be one of the very best of any era.

Think of it this way, take Mikita's brain out and put it in Dave Semenko's head. Suddenly Semenko is a HOFer and one of the game's all time greats

Mikita would have dominated any era.

He would be an all-time great in every era. I just think Bobby Clarke would get similar accomplishments while competing against Gretzky and Mikita's would suffer.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I am one of those people that strongly suggest Mikita is a beneficiary of the era that he dominated. The era he played in was good, but lets face it, he would have had a career that would totally resemble Peter Stastny's if he played during the same time that Gretzky did. On the other hand, if Bobby Clarke could beat out Bobby Orr for Hart Trophies due to his ridiculous +/- and great two play I could see him grab a Hart Trophy in the 80's. He would also grab those selke trophies like he actually did due to his excellent two way play. I could also see his team win 1 or 2 cups in the 80s. They came close in 85, put Bernie Parent in the net and have the same team as they did in 74-75 and he would still have a ring.

The only way you can compete against Gretz for the Hart Trophy in his prime was if you were a goalie/defensemen having a ridiculous season, or if you totally dominated the goal scoring competition like Brett Hull. Mikita is a playmaker and I really dont see him out-assisting Gretzky, so the chance of him ever being a first team all star or art ross/hart trophy winner is slim to none if he played from 1980-1994.

Mikita may rank higher, but Bobby Clarke's greatness would be the same in every era, while Mikita's would fluctuate depending on which era he played in.

Interesting that Clarke is 33rd and Mikita 34th all-time points per game. Much easier to score in Clarke's era. But Clarke is one of the those players that can transend the numbers. I would rate him ahead of Mikita.

 

[Reds4Life]

Mikita, no question.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

You can pretty much say that for every player that played after Gretzky left his prime then. Jagr head to head with prime Gretzky wins nothing. Same with St Louis, Thornton etc etc.

 

[WingsFan95]

Stan Mikita by miles.

Bobby Clarke was such a panzy ass.

 

[canucks4ever]

You can pretty much say that for every player that played after Gretzky left his prime then. Jagr head to head with prime Gretzky wins nothing. Same with St Louis, Thornton etc etc.

Lemieux still does, and like I said Bobby Clarke is fully capable of doing it if he gets a ridiculous +/-, I mean he beat bobby orr head to head 3 times.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Lemieux still does, and like I said Bobby Clarke is fully capable of doing it if he gets a ridiculous +/-, I mean he beat bobby orr head to head 3 times.

ush, if you are looking at +/- to give you insight into peformance, you are more in the dark than I thought.

 

[canucks4ever]

ush, if you are looking at +/- to give you insight into peformance, you are more in the dark than I thought.

I'm looking at Bobby Clarke's overall game and leadership, I see him winning cups in every era.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I am one of those people that strongly suggest Mikita is a beneficiary of the era that he dominated. The era he played in was good, but lets face it, he would have had a career that would totally resemble Peter Stastny's if he played during the same time that Gretzky did.

His career would clearly be superior to Stastny's. Mikita is better offensively and defensively. Gretzky wasn't robbing Stastny of the Art Ross every year in the 80's, he only finished runner-up once and was top-five a few other times. Mikita was in the top-three eight times with four scoring titles. I don't think anybody is going to try to say that Stastny was a better two-way player than Mikita, so that doesn't leave him much of an argument. A better comparison would Mikita and Bryan Trottier, though again, even though Trottier was a high-scoring center, Mikita is clearly better offensively.

 

[canucks4ever]

His career would clearly be superior to Stastny's. Mikita is better offensively and defensively. Gretzky wasn't robbing Stastny of the Art Ross every year in the 80's, he only finished runner-up once and was top-five a few other times. Mikita was in the top-three eight times with four scoring titles. I don't think anybody is going to try to say that Stastny was a better two-way player than Mikita, so that doesn't leave him much of an argument. A better comparison would Mikita and Bryan Trottier, though again, even though Trottier was a high-scoring center, Mikita is clearly better offensively.

How about another comparison, Mikita with Dionne. I really don't see Mikita winning a cup either and I'm not very positive that he would have outscored Marcel Dionne, a monsterous regular season performer.

Realistically, if Mikita played in that era, he would get the same ranking Dionne gets right now. If Dionne was an Original 6 player, he would have cup rings along with art ross trophies and harts. I mean he won an art ross and 2 lesters and finished 2nd or 3rd many times, why would it be harder for him to accomplish more by playing against people that are inferior to Gretzky.

 

[MXD]

Mikita, but it,s definitively a good comparison

 

[Pear Juice]

I am one of those people that strongly suggest Mikita is a beneficiary of the era that he dominated. The era he played in was good, but lets face it, he would have had a career that would totally resemble Peter Stastny's if he played during the same time that Gretzky did. On the other hand, if Bobby Clarke could beat out Bobby Orr for Hart Trophies due to his ridiculous +/- and great two play I could see him grab a Hart Trophy in the 80's. He would also grab those selke trophies like he actually did due to his excellent two way play. I could also see his team win 1 or 2 cups in the 80s. They came close in 85, put Bernie Parent in the net and have the same team as they did in 74-75 and he would still have a ring.

The only way you can compete against Gretz for the Hart Trophy in his prime was if you were a goalie/defensemen having a ridiculous season, or if you totally dominated the goal scoring competition like Brett Hull. Mikita is a playmaker and I really dont see him out-assisting Gretzky, so the chance of him ever being a first team all star or art ross/hart trophy winner is slim to none if he played from 1980-1994.

Mikita may rank higher, but Bobby Clarke's greatness would be the same in every era, while Mikita's would fluctuate depending on which era he played in.

I didn't think I would say this, but I understand your reasoning in Clarke's specific skills transcending the eras. However I get the feeling that that Mikita was a better playmaker than Clarke ever was, but Clarke was tougher, isn't Mikita more of a mix of Gretzky and Clarke? A rough playmaker who doesn't really excel (in a historical all-time perspective) at any skill, but rather prove that the sum is always greater than the parts.

Then again, there are two disticnt phases in Mikitas career when he suddenly turned Lady Byng instead of tough playmaker.

 

[Dark Shadows]

How about another comparison, Mikita with Dionne. I really don't see Mikita winning a cup either and I'm not very positive that he would have outscored Marcel Dionne, a monsterous regular season performer.

Realistically, if Mikita played in that era, he would get the same ranking Dionne gets right now. If Dionne was an Original 6 player, he would have cup rings along with art ross trophies and harts. I mean he won an art ross and 2 lesters and finished 2nd or 3rd many times, why would it be harder for him to accomplish more by playing against people that are inferior to Gretzky.

First off, quit making it sound like Gretzky was the reason Dionne wasn't winning scoring titles. Gretzky was responsible for Dionne finishing second in scoring ONCE, and Orr+Esposito was responsible for him finishing Third ONCE. The other 2nd and 3rd place finishes were a combination of Lafleur/Trottier.

Mikita certainly faced similar competition in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishes to players like Gordie Howe, Hull, Bathgate, Beliveau, Esposito and Orr.

Regular season scoring between Dionne and Mikita is a slight advantage to Mikita. The numbers look less prolific because of the era, but he was just as dominant. Even more impressive when you consider that Mikita and Hull played on different lines, and rarely together.

Defensive play between Mikita and Dionne is a big plus in Mikita's favor.

Playoff play is also a landslide in Mikita's favor, regardless of the amount of cups won. Dionne's play invariably went lackluster during clutch time. Mikita's did not

 

[Stonefly]

I didn't think I would say this, but I understand your reasoning in Clarke's specific skills transcending the eras. However I get the feeling that that Mikita was a better playmaker than Clarke ever was, but Clarke was tougher, isn't Mikita more of a mix of Gretzky and Clarke? A rough playmaker who doesn't really excel (in a historical all-time perspective) at any skill, but rather prove that the sum is always greater than the parts.

Then again, there are two disticnt phases in Mikitas career when he suddenly turned Lady Byng instead of tough playmaker.

Clarke was not tougher than Mikita. Clarke had protection almost to the level Gretzky did. Don't confuse being dirty with being tough.
Mikita on the other hand didn't take crap from anyone and without protection.
Mikita excelled at playmaking. He's one of the best I've ever seen.

 

[Peter9]

I am one of those people that strongly suggest Mikita is a beneficiary of the era that he dominated.

That's one of the most meaningless sentences I've read on this forum. EVERY player who dominates is a beneficiary of the era he dominates.

I suppose what you mean is that the level of play was better in the Seventies than in the Sixties. I question that; the expansion teams weren't nearly as strong as the Original Six teams to begin with and as parity crept in, the quality of the Original Six teams declined as the quality of the expansion teams rose. Overall the level of play in the Seventies was not nearly as good as it was in the Sixties.

You might want to ask how Bobby Clarke would have fared had he played in the Sixties. Although I think these "what if" questions are rather futile, they're fun, and so I'll proffer my judgment that Clarke wouldn't have done nearly as well in the Sixties as he did in the Seventies. Clarke was the beneficiary of the team on which he played. (Just to prove that I can match you for drivel; every player is a beneficiary of the team on which he played). A team like the Flyers wouldn't have won two successive Stanley Cups in the Sixties, and a player like Clarke wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

I saw both Mikita and Clarke play throughout their entire careers, and for me there's no question Mikita is the better hockey player, by some distance. He was wonderful with the puck, combining superior intelligence with superb physical abilities, he was tough as nails--he toned down his chippy side, however, when he saw he could be more valuable overall if he stayed away from the penalty box--and a case could be made that he, more than anyone, made the Black Hawks, as they were called then, a contending force year after year. Clarke could be neutralized. Mikita couldn't be, and the reason he couldn't be was because his game depended almost entirely on skill and intelligence. Mikita didn't need to be surrounded by goons to excel, not even after he became Mr. Clean.

Bobby Clarke had great grit, courage and determination,, but so did Mikita. The difference there is that Clarke was more voluble, more open about his sentiments--he wore his heart on his sleeve--while Mikita was more the professional, at least after he changed his modus operandi and started winning Lady Byng trophies. I don't think Clarke could have changed his style of play, let alone contest for the Lady Byng.

If anything could be held against Mikita, it would be the Black Hawks' failure to win more than one Cup during the Sixties. Now that is a topic worth considering, but I'm fairly new to this board, and I would think it's already been covered. Suffice it to say here that I don't hold Mikita responsible for that.

 

[pappyline]

If anything could be held against Mikita, it would be the Black Hawks' failure to win more than one Cup during the Sixties. Now that is a topic worth considering, but I'm fairly new to this board, and I would think it's already been covered. Suffice it to say here that I don't hold Mikita responsible for that.

Hockey outsider did a nice analysis a while back which showed that the Hawk stars-Hull, Mikita, Hall, Pilote actually performed quite well in the playoffs. It was the secondary players whose game dropped off. IMO, the only hawk team of the 60's that had great depth was the 61 cup team. with former stars like Sloan & litzenberger on the third line. and a defense of Pilote, Vasko, St.laurent, evans, Arbour. For the rest of the decade they never came close to the depth of the Habs & Leafs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How about another comparison, Mikita with Dionne. I really don't see Mikita winning a cup either and I'm not very positive that he would have outscored Marcel Dionne, a monsterous regular season performer.

Realistically, if Mikita played in that era, he would get the same ranking Dionne gets right now. If Dionne was an Original 6 player, he would have cup rings along with art ross trophies and harts. I mean he won an art ross and 2 lesters and finished 2nd or 3rd many times, why would it be harder for him to accomplish more by playing against people that are inferior to Gretzky.

How do you know he would win Cups? Individual players don't win Cups, teams do.

 

[canucks4ever]

How do you know he would win Cups? Individual players don't win Cups, teams do.

Pretty much every legend from that era has a cup except andy bathgate.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Pretty much every legend from that era has a cup except andy bathgate.

Pretty much every legend from any era has a Cup.

 

[pappyline]

Pretty much every legend from that era has a cup except andy bathgate.

Bathgate won a cup in 64 with the Leafs. In fact, many credit that 64 cup to the Leafs trading for Bathgate.,

 

[V-2 Schneider]

Stan Mikita is one of the top 4-7 centers to ever play.