Stan Mikita or Bobby Clarke

[Peter9]

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.

_____________

Yes, I remember that 1961 team only too well. The Black Hawks' sudden rise and success near the end of the Fifties and at the start of the Sixties left me, as a Canadiens fan, cursing a blue streak.

For quite a few years, the Hawks, as league doormats, had been the beneficiary of give-aways or virtual give-aways from the other teams, including Eddie Litzenberger, Ab McDonald, Dollard St. Laurent, Murray Balfour and Reggie Fleming from Montreal, in what amounted to a save-the-Hawks campaign. And now, all of a sudden, the Hawks had Hall, Hull, Mikita, Pilote and a very decent supporting cast, and they sent the Canadiens crashing out of the playoffs in the 1961 semifinals after five successive Stanley Cup triumphs. All five of those former Canadiens lined up for the Hawks in that playoff series.

It was my devout feeling, as a Canadiens fan, that those who took charity ought not to be so ungrateful as to turn around and bite the hands that fed them. And it was almost too much for me to stand when it turned out a year or so later that the Hawks, so recently pitiable, could afford to toss out an offer of $1 million--an unthinkable sum in those days--in an effort to snag Frank Mahovlich from the Leafs. For several unbearable days, it looked like the deal might well go through. Who knows what might have happened had the Hawks gained Mahovlich, unleashed from the restraints Punch Imlach put on him in Toronto. At the time I feared the worst, a Hawks dynasty, and I gritted my teeth in rage.

P.S. Almost 50 years on, I'm a lot more mellow. I'm getting used to things not going my team's way.

 

[canucks4ever]

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

Well, that helps prove my point that Dionne would get his cup if he played in the O-6.

He won 1 art ross and 2 lesters in the gretzky/lafluer era. I say he wins about 2 or 3 art ross trophies in the 60's.

Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe were still very good back then, but lets not make it sound like Mikita was outscoring the peak versions of these guys to get his art ross trophies. Both of thier peaks were over. His main comp was his own teammate, bobby hull.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Well, that helps prove my point that Dionne would get his cup if he played in the O-6.

He won 1 art ross and 2 lesters in the gretzky/lafluer era. I say he wins about 2 or 3 art ross trophies in the 60's.

Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe were still very good back then, but lets not make it sound like Mikita was outscoring the peak versions of these guys to get his art ross trophies. Both of thier peaks were over. His main comp was his own teammate, bobby hull.

Ushvinder, for the record, most people here don't discredit Dionne for his lack of a cup. Nobody could win a cup with his supporting cast. Its just an expression most use to articulate his dismal playoff performance. And yes, he was a playoff no show and his play visibly suffered at crunch time, irregardless of his team. he was incapable of elevating his game, and in fact, he went the opposite of elevating

And for the record, no, Howe and Beliveau were not our of their primes. Much like Sakic, scoring 100 points a few years ago, was not out of his at age 36.

Mikita started in 58-59, and Howe was still winning scoring titles and Hart Trophies in 62-63 and scoring 100+ points in 68-69. Beliveau still a 1st and second team all star and coming in high on the scoring charts right through the 60's.

 

[DeadPhish5858]

Stan Mikita by miles.

Bobby Clarke was such a panzy ass.

Say what you want about his hockey skills, but Clarke was not a pansy ass.

 

[mcphee]

_____________

Yes, I remember that 1961 team only too well. The Black Hawks' sudden rise and success near the end of the Fifties and at the start of the Sixties left me, as a Canadiens fan, cursing a blue streak.

For quite a few years, the Hawks, as league doormats, had been the beneficiary of give-aways or virtual give-aways from the other teams, including Eddie Litzenberger, Ab McDonald, Dollard St. Laurent, Murray Balfour and Reggie Fleming from Montreal, in what amounted to a save-the-Hawks campaign. And now, all of a sudden, the Hawks had Hall, Hull, Mikita, Pilote and a very decent supporting cast, and they sent the Canadiens crashing out of the playoffs in the 1961 semifinals after five successive Stanley Cup triumphs. All five of those former Canadiens lined up for the Hawks in that playoff series.

It was my devout feeling, as a Canadiens fan, that those who took charity ought not to be so ungrateful as to turn around and bite the hands that fed them. And it was almost too much for me to stand when it turned out a year or so later that the Hawks, so recently pitiable, could afford to toss out an offer of $1 million--an unthinkable sum in those days--in an effort to snag Frank Mahovlich from the Leafs. For several unbearable days, it looked like the deal might well go through. Who knows what might have happened had the Hawks gained Mahovlich, unleashed from the restraints Punch Imlach put on him in Toronto. At the time I feared the worst, a Hawks dynasty, and I gritted my teeth in rage.

P.S. Almost 50 years on, I'm a lot more mellow. I'm getting used to things not going my team's way.

I'd never thought of 1961 in those terms. Probably my earliest sports memory is my Dad and a few relatives being in the house, being pissed at Mtl. losing. I vaguely remember the old man complaining about Hawks players diving, which confused my 6 year old mind.

Over the years, I thought of this with a bit of amusement about the obvious sense of entitlement that Hab fans developed thru the 50's. I guess losing to a team that include some former players was a factor. I know that until Orr and Esposito landed in Boston, Chicago was the game that got you excited, the etam you couldn't miss.

 

[canucks4ever]

Ushvinder, for the record, most people here don't discredit Dionne for his lack of a cup. Nobody could win a cup with his supporting cast. Its just an expression most use to articulate his dismal playoff performance. And yes, he was a playoff no show and his play visibly suffered at crunch time, irregardless of his team. he was incapable of elevating his game, and in fact, he went the opposite of elevating

And for the record, no, Howe and Beliveau were not our of their primes. Much like Sakic, scoring 100 points a few years ago, was not out of his at age 36.

Mikita started in 58-59, and Howe was still winning scoring titles and Hart Trophies in 62-63 and scoring 100+ points in 68-69. Beliveau still a 1st and second team all star and coming in high on the scoring charts right through the 60's.

Jean Beliveau's peak was clearly 1955-1961, Mikita became a star inthe 62 season.

Wayne Gretzky was still finishind 4th in 1998 and 5th in 1997, I guess Jagr outscored a prime gretzky?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Jean Beliveau's peak was clearly 1955-1961, Mikita became a star inthe 62 season.

Wayne Gretzky was still finishind 4th in 1998 and 5th in 1997, I guess Jagr outscored a prime gretzky?

So I guess Beliveau's 64-65 Hart Trophy was a fluke right? Not to mention him being THE MOST key player on 4 of the 5 Stanley cups between 64-65 and 70-71.

Hull was legitimate competition for Mikita considering that they played on seperate lines their entire careers.

And what about Gordie Howe? Or are you going to ignore that entirely?

If you want to play the "Prime card", then Jagr never would have won a single Art Ross has Mario not retired, and Lafleur only started winning Art Ross trophies because Orr retired at the same time Espo left his prime, etc

Its horsecrap.

And the Dionne comments I made were bang on too. You always address only 1 part of posts and ignore the bulk of the post. Address all aspects of a post, or don't respond at all.

 

[canucks4ever]

So I guess Beliveau's 64-65 Hart Trophy was a fluke right? Not to mention him being THE MOST key player on 4 of the 5 Stanley cups between 64-65 and 70-71.

Hull was legitimate competition for Mikita considering that they played on seperate lines their entire careers.

And what about Gordie Howe? Or are you going to ignore that entirely?

If you want to play the "Prime card", then Jagr never would have won a single Art Ross has Mario not retired, and Lafleur only started winning Art Ross trophies because Orr retired at the same time Espo left his prime, etcIts horsecrap.

And the Dionne comments I made were bang on too. You always address only 1 part of posts and ignore the bulk of the post. Address all aspects of a post, or don't respond at all.

I dont have to address every aspect of a post, you try and act like you are the sheriff of this forum giving orders. Dionne would have 3 or 4 art ross trophies if he played in that era, it's my opinion, obviously I can't prove it cuz he didnt play in that era.

I think you have failed to clearly see whats the difference between being at your peak and still being elite. I guess Wayne Gretzky was still at his peak in 1994 right? I mean he did win the art ross trophy that year, so he was still in his prime?

No, you aren't dead on at all. You make your opinions and you try and state them as if they are cold hard facts. I'm not the only guy here that says this about you.

 

[canucks4ever]

Espo played 10 seasons as a Ranger and Blackhawk and never finished higher than 8th in scoring. I dont need to prove that Orr made him a top 3 player, the evidence is there. The year before he played with orr, which is 1967, he was in the lower end of the top 10. As soon as he gets traded to the Rangers in 76, he finishes like what, 20th in scoring? Thats a pretty big drop for a single season.

Even when Jagr was playing with Capitals and rangers, he was still finishing 2nd, 5th, 8th or top 15-18 in scoring. He didnt go from 1-2 to 20th within one single season.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Espo played 10 seasons as a Ranger and Blackhawk and never finished higher than 8th in scoring. I dont need to prove that Orr made him a top 3 player, the evidence is there. The year before he played with orr, which is 1967, he was in the lower end of the top 10. As soon as he gets traded to the Rangers in 76, he finishes like what, 20th in scoring? Thats a pretty big drop for a single season.

This statement you already made, and it was utterly defeated by several other forum members.

Esposito might not have hit 70 goals and 150 points without Orr, but he was a shoe in to hit 55+ goals and 120-130 points regardless. Nobody denies they helped each others numbers, but the degree to which you imply a player leeched borders on childish. Especially since you were not even alive to see them play.

Several people on this forum already went through several years to see just how many 90+ assist players were the cornerstone of 65+ goal scorers(Primary and secondary assists, etc), including 1970-71. I had the same reservations as you before I got the cold hard numbers, and I watched them both play regularly. Orr had far less to do with Esposito's numbers than you think. Esposito's play just seemed lackluster in comparison, but it was truly mastery of a style that looked less effective

Orr had far far fewer Assists on Esposito's goals than you imply. In fact, Orr had assists in less than 1/3rd of Esposito's goals that season.

Not to mention Esposito hitting 126 points in a 68-69 when Orr only had 64 points, or is that just coincidence too?

Better luck next time.

Even when Jagr was playing with Capitals and rangers, he was still finishing 2nd, 5th, 8th or top 15-18 in scoring. He didnt go from 1-2 to 20th within one single season.

The only time Beliveau had a drop like that was during injury seasons, in which #1, he missed a ton of games, and #2, he was far from 100%

P.S Once again, you dodged replying to the bulk of a post(The Howe, Dionne parts). Basically Acquiescence that you are incapable of putting together an argument that addresses all points made, and that you try to dodge points to make your already weak argument seem less weak

 

[Dark Shadows]

I dont have to address every aspect of a post, you try and act like you are the sheriff of this forum giving orders. Dionne would have 3 or 4 art ross trophies if he played in that era, it's my opinion, obviously I can't prove it cuz he didnt play in that era.

In the history section, yes, you do have to respond to all of a post. Failing to do so makes debating useless because people like you, who are incapable of stringing together a good argument when strong points go against you, just ignore those points. Thus, you are required to answer all of a post, not just the parts you decide to answer. Failing to do so = You admitting you have no retort, and conceding.

Failing to Answer key points because you can't and only answering the less relevant points amounts to losing the argument

If you are going to make a comment like "Mikita never had to face good prime competition", and I respond by stating that Howe and Beliveau were still winning Harts and Scoring titles, you need to address both players, not just the one you deem weaker and easier to answer. Especially since Howe went on to stay a top player and break his own scoring records in the following years. In essence, it looks like you avoided answering about Howe because, well, it obliterated your argument

Regarding Dionne. No, he wouldn't have had 3-4 scoring titles. Dionne would not have had 3-4 in his own era even if you took Gretzky 100% out of the equation

I think you have failed to clearly see whats the difference between being at your peak and still being elite. I guess Wayne Gretzky was still at his peak in 1994 right? I mean he did win the art ross trophy that year, so he was still in his prime?

Prime? Yes, Peak? No. A peak can only be reached once. A Prime is a state of health in which the player stays consistently around his best.

No, you aren't dead on at all. You make your opinions and you try and state them as if they are cold hard facts. I'm not the only guy here that says this about you.

Yeah, the reason being is I add cold hard facts to my points to back them up and very strongly back my opinion, while people like you give cop out "he was a leech" answers regarding everything with very weak or no facts to back your opinion up.

 

[canucks4ever]

In the history section, yes, you do have to respond to all of a post. Failing to do so makes debating useless because people like you, who are incapable of stringing together a good argument when strong points go against you, just ignore those points. Thus, you are required to answer all of a post, not just the parts you decide to answer. Failing to do so = You admitting you have no retort, and conceding.

Failing to Answer key points because you can't and only answering the less relevant points amounts to losing the argument

If you are going to make a comment like "Mikita never had to face good prime competition", and I respond by stating that Howe and Beliveau were still winning Harts and Scoring titles, you need to address both players, not just the one you deem weaker and easier to answer. Especially since Howe went on to stay a top player and break his own scoring records in the following years. In essence, it looks like you avoided answering about Howe because, well, it obliterated your argument

Regarding Dionne. No, he wouldn't have had 3-4 scoring titles. Dionne would not have had 3-4 in his own era even if you took Gretzky 100% out of the equation


Prime? Yes, Peak? No. A peak can only be reached once. A Prime is a state of health in which the player stays consistently around his best.



Yeah, the reason being is I add cold hard facts to my points to back them up and very strongly back my opinion, while people like you give cop out "he was a leech" answers regarding everything with very weak or no facts to back your opinion up.

Yeah, Howe and Beliveau weren't in thier peaks either then. Thier 7-8 years of complete dominance came before Mikita became a star. Hell, between 95-2002, Jagr's 8 year domination, Lemieux and Gretzky were still putting up elite numbers, were they in thier peaks, no. Hence why many people consider Sakic, Lindros and Forsberg, Hasek and Lidstrom to be his main comp during his 8 year period.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

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.

Now, I'm a younger guy but I have seen my fair share of vintage games and spent good money and time on getting games on tape/DVD because I'm a vintage hockey nut but from what I have seen I think Mikita is by far the better player. Clarke had Davey Schultz but Mikita was his own Davey Schultz (in a sense).

The second I saw this thread I was like ... "Isnt this already obvious". The question should have never been asked.

I could think of several other logical "who was better then who" examples that will have no clear answer like Craig Janny vs Adam Oats or Dionne vs St Louis ect but the answer in this thread is easy.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yeah, Howe and Beliveau weren't in thier peaks either then. Thier 7-8 years of complete dominance came before Mikita became a star. Hell, between 95-2002, Jagr's 8 year domination, Lemieux and Gretzky were still putting up elite numbers, were they in thier peaks, no. Hence why many people consider Sakic, Lindros and Forsberg, Hasek and Lidstrom to be his main comp during his 8 year period.

Howe and Beliveau were still in their primes, winning Hart Trophies and scoring titles. You don't win Hart trophies and Scoring titles by being has beens. They + Hull were still top players, and better competition than anything Jagr faced short of Lemieux.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

I'd never thought of 1961 in those terms. Probably my earliest sports memory is my Dad and a few relatives being in the house, being pissed at Mtl. losing. I vaguely remember the old man complaining about Hawks players diving, which confused my 6 year old mind.

Over the years, I thought of this with a bit of amusement about the obvious sense of entitlement that Hab fans developed thru the 50's. I guess losing to a team that include some former players was a factor. I know that until Orr and Esposito landed in Boston, Chicago was the game that got you excited, the etam you couldn't miss.

Thats an understatement. Some Habs fan tried to rip off the Cup from Chicago Stadium durring one of the games from the 72 finals claming "I'm taking it home where it belongs" because the Habs were loosing.

 

[Gobias Industries]

Yeah, Howe and Beliveau weren't in thier peaks either then. Thier 7-8 years of complete dominance came before Mikita became a star. Hell, between 95-2002, Jagr's 8 year domination, Lemieux and Gretzky were still putting up elite numbers, were they in thier peaks, no. Hence why many people consider Sakic, Lindros and Forsberg, Hasek and Lidstrom to be his main comp during his 8 year period.

This is just a flat out lie..

Re-check your stats...

 

[Koivu84*]

The difference is Mikita was one of the best to ever play and Clarke isn't.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The difference is Mikita was one of the best to ever play and Clarke isn't.

I think you're overrating Mikita a little and underrating Clarke a lot.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The difference is Mikita was one of the best to ever play and Clarke isn't.

Season|PLAYER|POS|Franch.|ESGA|ESGF|TOT ES MIN| TOT ES MIN per ESGA |TOT ES MIN per ESGF|DIF
||||||| ||
1970|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|44|45|1061.64| 24.13 |23.59|0.54
1971|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|49|58|1123.28| 22.92 |19.37|3.56
1972|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|51|73|1261.49| 24.74 |17.28|7.45
1973|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|59|91|1220.23| 20.68 |13.41|7.27
1974|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|36|71|1107.49| 30.76 |15.60|15.17
1975|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|19|98|1193.60| 62.82 |12.18| 50.64
1976|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|22|105|1124.88| 51.13 |10.71| 40.42
1977|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|46|85|1149.84| 25.00 |13.53|11.47
1978|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|33|80|1076.33| 32.62 |13.45|19.16
1979|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|53|65|1139.68| 21.50 |17.53|3.97
1980|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|44|86|1050.17| 23.87 |12.21|11.66
1981|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|45|62|1052.72| 23.39 |16.98|6.41
1982|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|40|68|872.53| 21.81 |12.83|8.98
1983|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|46|83|1068.80| 23.23 |12.88|10.36
1984|CLARKE, BOBBY|C|PHI|42|65|882.94| 21.02 |13.58|7.44
15||||629|1135|16385.61| 26.05 |14.44|11.61
||||||| ||

Those are probably the best numbers I have ever seen for even strength goals against. Saying Clarke wasn't one of the best ever is strange. Especially considering he is widely considered to be a leader on par with the best ever, a gritty player who would agitate you take stupid penalties to help his team, a tough as nails mofo, one of the best defensive forwards ever to play the game, and had a heart as big as anybody. The guy used to eat tons of candy bars between periods just to load up on sugar to quiet his diabetes down. 3 Hart Trophies and a Pearson.

He was also an innovative scorer, being the first player to consistently make plays from behind the net. A technique later perfected by Gretzky.

Sorry. He was one of the best ever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Those are probably the best numbers I have ever seen for even strength goals against. Saying Clarke wasn't one of the best ever is strange. Especially considering he is widely considered to be a leader on par with the best ever, a gritty player who would agitate you take stupid penalties to help his team, a tough as nails mofo, one of the best defensive forwards ever to play the game, and had a heart as big as anybody. The guy used to eat tons of candy bars between periods just to load up on sugar to quiet his diabetes down. 3 Hart Trophies and a Pearson.

He was also an innovative scorer, being the first player to consistently make plays from behind the net. A technique later perfected by Gretzky.

Sorry. He was one of the best ever.

You guys have seen so much video, do you recall the game in Boston when Clarke is in front of the net and he takes a shot off the melon? Everyone is looking for the puck, but it went off Clarke's head and into the crowd. Without taking either hand off his stick, Clarke shakes his head and a couple of seconds later the blood starts streaming down the side of his face. He skates over to the faceoff circle and gets ready to take the draw. One of the linesmen comes over and must have said, "get off the ice, ya nut case". He looks to the bench and skates off, seeming dejected.

 

[mcphee]

Thats an understatement. Some Habs fan tried to rip off the Cup from Chicago Stadium durring one of the games from the 72 finals claming "I'm taking it home where it belongs" because the Habs were loosing.

It wasn't some, I believe it was one particular guy who did in fact make off with it. I'm sure someone here has the details, as I remember reading an old article in a black n white hockey magazine many years ago. That was 61 though as I remember the story.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1962

It wasn't some, I believe it was one particular guy who did in fact make off with it. I'm sure someone here has the details, as I remember reading an old article in a black n white hockey magazine many years ago. That was 61 though as I remember the story.

1962 play-offs. Related to sobriety issues based on various accounts.

 

[mcphee]

1962 play-offs. Related to sobriety issues based on various accounts.

I used to devour those old Hockey Illustrated magazines as a kid, and I can still see the guy in the article.

 

[Patrick96]

stan mikita, simple..

 

[pvr]

There is no denying that Bobby Clarke was an excellent hockey player. I remember him to be completely annoying...the kind of player you hated if he wasn't on your team (and loved if he was). Seems to me that a modern player comparison to Clarke would be Doug Gilmour, another annoying player with perhaps a bit more offensive skill, somewhat equal determination, and maybe a bit less leadership than Clarke.

It's a tough choice between Clarke and Mikita, but for most of the reasons stated above, Mikita wins here by a slim margin.