Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 16

Status
Not open for further replies.

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
Games played matter. That link you provided shows Fedorov at 1st in points... And 16th in points per game (14th among forwards who played 10+ games).

Sure but it's not actually a negative that Fedorov was clearly the force on his team by going deep those 4 years?

It's exceptional given his defensive play.

Even among 50+ game players, he's way behind Sakic and Jagr. Behind Lindros and Forsberg as well.

Some pretty good company there.

Federov was a great playoff performer of course, but I don't think that table shows what you think it does.


The table shows the gap between Fedorov and his next best team mate.

As for GP it's not like Bentley doesnt have some benefit with GP and the small number of teams in that sample.

There were 9 players from only 2 teams in the Bentley sample and Teeder was there with him.

In the Fedorov sample there are 4 different teams represented in the top 10.

I think it shows quite clearly that Bentley doesn't stand above Fedorov in the playoffs this round and it's not really close either.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
But Joliat was consistently great and put up overall offensive results much better than Fedorov's.

I don't agree with this and for what's worth the top 40 playoff perfomers of all time Fedorov showed up 34th.

Joliat didn't make the list and I'm not sure where he would be on the aggregate list?
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
“Fantastic two-way player, long productive career, lots of star power.”

Sounds like Fedorov, except this guy was 136 lbs. At that size he isn’t making the show in Fedorov’s era, or today. Drop Fedorov in his era and I’m thinking Bobby Orr-like dominance. Got me scratching my head about what exactly “Top 100” is supposed to be. To me, it’s not this.

Luckily it's probably only going to be one player that really sticks out that far in the group.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
I'm not intetested in getting involved in a tit-for-tat with anyone who only comments when a modern Red Wing is involved.

But Joliat was consistently great and put up overall offensive results significantly better than Fedorov's.

I’m not really interested in getting involved with someone who pretends the two eras are an apples to apples comparison with offensive results (staring at stats) as the main factor. I made the mistake of commenting again in a project that so often does peer to peer comparisons while disregarding what and who their peers actually were.

I would take the 200 lb. centre who looks like a thoroughbred on skates over a 136 lb. winger any day. In all likelihood Fedorov was a superior athlete and seeing them on the ice together might be cringe worthy.

It’s quite preposterous to dissect so much about players EXCEPT for the fact that the NHL was a very different league post 1990 versus the 1920’s and 1930’s. And that’s not just for my favorite Red Wings players, it’s across the board. Gotta get away from pretending each era should carry the same weight because it doesn’t make sense.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,105
1,391
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Suppose now would be a good time to share some additional thoughts about Sergei Fedorov- before the polls open and we head off for our latest balloting:

Sergei Fedorov started playing professional hockey around age 17. With CSKA, he was playing Center on a depth chart that included Prime Larionov and Prime Bykov. Whatever else was being asked of him, it's safe to suppose that he's wasn't asked to be a scoring-menace Forward. For the next two (still teenage, mind you) years, this continued. I won't strenuously argue with anyone who claims that we're not talking about an NHL-caliber player, yet.

Things changed a bit in 1989-90, after Larionov departed for NHL-Vancouver and Fedorov moved up the depth-chart. I'd say this year marks the time that we could consider Fedorov NHL-caliber. This goes a long way to explaining the near-breathless excitement in Detroit when they made the appropriate espionage-style moves needed to draw him into their fold. They had to have believed then that they were not just acquiring a potential future NHL-star, but an immediate impact NHL-ready multi-purpose threat.

Aurèle Joliat has been rightly praised for his longevity, by the standards of his era. Sergei Fedorov should be praised for his longevity, by the standards of any era. Jari Kurri has been rightly praised for his ability to cover the central portion of the ice on defense. Sergei Fedorov should be praised for his ability to cover, oh, just about any portion of the ice to which he's assigned, when indicated by the coaching staff. [His stints on Defense have been discussed, but he's also had measurable service at Right Wing.] Max Bentley's has been rightly praised for his playoff performance. Sergei Fedorov's playoff excellence is more easily documented [I understand that's no fault of Bentley's]- and also carries with it the reassurance of so many more data-points.

I'd earlier had the thought-exercise of: If I was an Owner offering a Career Services contract/If I was a Coach under contract for the next five years/If I was GM on the hot-seat and could choose someone's white-hot Peak because the demand was for an immediate Cup run/If I was a checking line Winger who's destined to be the guy's teammate for three years. How does Fedorov look through these lenses?

Owner/Career Services: what's not to like? Class of the field here. Oh- what about the holdout, you might say? Well, his holdout was as a Restricted Free Agent. It's not like he signed a contract he didn't honor.

As Coach: again, what's not to like? He can be your prime scoring threat. He can be your perennial Selke-candidate shut-down forward. He can take shifts on RW or D, if you want. He'll man your Power-Play. He'll play your Penalty-Kill. Maybe he'll irritate you by getting into a signing-squabble with the front-office... but that's the only down-side I see.

As hot-seat GM (Peak): doesn't that 93-96 span look really good here, if that's what you want?

As a checking-line teammate: hey, you might be playing alongside him on the Penalty-Kill! And- given how effectively he'll hold up his end, how cool would that be?! Ah, maybe his focus might drift during the proverbial early-January regular-season trip to Phoenix... but you also know he's not likely to try to glory-poach at the expense of defense, and you also know that he'll bring it, big-time, when Spring starts.

I don't expect to change anybody's minds with this summary... but at least if someone wonders "how can that BlackHawks/Flyers fan be so high on a player that I had much lower on the list than he did (or left off the list altogether)," you'll have something of an answer.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
Suppose now would be a good time to share some additional thoughts about Sergei Fedorov- before the polls open and we head off for our latest balloting:

Sergei Fedorov started playing professional hockey around age 17. With CSKA, he was playing Center on a depth chart that included Prime Larionov and Prime Bykov. Whatever else was being asked of him, it's safe to suppose that he's wasn't asked to be a scoring-menace Forward. For the next two (still teenage, mind you) years, this continued. I won't strenuously argue with anyone who claims that we're not talking about an NHL-caliber player, yet.

Things changed a bit in 1989-90, after Larionov departed for NHL-Vancouver and Fedorov moved up the depth-chart. I'd say this year marks the time that we could consider Fedorov NHL-caliber. This goes a long way to explaining the near-breathless excitement in Detroit when they made the appropriate espionage-style moves needed to draw him into their fold. They had to have believed then that they were not just acquiring a potential future NHL-star, but an immediate impact NHL-ready multi-purpose threat.

Aurèle Joliat has been rightly praised for his longevity, by the standards of his era. Sergei Fedorov should be praised for his longevity, by the standards of any era. Jari Kurri has been rightly praised for his ability to cover the central portion of the ice on defense. Sergei Fedorov should be praised for his ability to cover, oh, just about any portion of the ice to which he's assigned, when indicated by the coaching staff. [His stints on Defense have been discussed, but he's also had measurable service at Right Wing.] Max Bentley's has been rightly praised for his playoff performance. Sergei Fedorov's playoff excellence is more easily documented [I understand that's no fault of Bentley's]- and also carries with it the reassurance of so many more data-points.

I'd earlier had the thought-exercise of: If I was an Owner offering a Career Services contract/If I was a Coach under contract for the next five years/If I was GM on the hot-seat and could choose someone's white-hot Peak because the demand was for an immediate Cup run/If I was a checking line Winger who's destined to be the guy's teammate for three years. How does Fedorov look through these lenses?

Owner/Career Services: what's not to like? Class of the field here. Oh- what about the holdout, you might say? Well, his holdout was as a Restricted Free Agent. It's not like he signed a contract he didn't honor.

As Coach: again, what's not to like? He can be your prime scoring threat. He can be your perennial Selke-candidate shut-down forward. He can take shifts on RW or D, if you want. He'll man your Power-Play. He'll play your Penalty-Kill. Maybe he'll irritate you by getting into a signing-squabble with the front-office... but that's the only down-side I see.

As hot-seat GM (Peak): doesn't that 93-96 span look really good here, if that's what you want?

As a checking-line teammate: hey, you might be playing alongside him on the Penalty-Kill! And- given how effectively he'll hold up his end, how cool would that be?! Ah, maybe his focus might drift during the proverbial early-January regular-season trip to Phoenix... but you also know he's not likely to try to glory-poach at the expense of defense, and you also know that he'll bring it, big-time, when Spring starts.

I don't expect to change anybody's minds with this summary... but at least if someone wonders "how can that BlackHawks/Flyers fan be so high on a player that I had much lower on the list than he did (or left off the list altogether)," you'll have something of an answer.

I’m definitely biased but I watched his whole career in Detroit and kept a good eye on him afterwards and he was just so much more than points. He could gain the offensive zone on his own like it was nothing. Shanahan stated this around Fedorov’s HHOF ceremony, basically stating that the game plan was often “just give it to Sergei and let him skate it up the ice”. Then of course, like you pointed out, how versatile he was, and what a 200’ player.

People can say he wasn’t always as productive offensively as he could have been but he wasn’t cutting corners defensively, and playing in that Detroit system during his prime was a huge factor as well. The holdout had a lot to do with being tired of sacrificing ice-time and numbers for the team when he knew he could do more. Yet when he did stay with Detroit he honored the contract and kept being a good teammate for many years and was a key cog in two more Cups.

An aside but try watching his HHOF speech. The guy was pure class, closing with how he now wants to give back to the game he loves.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,830
3,777
Don't you find it weird that the season after Bowmans retirement Fedorov jumped back up to being a PPG+ player again?

No doubt Bowman often reined in his players, but I think the team declining somewhat (and therefore playing Fedorov more), and a contract year has a lot more to do with it to be honest.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
Posting where a player ranks over a period of seasons while ignoring per-game dominance is a classic move.

I guess being by far the best forward in the playoffs over a 4 year stretch is good for Bentley (who actually shared this with a team mate) but a negative for Fedorov?

That appears to be a double standard here, right?

That's the problem when some here are trying to downplay how good and consistent Fedorov was in the playoffs.

Fedorov was 34th on the all time playoff list, Kurri 33rd on a really heavy 06 list.

Bentley and Joliat don't show up on that list, probably for a reason.

Dickie Moore doesn't make that top 40 and is already in.

Now I have some problems with that playoff list, Esposito being on it the most glaring, but a lot of those voters are here in this project as well.

Did he really do anything of more value than Fedorov in his short peak/prime?

Not likely.
 
Last edited:

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,185
933
When it comes to elite players, I don't think it's about valuing goals more than assists, or vice versa. Points are points. What we should value is balance. Players with diverse skill sets who utilize them at all times. Players who aren't predictable. I think a guy who's 40-60-100 is slightly preferable to a guy who's 20-80-100 or 65-35-100.

I'm still high on the 70-40-110 guy anyways. :)

But really, the 20-80-100 guy and 65-35-100 guy are just as good if the results appear "portable" (i.e. they can reproduce similar results with a variety of linemates, or on a lesser team.) While assessing hockey players involves a web of interdependent variables, I tend to rank the players who are shown to be more independent variables compared to others.

It's one of the things that makes me lower on Dickie Moore than Brett Hull, and why I am more for Durnan than Broda, in spite of the fact that I'm a playoff guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,354
Cy Denneny Playoffs, Part 2

1924: Ottawa was defeated for the NHL championship by Montreal, 5-2 on total goals. Denneny scored the only two Senators goals, so it looks like his team let him down in this one. Clint Benedict seems to have received much of the blame.

1926: It was Ottawa versus the Maroons for the NHL championship, and Montreal were the winners, 2-1 total goals. This was a notable upset. Denneny didn't record any points.

1927: Ottawa defeated the Canadiens in the semi-final, 5-1 on goals. Denneny was said to have scored a nice goal in the first game. He seems to have been in top form in the Final against Boston. He scored the insurance goal in a 3-1 Ottawa win in Game 2. He scored the tying goal in Game 3 (finished a 1-1 tie), and then scored two goals in the decisive Game 4 (3-1 Ottawa win). King Clancy seems to have been Ottawa's best player by now, but Denneny might have been their top forward in this particular Cup win.

1928: Denneny seems to have gone from upper-echelon scorer to insignificant substitute almost overnight. He dressed for Ottawa's two playoff game, but it is unclear whether he even left the bench at all in the series (the Trail claims that he did not during the first game in particular).

1929: Denneny, now in Boston, is listed as a sub for three of their playoff games, but it is again unclear whether or not he actually participated.


Conclusion: Denneny's playoff career can almost be split in two, it seems. In the earlier days, there's really no evidence that he was of particular importance to Ottawa. As @BenchBrawl concluded when going through the detailed newspaper accounts from the time period, the other star players on Ottawa simply get much more mention and accolades than Denneny. Nighbor, Darragh, the defensemen, Benedict, even Punch Broadbent are mentioned as the keys to success more often than Denneny is.

Denneny does seem to have stepped up and filled the void as these great Ottawa players got old and/or moved on. They probably don't get past Montreal in 1923 without him, and he was instrumental to their Cup win in 1927, despite being at the end of his career.

How we view Denneny's regular season resume in light of this is open to interpretation. He was always at the top of the scoring race and looks great on the surface. But with the caveat that it's a small sample size, the recounting of playoff games from 1918-22 would suggest it's possible, if not probable, that Denneny was a benefactor of the great players around him and the stats overstate his case. In his defense though, he may indeed have been a Joe Malone-level player who was simply surrounded by even greater teammates. He did continue producing in the regular season and seemed to become more prominent in the playoffs even as Ottawa slowly declined throughout the mid 1920's.

At this point, I think I must rate Denneny 5th out of the five players who played the majority of their relevant seasons on (near)dynasties when it comes to playoff performance. Jari Kurri's scoring prowess, consistency, and defensive role on one of the best center-winger combos ever give him the edge. Fedorov was indispensable as the two-way threat of the great Red Wings teams, and was probably their playoff MVP of the 1990s decade. Bentley and Broda were clearly next in line on the Leafs dynasty after Kennedy. Denneny strikes me as closer to being "only" a Glenn Anderson, Brendan Shanahan, or Harry Watson equivalent in terms of general importance.
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,185
933
I don't want to gloss over this.

My take on Gardiner's career: When he arrived with the Blackhawks, they stunk, and he was great. This continued at least through 1931, the year the Canadiens brought Gardiner into their Cup celebrations, after he was the goaltender on the losing team. That season, Gardiner had been voted 1st Team All-Star, despite not having the best GAA.

By the time Chicago won the Cup in 1934, they were actually a strong defensive team. They brought in HHOF defensive coach Tommy Gorman at the beginning of the 1932-33 season and started to run a traplike system. I realize Gorman left after the season, but it would seem the players kept playing something similar. They also had Lionel Conacher (who left after 1933-34) and Art Coulter (who had his first great season in 1934-35, according to voters).

____

Re: 1934-35, a few things:

1) HHOF defensive defenseman Art Coulter played in front of Chabot and finished 3rd in Hart voting.

2) Lorne Chabot (Gardiner's replacement) is often listed as one of the best goalies not in the HHOF. He was definitely better than Gerry O'Neil, the guy who replaced Durnan until Plante established himself.

3) Gardiner's death more or less began something of a dark age for NHL goalies that lasted until Brimsek and Broda came of age a few years later. Probably not coincidentally, the trend of the 1st Team All-Star always going to the starter who led the league in GAA begun (and wouldn't end until Glenn Hall broke it).

The good defensive results pre-date Gorman as well. Chicago goes from 10th to 2nd in GA after a few personnel changes in 1929-30. The Hawks buy the gigantic-for-the-time 225 pound Taffy Abel from New York where he had been Ching Johnson's partner, and had won a Cup. Abel and Johnson were largely responsible for Lester Patrick's goalie win in the Finals as they were defensive unit that limited their opponents to 3 shots on goal. They get Duke Dukowski back, though he is listed as a forward on H-R, and name him captain. They dig up an ancient Helge Bostrom who had been a defender for the Edmonton Eskimos and Vancouver Maroons in 1920s Stanley Cup appearances.

Of the 1929 Hawks D corps, Cy Wentworth remains. Other H-R listed defenders are Clem Loughlin, Alex McKinnon, and Val Hoffinger - who all never play in the NHL again. (Neither does Herb Gardiner after 1929, but hard to blame him at that age, and he was loaned to them in exchange for Art Lesieur - the only defender besides Wentworth who stuck around the NHL for a while.)

Anyways, it's tough to credit Gorman when Chicago had similarly good defensive results with coaches Shaughnessy, Tobin, Irvin (who player-coached the last days of 29 debacle), Tobin again, and Iverson, before Gorman took over.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,826
16,556
No issue with Abel, who was a pretty competent (if extremely slow) D-Men, but every team had an Abel-equivalent.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,354
I guess being by far the best forward in the playoffs over a 4 year stretch is good for Bentley (who actually shared this with a team mate) but a negative for Fedorov?

That appears to be a double standard here, right?

That's the problem when some here are trying to downplay how good and consistent Fedorov was in the playoffs.

Fedorov was 34th on the all time playoff list, Kurri 33rd on a really heavy 06 list.

Bentley and Joliat don't show up on that list, probably for a reason.

Dickie Moore doesn't make that top 40 and is already in.

Now I have some problems with that playoff list, Esposito being on it the most glaring, but a lot of those voters are here in this project as well.

Did he really do anything of more value than Fedorov in his short peak/prime?

Not likely.

While I am not surprised to see you pumping up a modern player as superior to older ones, in this case I actually tend to agree with you on Fedorov getting a little short-changed in this discussion.

I honestly don't see what would make him a significantly worse candidate than Bentley. A lot of people don't love the pedestrian off-peak years Fedorov turned in throughout the late 90s/early 00s, but it's not like Bentley lit the world on fire in most of his Toronto seasons either. Bentley has the higher sustained peak offensively, but Fedorov still scored at a great rate from 1991-1996 while being an excellent all-around player. Chicago-era Bentley was almost certainly not a great two-way player. Reasonable credit being given for two missed war years where Bentley would have likely been an Art Ross contender might be the deciding factor in his favour, but I think these two players have pretty similar cases here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehhedler

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
While I am not surprised to see you pumping up a modern player as superior to older ones, in this case I actually tend to agree with you on Fedorov getting a little short-changed in this discussion.

I honestly don't see what would make him a significantly worse candidate than Bentley. A lot of people don't love the pedestrian off-peak years Fedorov turned in throughout the late 90s/early 00s, but it's not like Bentley lit the world on fire in most of his Toronto seasons either. Bentley has the higher sustained peak offensively, but Fedorov still scored at a great rate from 1991-1996 while being an excellent all-around player. Chicago-era Bentley was almost certainly not a great two-way player. Reasonable credit being given for two missed war years where Bentley would have likely been an Art Ross contender might be the deciding factor in his favour, but I think these two players have pretty similar cases here.

A difference in 7 year VsX between 90.4 and 80.8 is enormous, and that's before you consider that Bentley's score would likely be even higher if he hadn't missed 2 prime years to WW2.

If you don't like VsX, here's a complete list of all FOUR times Fedorov finished TOP 20 in NHL scoring in his entire career:

1994: 2nd
1995: 14th
1996: 9th
2003: 12th

It's an incredibly weak regular season resume for a top 100 player.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
A difference in 7 year VsX between 90.4 and 80.8 is enormous, and that's before you consider that Bentley's score would likely be even higher if he hadn't missed 2 prime years to WW2.

If you don't like VsX, here's a complete list of all FOUR times Fedorov finished TOP 20 in NHL scoring in his entire career:

1994: 2nd
1995: 14th
1996: 9th
2003: 12th

It's an incredibly weak regular season resume for a top 100 player.

sure if you ignore context, ie number of teams and influx of elite non canadian players.

2003 he is behind 5 Canadian players.
1996 he is again behind 5 Canadian players.
1995 he is behind 8 Canadian players.
1994 behind gretzky and the overwhelming Hart player and First line Center all star.

Again no one is arguing about Fedorov being elite offensively, it's his defensive play combined with offense and playoff consistency that are his strengths nd yes he looks very good for this round despite efforts to deny this.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
While I am not surprised to see you pumping up a modern player as superior to older ones, in this case I actually tend to agree with you on Fedorov getting a little short-changed in this discussion.

I honestly don't see what would make him a significantly worse candidate than Bentley. A lot of people don't love the pedestrian off-peak years Fedorov turned in throughout the late 90s/early 00s, but it's not like Bentley lit the world on fire in most of his Toronto seasons either. Bentley has the higher sustained peak offensively, but Fedorov still scored at a great rate from 1991-1996 while being an excellent all-around player. Chicago-era Bentley was almost certainly not a great two-way player. Reasonable credit being given for two missed war years where Bentley would have likely been an Art Ross contender might be the deciding factor in his favour, but I think these two players have pretty similar cases here.

Agree with the second paragraph no idea on why the first paragraph is necessary as I provided lots of context for Fedorov, something you seem to agree on right?
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,354
A difference in 7 year VsX between 90.4 and 80.8 is enormous, and that's before you consider that Bentley's score would likely be even higher if he hadn't missed 2 prime years to WW2.

If you don't like VsX, here's a complete list of all FOUR times Fedorov finished TOP 20 in NHL scoring in his entire career:

1994: 2nd
1995: 14th
1996: 9th
2003: 12th

It's an incredibly weak regular season resume for a top 100 player.

I guess my view is, would Fedorov have really been an appreciably better player if he scored an extra 10 points or so in most or all of those 1997-2003 seasons? Because then he'd have a bunch of other years where he made it into the top 20 in scoring, and another year up around the top 5. My opinion is, no he wouldn't have been. Detroit could largely cruise through the regular season, roll four lines, and not tax their star players. A lot of the factors that may have depressed Bentley's scoring totals in Toronto could also apply to Fedorov.

Was Bentley's Toronto career better than Fedorov's 1997-onwards career? IMO no, they are quite similar. Bentley's Chicago career compared to Fedorov's pre-1997 career? Maybe an edge to Bentley if he's credited with the missed seasons, but again I think this is a pretty even scenario.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,826
16,556
My 5-man wishlist for next round is made of four active players and Ed Belfour.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,354
Agree with the second paragraph no idea on why the first paragraph is necessary as I provided lots of context for Fedorov, something you seem to agree on right?

I agree with most of the context, up until it became necessary to point out the number of Canadians specifically that Fedorov finished behind in scoring. Considering your position on Anatoli Firsov in the last round was at the negative (ie, Firsov was undeserving) end of the spectrum, lack of Europeans in the NHL from Firsov's career on backwards should not be of any concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
I guess my view is, would Fedorov have really been an appreciably better player if he scored an extra 10 points or so in most or all of those 1997-2003 seasons? Because then he'd have a bunch of other years where he made it into the top 20 in scoring, and another year up around the top 5. My opinion is, no he wouldn't have been. Detroit could largely cruise through the regular season, roll four lines, and not tax their star players. A lot of the factors that may have depressed Bentley's scoring totals in Toronto could also apply to Fedorov.

Was Bentley's Toronto career better than Fedorov's 1997-onwards career? IMO no, they are quite similar. Bentley's Chicago career compared to Fedorov's pre-1997 career? Maybe an edge to Bentley if he's credited with the missed seasons, but again I think this is a pretty even scenario.


I think the biggest difference was Fedorov's decreased PP usage from 97-00 in his prime.

Here is his PPGF the 3 years before and after with GP and age included.
93-94 24 years old 82 GP 51 PPGF
94-95 25 years old 42 24
95-96 26 years old 78 56
96-97 27 years old 74 26
97-98 28 years old 21 12
98-99 29 years old 77 34
99-00 30 years old 68 33
00-01 31 years old 75 54
01-02 32 years old 81 36
02-03 33 years old 80 57

Bentley, while in Toronto from 48-54 to end his career was still 2nd in PPP behind Howe.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...Type=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=ppPoints

I think their is a strong argument for Bentley being the better pure offensive guy (although it's hard to compare usage and competition) but as far as overall player it's clearly Fedorov IMO given his elite peak both in the regular season and playoffs and excellent strong career in both the regular season and playoffs as well.

As I pointed out earlier Fedorov stands alone on his team during that 4 year peak in the playoffs, while Bentley shared the stage with Kennedy.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

And that's only comparing offense, Fedorov brought a lot more to the table than Bentley when looking at more than points.

Honestly for the project to place Henri Richard so much higher over Fedorov, as one noted poster wouldn't have him in his top 120, is really puzzling and maybe people aren't looking at context very closely.

Never mind Firsov, which is a real head scratcher compared to Fedorov.

Or maybe Fedorov suffers from the we saw him play and expected so much more, who knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
I agree with most of the context, up until it became necessary to point out the number of Canadians specifically that Fedorov finished behind in scoring.

I think the fact that so many non Canadians were elite in the 90's when fedorov played and his top 5,10,20 scoring is relevant when comparing to Bentley.

It's fair to compare apples to apples, right?

Considering your position on Anatoli Firsov in the last round was at the negative (ie, Firsov was undeserving) end of the spectrum, lack of Europeans in the NHL from Firsov's career on backwards should not be of any concern.

No idea on what you are trying to say here as the situations are completely different.

What is important for every player being considered is context, ie level of competition each player is being judged on.

Certainly we can all agree on that principle right?
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,354
Fedorov scoring 10 more points per season for 5 seasons... well, if everything else is equal, its QUITE a difference and he's probably already voted in (or just about to be).

Why is it "quite a difference" though? There is no reason to believe the Red Wings' fortunes would have seen any uptick if Fedorov had 10 extra random points scattered throughout those regular seasons. Chances are most of them would be points on unnecessary extra goals in games that were already decided. The basis for this claim: Fedorov was held pointless in a game between 38% and 43% of time every season from 1996-97 to 2002-03. It seems the main reason he got those coveted extra 10 points in 2002-03 is by adding in some extra points in blowouts (contract year presumably the motivation to do so), because he was held scoreless in 38% of the games that year, similar range as the six years before.

It comes down to the individual voter to decide to how big of a negative the selective effort is. Given that his scoring immediately increased in the playoffs after all those seasons and his team went on to win the Stanley Cup in three of them, I myself can pretty much excuse it entirely.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
Fedorov scoring 10 more points per season for 5 seasons... well, if everything else is equal, its QUITE a difference and he's probably already voted in (or just about to be).

Well for PPP he went from 57 in 240 GP ages 27-30 which is 19/82 GP up to
112 in 316 GP ages 31-34 which is a 29/82 GP rate.

And it's not like he wasn't capable, as we saw in the playoffs, it was more Bowman playing games with him.

In the playoffs over that same period of time he led the Wings in points with 57 to Yzerman's 54

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

And it looks like Bowman changed Fedorov's PP usage in the playoffs when it mattered
http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...r=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,assists

He had 23 PPP compared to Yzerman's 22 in that frame.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
Why is it "quite a difference" though? There is no reason to believe the Red Wings' fortunes would have seen any uptick if Fedorov had 10 extra random points scattered throughout those regular seasons. Chances are most of them would be points on unnecessary extra goals in games that were already decided. The basis for this claim: Fedorov was held pointless in a game between 38% and 43% of time every season from 1996-97 to 2002-03. It seems the main reason he got those coveted extra 10 points in 2002-03 is by adding in some extra points in blowouts (contract year presumably the motivation to do so), because he was held scoreless in 38% of the games that year, similar range as the six years before.

It comes down to the individual voter to decide to how big of a negative the selective effort is. Given that his scoring immediately increased in the playoffs after all those seasons and his team went on to win the Stanley Cup in three of them, I myself can pretty much excuse it entirely.


See my previous post #204 on this.

Fedorov's scoring wasn't down to his selective effort it was his PP usage under Bowman.

To claim is waht selective effort falls a bit under we saw him play (and his toolbox) how come he didn't score more points.

The answer to this question lies mostly on the feet of Bowman, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad