Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Overall league quality, quality of play. Not sure how to answer it given your choices to be honest.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 21
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
Batis
Registered User
It really is a shame that the Izvestia Golden Stick award was introduced as late as in 78/79. Had that award been around throughout the entire 70´s it would be really helpful when comparing the top Soviets and Czechoslovaks of that decade. For what it is worth here are the results of Maltsev and Martinec in the limited part of their careers covered by the Izvestia Golden Stick voting. With their voting shares in parenthesis.
Maltsev: 2nd in 80/81 (0.330) and 10th in 79/80 (0.060)
Martinec: 7th in 78/79 (0.057), 7th in 80/81 (0.084) and 11th in 79/80 (0.055)
Maltsevs total voting share in the Izvestia Golden Stick voting is 0.390 while Martinec managed to get a total voting share of 0.196. This does of course not tell us that much considering how much of both player primes happened before 78/79.
But it is perhaps worth noting that Martinec in his last Golden Hockey Stick winning season in 78/79 only finished 7th in the Izvestia Golden Stick voting behind 6 Soviet players. Considering the dominance of the Soviets during that season this should perhaps not come as a surprise but still it suggests that in one of his Golden Hockey Stick winning seasons Martinec may not have been a top-5 player in Europe and that it for example most certainly is a less impressive season than Maltsevs 80/81 season where he finished 2nd in both the SPOTY and the Izvestia voting.
When it comes to comparing their whole careers I have Maltsev ahead of Martinec by a small but clear margin. I would say that Maltsev peaked every bit as high (if not even higher) in the early 70´s as Martinec peaked in the mid 70´s and on top of that he has his elite longevity. And while Martinec has very strong award recognition on the international stage he is still clearly behind Maltsev in that regard. Here is their WHC All-Star voting records again for a direct comparison.
Maltsev: 2nd in 80/81 (0.330) and 10th in 79/80 (0.060)
Martinec: 7th in 78/79 (0.057), 7th in 80/81 (0.084) and 11th in 79/80 (0.055)
Maltsevs total voting share in the Izvestia Golden Stick voting is 0.390 while Martinec managed to get a total voting share of 0.196. This does of course not tell us that much considering how much of both player primes happened before 78/79.
But it is perhaps worth noting that Martinec in his last Golden Hockey Stick winning season in 78/79 only finished 7th in the Izvestia Golden Stick voting behind 6 Soviet players. Considering the dominance of the Soviets during that season this should perhaps not come as a surprise but still it suggests that in one of his Golden Hockey Stick winning seasons Martinec may not have been a top-5 player in Europe and that it for example most certainly is a less impressive season than Maltsevs 80/81 season where he finished 2nd in both the SPOTY and the Izvestia voting.
When it comes to comparing their whole careers I have Maltsev ahead of Martinec by a small but clear margin. I would say that Maltsev peaked every bit as high (if not even higher) in the early 70´s as Martinec peaked in the mid 70´s and on top of that he has his elite longevity. And while Martinec has very strong award recognition on the international stage he is still clearly behind Maltsev in that regard. Here is their WHC All-Star voting records again for a direct comparison.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,163
- 14,494
One thing I've appreciated more throughout this project - how tough a standard the top 100 is.
Potentially all of Norm Ullman, Tony Esposito, Johnny Bower, Bernie Parent and Sid Abel will be excluded from our list (not to mention non-NHLers like Russell Bowie, Jiri Holecek and Alexander Maltsev). Before I sat down to write my initial list, I would have thought that all of them would make it. Ten or fifteen years ago it would have been crazy to suggest that none of these players would qualify.
I'll do a longer post when our list is finalized tomorrow night (or Monday), but we've been privileged to watch so many great players over the past decade, who have given us little choice but to push some excellent players from our 2007 list off of our current one.
I know many (usually younger) posters excitedly write things like "Malkin is top 30 all-time" on the main board. It's easy to make bold claims, but I don't think anybody fully appreciates just how tough a standard the top 100 (or 30, or 50, etc) is, until they sit down and actually try to assemble a list and are forced to make some tough choices.
Potentially all of Norm Ullman, Tony Esposito, Johnny Bower, Bernie Parent and Sid Abel will be excluded from our list (not to mention non-NHLers like Russell Bowie, Jiri Holecek and Alexander Maltsev). Before I sat down to write my initial list, I would have thought that all of them would make it. Ten or fifteen years ago it would have been crazy to suggest that none of these players would qualify.
I'll do a longer post when our list is finalized tomorrow night (or Monday), but we've been privileged to watch so many great players over the past decade, who have given us little choice but to push some excellent players from our 2007 list off of our current one.
I know many (usually younger) posters excitedly write things like "Malkin is top 30 all-time" on the main board. It's easy to make bold claims, but I don't think anybody fully appreciates just how tough a standard the top 100 (or 30, or 50, etc) is, until they sit down and actually try to assemble a list and are forced to make some tough choices.
Last edited:
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Don't get mad if I'm way off base, just a thought I had. How much different is Bernie Parent's case from Pavel Bure's case?
For a short time was the best in the league at what they do. Handful of other positive seasons (thought Bure's other seasons are probably closer his best than Parent's are). Bure had more seasons at or near his best.
Both had fantastic playoff runs. Outside of '94, Bure was at or near PPG in his limited other playoff appearances. Parent outside his 2 dominant seasons had some good numbers early on in limited games with the Leafs, and then had average to bad numbers the rest of his career in the playoffs.
To be clear, this is me debating for the final spot on my list of 10 this round.
For a short time was the best in the league at what they do. Handful of other positive seasons (thought Bure's other seasons are probably closer his best than Parent's are). Bure had more seasons at or near his best.
Both had fantastic playoff runs. Outside of '94, Bure was at or near PPG in his limited other playoff appearances. Parent outside his 2 dominant seasons had some good numbers early on in limited games with the Leafs, and then had average to bad numbers the rest of his career in the playoffs.
To be clear, this is me debating for the final spot on my list of 10 this round.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Pre 1967 AHL had deeper overall player talent, coaching and management, team structure and organizational support than the WHA. Resulting in better performance.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
It's a fair number of keystrokes to commit in the quest for a single voting point, but the Cliff's Notes Regular Season argument for Parent over Bure is the "marginality-factor." Pavel Bure had 6 (six) relatively indifferent-looking seasons: 94-95/95-96/96-97/98-99/01-02/02-03. Bernie Parent had 3 (three) such seasons: 65-66/66-67/75-76. [And for those keeping track, number of seasons played is close to equal.]
The "combined-benefit" argument for Parent over Bure is: Parent had one season where one could make a powerful (and I would say pretty conclusive) argument that he was the most significant player in the league, Regular Season & Playoffs combined [73-74], and another season where one could make a similar claim, almost as forcefully [74-75]. I do not believe Bure had any such seasons where one could say the same.
Doesn't seem close, to me.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
The One Where I Address Things Practically
First, I'm not getting a good read on whether or not there's significant, waxing sympathy for supporting Russell Bowie as an historical makeweight. Ultimately, I don't think there's any more justification to support Bowie as an historical makeweight than there ought to be for supporting Holoček & Martinec (or Vasiliev & Maltsev) as a regional makeweight. That being said, it is the "History of Hockey" sub-forum, and not the "World of Hockey" sub-forum- so I just don't know. We've had some shifts in our perspective after discussion... but if there are no major ones this go-round, I suspect that how we handle Eddie Gerard and Sid Abel on our collective ballots will ultimately determine who becomes the 100th and last player on our list. Gerard out-polled Abel last ballot- and The Panel has been really kind to Defensemen who don't attract negatives. But, absent any last minute revelations, it will be Sid Abel above Eddie Gerard on MY ballot.
Gerard will be on my ballot. I won't be slapping an 'NR' on him. But he won't be as high as Abel.
First, I'm not getting a good read on whether or not there's significant, waxing sympathy for supporting Russell Bowie as an historical makeweight. Ultimately, I don't think there's any more justification to support Bowie as an historical makeweight than there ought to be for supporting Holoček & Martinec (or Vasiliev & Maltsev) as a regional makeweight. That being said, it is the "History of Hockey" sub-forum, and not the "World of Hockey" sub-forum- so I just don't know. We've had some shifts in our perspective after discussion... but if there are no major ones this go-round, I suspect that how we handle Eddie Gerard and Sid Abel on our collective ballots will ultimately determine who becomes the 100th and last player on our list. Gerard out-polled Abel last ballot- and The Panel has been really kind to Defensemen who don't attract negatives. But, absent any last minute revelations, it will be Sid Abel above Eddie Gerard on MY ballot.
We'll never know if ages 25-26-27 would have been Abel's best seasons (absent from his career because of WWII), but the removal of those years of playing age from Gerard's career would have stripped Gerard of a couple of point-plus per game seasons.
Gerard will be on my ballot. I won't be slapping an 'NR' on him. But he won't be as high as Abel.
ted2019
History of Hockey
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,920
- 6,348
I get what you're trying to say here, and partly agree material wise, but how is 95–96 (15 games) and 98–99 (11 games) even seasons? They're not even close to half a season if you combine them, so how can you draw any seasonal conclusions (positive or negative) from such a small sample size? It doesn't make much sense. And judging Bure on 96–97, when he still suffered the consequences of serious injuries (knees, whiplash) would be the same as judging Selänne on his season in Colorado. 01–02 & 02–03 he looked done. 94–95 (the lockout year) was a dud, probably some kind of hangover from the 94 playoffs. Turned it on big time in the first round of the playoffs against St. Louis but then didn't do anything in the 2nd round against Chicago.
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,920
- 6,348
I think you can make a case for 93–94. Fedorov and Graves were obviously better in the regular season, and Leetch in the playoffs, but regular season/playoffs combined.... hm?
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
Rather a case of "sauce-for-the-goose."
Bure's 1995-96 (15 games) ~ Parent's 1966-67 (18 games)
Bure's 1998-99 (11 games) ~ Parent's 1975-76 (11 games)
If you wish to equalize for the abbreviated seasons, the ratio shifts even more favorably to Parent-
(i.e.: instead of 6-3, we're now talking 4-1).
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Why are "relatively indifferent looking seasons" an important metric here? Shouldn't "difference maker seasons" be more so?
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
Yeah- you got a point there...
When your team skates away with The Big Trophy... and your play is the single biggest reason they do so-- well, you can't ask for a more significant difference-maker than that.
Cup-Counting isn't quite so specious anymore if YOU are the most indispensable factor in having the opportunity to celebrate those Cups...
When your team skates away with The Big Trophy... and your play is the single biggest reason they do so-- well, you can't ask for a more significant difference-maker than that.
Cup-Counting isn't quite so specious anymore if YOU are the most indispensable factor in having the opportunity to celebrate those Cups...
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
OK, sure. But we're talking 2 high end peak seasons, and then what else? (Not being cheeky, seriously asking)
Bure's got 4 high end elite goal scoring seasons, plus 3-4 other good-great seasons, though not all of them full seasons (ex 92, 02 GP in the 60's).
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
Agreed, but on the other hand, if the knock on Maltsev is that he wasn't as good against the 'good teams' (like Canada, Czechoslovakia) as many other European stars, and thus he is clearly behind e.g. Mikhailov (even though Maltsev has a much superior international awards record), wouldn't that also apply here? Martinec was an acknowledged good performer against the Soviets, and I haven't noticed him having had much problems against top-notch North American teams either.
Personally, I would rank Maltsev slightly above Martinec too. But just sayin'.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
I had a go at answering that question on this page (post 118), but your question was more metrically addressed by [U]Hockey Outsider[/U] in post #141 (which would be the previous page of this thread).
You'll find him in Position 101 on my Prelim List. As you can imagine, I'd rather be discussing him than many of the others we're talking about right now. On the other hand, I'm not heartbroken about him missing the list.
Right, that is the case for Martinec. By putting Mikhailov ahead of Maltsev / Martinec, a precedent has been established that the voters also evaluate a style of play and success against top teams. That´s why Mikhailov was voted in, while we´re still only discussing a case for Maltsev in spite of his superior points scored overall plus his award recognition.
Maltsev scored 13 points (6+7) in 24 games; 0.54 ppg versus Czechoslovakia which is lower ppg rate than the likes of Makarov, Mikhailov, Firsov, Balderis, Krutov, Petrov (ppg between 0.87-1.00 among these players), and also lower than Kharlamov, Larionov (ppg between 0.71-0.75).
I believe Martinec registered 15 points in 24 games (0.63 ppg) against Soviet Union, which is better than Maltsev, albeit by only two points. Thing is... only two other Czechoslovaks had higher ppg than Martinec versus Soviets. First one would be Jozef Golonka (0.88 ppg from 9 games during 1959-69), and second one would be Milan Novy (0.67 from 15 games during 1975-1982). Martinec ranks almost certainly 3rd best in ppg rate versus the Soviets which is a lot better than Maltsev at 15th among the Soviets. Furthermore, Novy entered the National Team later when he was 24 and when he was pretty much fully developed as a player so he didn´t have those initial 'filler' championships and games with USSR at ages 19-21/22 playing in the 3rd line with limited ice-time like Martinec to some extent had. Martinec was essentially a ppg player versus USSR between 1972-1977. That only leaves us Golonka as an outlier.
Maltsev has similarly underwhelming stats versus all the "NHL / WHA / Team Canada" teams. He scored 33 (13+20) points in 40 games, 0.83 ppg. Soviet Players who scored at higher ppg rate against North American teams include: Krutov, Petrov, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Makarov (ppg between 1.13-1.26 among these players), Kapustin, Balderis, Mikhailov (ppg between 0.90-1.00).
It´s a shame that I can´t provide a precise stats table of Martinec versus NA teams. I think Czech wiki used to have goals + assists listed at their hockey pages but it´s no longer the case and I couldn´t find other sources which would have listed all of the points recorded at the various tournaments, series, one-off games (only goals scored).. That being said, I´m fairly certain that Martinec had a great record versus NA, and better than Maltsev´. What do we have at the moment? All I know is this:
Martinec had 3 assists in 3 games vs. Canada at Canada Cup 1976.
Had 1 point (either goal or assist) in post-Summit Series 1972 game vs. Canada.
Zero points in post-Summit Series 1974 game vs. WHA Canada.
4 points in 4 games vs. NHL teams (1+3). This was the Superseries 1978, Tesla Pardubice played Philadelphia, Detroit, Minnesota, Islanders.
Scored 2 goals in 3 games vs. WHA Winnipeg Jets in 1975 and 1976. No assists data available, Czechs won 6:1, 3:1, 3:2. Rudé Právo (Czech press) and Bobby Kromm (Jets coach) both spoke about Martinec as the best player in these games.
Recorded at least 2 points in 1 game vs. WHA Quebec Nordiques in 1977 (6:2 win for CSSR).
Likely zero points vs. Canada in 2 games WHC 1977. I don´t have data for assists, but Martinec´s linemates didn´t score either.
At WHC 1978, Martinec didn´t score a goal and assists data are unknown to me, but his linemates scored 2 goals in 2 games vs. Canada.
I do have complete game reports for the WHC 1979 and Martinec had 3 points (1+2) in 2 games vs. Canada.
Did not play against Canada at OG 1980.
Scored 1 goal in 2 games vs. Canada at WHC 1981. His linemates scored 3 additional goals...
I´m not including games against other lower quality WHA teams such as Cincinnati Stingers, not including various pre-WHC exhibition games, pre-Canada Cup exhibition game, several exhibition games vs. Canadian National Team in 1969/70, which were Martinec´s first international experience.... where Martinec always scored, and he scored in between 10-20 goals with an unknown amount of assists in these less indicative games. I´ve checked the website that has listed every CSSR national team game with lineups and goals scored, Martinec was surprisingly extremely productive in these exhibition games.
Overall, I have to assume that Martinec´s ppg rate against NA teams should be higher than Maltsev´s 0.83. In my estimation, Martinec´ ppg would range between 0.90-1.00. With regards to today´s final voting, it is definitely defensible position to prefer Martinec over Maltsev based on the Czech´s better two-way play and better statistical record against top opponents (USSR / Czechoslovakia; North American teams) in the same spirit as Mikhailov was prefered to Maltsev as well.
Last edited:
That's an interesting opinion as the AHL scoring leader in 1966-67 was a 26 year old Gord Labossiere with 95 points.
The same player aged 35 in 75-76 WHA scored 55 points good for a tie at 59th in the WHA.
75-76 WHA top 10 scorers also look vastly more talented than 1966 AHL.
AHL 1966-67 League Leaders at hockeydb.com
WHA 1975-76 League Leaders at hockeydb.com
His best placing in the WHA was 9th in 72-73 aged 33.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Yet there is very little empirical evidence to back up this subjective view.
In fact most of the evidence points to the other direction.
How exactly would that help considering the comparison was AHL 1966 to WHA 1976?
