Top 40 Canucks of all-time Project Discussion

[kmad]

He did have a pretty short tenure in Vancouver all things considered (including the time he missed when he was on the team), but he did have one of the single most dominant seasons any Canuck has ever had in 1995-96, and that has to count for something. You'd think we have a giant list of 50-goal Canucks when he gets dismissed, when in reality he, personally, is half of that list.

Even guys like Bure and Bertuzzi didn't spend all that long a time in Vancouver once the dust settled, but people tend to focus on their peaks, so Mogilny is probably owed that too.

Bure did nothing but peak while he was with Vancouver.

 

[MS]

He did have a pretty short tenure in Vancouver all things considered (including the time he missed when he was on the team), but he did have one of the single most dominant seasons any Canuck has ever had in 1995-96, and that has to count for something. You'd think we have a giant list of 50-goal Canucks when he gets dismissed, when in reality he, personally, is half of that list.

Even guys like Bure and Bertuzzi didn't spend all that long a time in Vancouver once the dust settled, but people tend to focus on their peaks, so Mogilny is probably owed that too.

Most people probably don't perceive that Mogilny played more games as a Canuck than Geoff Courtnall and only a few less than Cliff Ronning.

Somehow some of those early-90s players seem like they were here forever, even though they were short stops relative to their careers in general.

 

[Jyrki21]

Bure did nothing but peak while he was with Vancouver.

Mmmmm, that is kind of revisionist history. Injuries took their toll, but Bure only actually had 3 seasons in Vancouver where he was among league leaders in goal-scoring. He took a lot of heat for his dropoff in goal production in 1994-95. Even his 1995-96 campaign (when Mogilny was acquired) was being considered a disappointment until he was done for the year.

When you adjust for era, his peak goal-scoring years were actually in Florida.

The guy was crazy-talented, but there is a pretty strong nostalgia filter here when people look back at him.

 

[Dissonance]

Using hockey-reference to look solely at what players did as Canucks can help clarify a lot:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Like I was surprised to see that Mason Raymond has played way more games and scored more points as a Canuck than Martin Gelinas did. (If you'd asked me to guess without looking, I would've said the opposite.)

Or that Alex Burrows will be #10 all-time in games played by February.

------

Also, looking at this list, it's going to be really, really hard to put anyone above Henrik and Daniel for #1 and #2. Maybe Linden has a case, but not sure anyone else does. Bure was brilliant, but he only played 428 games to Henrik's 1,039.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Most people probably don't perceive that Mogilny played more games as a Canuck than Geoff Courtnall and only a few less than Cliff Ronning.

Somehow some of those early-90s players seem like they were here forever, even though they were short stops relative to their careers in general.

i think maybe different people will weigh different eras differently. by which i mean, marty gelinas had a couple of really good years. but even though it's not his fault which teams he excelled on, a lot of us would prefer geoff courtnall's 30 goal seasons on canucks teams that mattered over gelinas' 30 goal seasons, which were arguably more impressive factoring for era and team support, on canucks teams that none of us remember. the same would probably apply for a ehrhoff vs. reinhart comparison.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Also, looking at this list, it's going to be really, really hard to put anyone above Henrik and Daniel for #1 and #2. Maybe Linden has a case, but not sure anyone else does. Bure was brilliant, but he only played 428 games to Henrik's 1,039.

I think the debate will start off without Sedin vs. Bure for number 1, and it will probably be a doozy.

Love that people are getting in on the discussion already. Show some real interest here. Tonight I will take a crack at getting a draft of the rules and then put it out for discussion. Once we get that nailed down, we can get the discussion started for realsies.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Forgot to mention, I think it should be ONLY what they did as a Canuck. But if anyone has thoughts on that feel free to speak up.

good thing that knocks Moose off any potential lsit right?


I'm all in btw as being a lifelong Canuck fan and remembering Don Lever actually playing as a Canuck

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think the debate will start off without Sedin vs. Bure for number 1, and it will probably be a doozy.

Love that people are getting in on the discussion already. Show some real interest here. Tonight I will take a crack at getting a draft of the rules and then put it out for discussion. Once we get that nailed down, we can get the discussion started for realsies.

I think Linden would get some traction for #1 as well, maybe Luongo too?

here is a list of the all time Canuck scoring leaders, one can click on the top of each column to sort it out.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

here are goalies

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_goalie

 

[Hardyvan123]

Using hockey-reference to look solely at what players did as Canucks can help clarify a lot:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Like I was surprised to see that Mason Raymond has played way more games and scored more points as a Canuck than Martin Gelinas did. (If you'd asked me to guess without looking, I would've said the opposite.)

Or that Alex Burrows will be #10 all-time in games played by February.

------

Also, looking at this list, it's going to be really, really hard to put anyone above Henrik and Daniel for #1 and #2. Maybe Linden has a case, but not sure anyone else does. Bure was brilliant, but he only played 428 games to Henrik's 1,039.

impact per game, playoffs, excitement level all add to anyone evaluation but Henrik has the career metric that's for sure.

His career as a whole and even playoffs has a much lower valley than Bure or heck even Linden or Stan Smyl too.

Marcus Naslund is a forgotten guy already it seems.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Here is a rough draft of the rules, template stolen from the HoH projects.

1. Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
   • Players should be judged only on their accomplishments as a Vancouver Canuck.
   • Players currently active are eligible, but should be ranked based only on what they have already done
2. Preliminary Discussion Thread
   • Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he/she does not plan on taking part in the voting phase
   • Any Canuck may be discussed
   • Posters are encouraged to share information about players in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
   • Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for Round 2 of Voting
   • Please do NOT rank players outright in the preliminary thread
3. Voting
   • Round 1
     • All participants submit a list of 50 players ranked in order
     • To make it easier to aggregate the submitted lists, please list players using their most commonly used name; e.g. Bobby Schmautz, not Robert Schmautz;
     • Lists may be submitted via PM to myself (or another co-admin if someone is willing)
     • We will be accepting lists until TBD Please PM myself if you can't make this timeframe and would like to participate
     • Players will be assigned a point value on the list based on ranking
     • Players will be awarded 80 points for a 1st place vote down to 1 point for a 80th place vote
     • An aggregate list of the top Canucks will be compiled ranking them in order of the most total points
     • Participants MUST submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible for Round 2
   • Round 2
     • The top 8-10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
     • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
     • Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days. This may be extended the discussion period if it remains active
     • Final voting will occur for two (2) days, via PM
     • If there are major breaks in the Round 2 voting totals, we will add more or less than the targeted 4 or 5 players in certain rounds
     • The number of players available for discussion at once will increase from 8 as we move down the list, based on natural breaks in the aggregate list put together in Round 1
     • Tiebreak procedure: If two players are tied in voting points after a round, the higher ranking will go to the player who was ahead on a greater number of ballots. If they are still tied, it will remain a tie on the final list.
4. Quality Assurance
   • Lists will be subject to an evaluation process
   • The submitter of a questionable list will be given an opportunity to defend or justify any selection under question or to correct errors and resubmit
   • The complete voting record of every participant will be released at the end of the project (maybe?)
5. Participants Code of Conduct
   • Participants must recognize that this is a collaborative project and that we all share the same goals, no matter how much we disagree on individual ranking
   • Participants should treat each other with respect and must not openly question the motivations of other participants

Anything and everything is up for discussion. This is the first time doing this here, we have the freedom to do it any way we see fit.

 

[Regal]

Since this seems to be turning into a preliminary discussion, is there any argument for a top seven that doesn't consist of some combination of the Sedins, Bure, Linden, Naslund, Smyl and Luongo?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Since this seems to be turning into a preliminary discussion, is there any argument for a top seven that doesn't consist of some combination of the Sedins, Bure, Linden, Naslund, Smyl and Luongo?

It's not, really. I'd rather get the rules in order so we can get said discussion thread going. Any thoughts?

 

[Regal]

It's not, really. I'd rather get the rules in order so we can get said discussion thread going. Any thoughts?

My bad. I think the HoH rules list is pretty solid for this. Only issue is a date for submission and whether other people want to be admins for the project I guess? Also, that rules list has us submitting a top 50, but you suggested a top 60 in the OP I believe. A top 60 would probably be better for this type of voting I'm assuming, but someone who's done the HoH ones probably has a better idea.

 

[kmad]

i think maybe different people will weigh different eras differently.

I really hope so. One of the biggest mistakes that The Province's top 100 list made was that it tried to represent every era equally, when in reality the Canucks have been hot garbage for a good majority of their existence. Most of the players on any top list should come from 1991-1996, or the WCE era, or the current team, with a couple of stragglers from the '82 squad, and some outliers from the mid 70s like Boudrias.

 

[Jyrki21]

I really hope so. One of the biggest mistakes that The Province's top 100 list made was that it tried to represent every era equally, when in reality the Canucks have been hot garbage for a good majority of their existence.

Your point about not all eras being equal is still correct, but I just want to point out that the Canucks have basically now been a respectable franchise for about half their existence, even if they had some down years (like literally everyone except Detroit). It has been nothing like the pre-'90s days where they were institutionally bad in a long, long time. I think the "Canucks have been terrible through most of their existence" meme became outdated along with "80 points is good second line production", etc. -- it is frozen in time at the moment before all that stopped being true.

 

[Alan Jackson]

Your point about not all eras being equal is still correct, but I just want to point out that the Canucks have basically now been a respectable franchise for about half their existence, even if they had some down years (like literally everyone except Detroit). It has been nothing like the pre-'90s days where they were institutionally bad in a long, long time. I think the "Canucks have been terrible through most of their existence" meme became outdated along with "80 points is good second line production", etc. -- it is frozen in time at the moment before all that stopped being true.

I agree with this. From 1970 until 1990, it's true that the Canucks franchise had a pretty miserable history: most consecutive losing seasons in North American pro-sports, no 50 goal scorers, no 100 point producers, no major award winners. In the 20 seasons between 1970 and 1990, they missed the playoffs 10 times. The 82 run was a nice blip, but there's not much to be proud of from that period.

In the 24 years since 1990 (has it been that long ?!), they've missed the playoffs just 7 times, and 3 of those were in the Keenan/Messier era which I've wiped from memory.

We've made two trips to the finals in that time. Several Canucks have won NHL awards, we've had a handful of 50 goal scorers and 100 point producers. It's been a pretty decent couple of decades.

Of course, that first Stanley Cup remains elusive, but I don't think our history is as bad as we sometimes suggest.

This sounds like a fun project and I'd be happy to be part of it.

 

[Regal]

I really hope so. One of the biggest mistakes that The Province's top 100 list made was that it tried to represent every era equally, when in reality the Canucks have been hot garbage for a good majority of their existence. Most of the players on any top list should come from 1991-1996, or the WCE era, or the current team, with a couple of stragglers from the '82 squad, and some outliers from the mid 70s like Boudrias.

I think there should be more weight given to players in the more successful eras but I disagree that few players should come from out of those times. The pre-90s era were generally not good, but they still had some decent forwards. For the most part the disparity of the league, lack of top end talent and defense/goaltending were problems, but the forwards were still better than the depth forwards of the WCE and the Sedin eras. Realistically there's only seven forwards since 2000 that are a lock to make the list: Naslund, Bertuzzi, Morrison, the Sedins, Kesler and Burrows, with Cooke probably the only other guy worth looking at. They should make up a good chunk of the defense though. The 90-96 era had more forward depth, but still, with likely 20-25ish forwards in a top 40 list, I don't see how guys like Smyl, Gradin, Tanti, Lever, Sundstrom, Boudrias and Skriko don't make it.

 

[Captain Bowie]

My bad. I think the HoH rules list is pretty solid for this. Only issue is a date for submission and whether other people want to be admins for the project I guess? Also, that rules list has us submitting a top 50, but you suggested a top 60 in the OP I believe. A top 60 would probably be better for this type of voting I'm assuming, but someone who's done the HoH ones probably has a better idea.

We could do either. Whatever people want to do.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i intend to do my research too, but i'm most excited about old-timers telling us about watching guys like kurtenbach and boudrias.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Does anyone have thoughts on the rules or format?

Should we personally rank 50 or 60 in Round 1?

I'm leaning towards 60, I feel I won't have a problem ranking 60 players. If I don't get any feedback on this, I'll just make a call, and get the discussion thread going sooner rather than later. That'll run through the holidays and into the new year at least before we start accepting lists.

 

[MS]

Does anyone have thoughts on the rules or format?

Should we personally rank 50 or 60 in Round 1?

I'm leaning towards 60, I feel I won't have a problem ranking 60 players. If I don't get any feedback on this, I'll just make a call, and get the discussion thread going sooner rather than later. That'll run through the holidays and into the new year at least before we start accepting lists.

60 works. More depth makes for more interesting discussion.