Top 5 year by year in the '60s
- Thread starter Big Phil
- Start date
pappyline
Registered User
We know you are a cup counter & love Beliveau but Beliveau as # 1 in 60 & 61 is ridiculous. Both Hull & Howe were better in 60 and Geoffrion & Mahovlich were better in 61.
Normally, I am heavily critical about Phil's lists, but I'm staying away from this one.
I admit, Phil and I do not see eye-to-eye on how I look at Bourque, Housley, and Park, but I'm staying away from list. Too many great ones.
I admit, Phil and I do not see eye-to-eye on how I look at Bourque, Housley, and Park, but I'm staying away from list. Too many great ones.
pappyline
Registered User
Actually, this list is pretty easy to criticize. The guy just loves certain players. Beliveau ahead of Howe & Mikita in 66???
Last edited:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Pappyline I know you are a Hawk fan, that's okay because they have had some great ones, but you'd have to think while it isnt clear who is the best in the NHL in '60 you'd have to agree that Beliveau is certainly a legit argument. Beliveau missed 10 games and had 7 les points than Hull, not only that but he was a 1st team all-star won the Cup, swept Hull's Hawks and had 7 points in 8 games in the Habs Cup win. 1960 isnt cut and dry by any means, but Beliveau's status at the top can be a very good argument.
Beliveau #1 in '61? Well, that's debatable too, but again there may not be a cut and dry choice. I will agree though that Geoffrion and Mahovlich arent a bad choice at #1 either. I just like the fact that Beliveau had an incredible knack of making the players around him better.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Come on pappy, that isnt too hard swallow though. Look, no way no how anyone is ahead of Hull in '66, he is the first that year to surpass 50 goals and he wins the scoring title by a whopping 19 points. Beliveau is not there on his level that year. Howe and Mikita though didnt have their best years. Hey they were still great, top 5 in scoring, but this was one of the few years where Mikita had a very disapointing playoff. Hull too, but he was just too good to ignore in the regular season.
As for Howe being behind Beliveau well all I can say is that keep in mind that Beliveau was still a great player for the '60s. Howe was too, but he was outpointed by Beliveau, the Red Wings lost in the finals to the Habs and Beliveau scored a couple more points en route to captaining the Cup. Not a big margin of error, but that year, I personally give the edge to Beliveau at #2, just barely.
Pappyline, what is it that you have against Beliveau though? It isnt as if I put Bobby Rousseau (2nd in scoring in '66) ahead of Howe or Mikita
Last edited:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
lol, I had to laugh at Housley there Bundy, although I do have to acknowledge in your private message the other day that you do firmly make strong points in his favour. You are right we have disagreed on some defenseman in the past on these lists prior to this one.
pappyline
Registered User
In 60 Hull won the AR & Howe won the Hart. Beliveau wasn't even the top centre in points that year. Montreal won the cup, not Beliveau. Team mates Henri Richard & Geoffrion had more points than Beliveau in the playoffs. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for Beliveau to be #1 that year.
In 61 Linemate Geoffrion won the AR & Hart plus was the second player in history to score 50 and yet you have Beliveau ahead of him. Why do you not like Boom Boom? I guess you think his success was all due to Beliveau.
In 61 Linemate Geoffrion won the AR & Hart plus was the second player in history to score 50 and yet you have Beliveau ahead of him. Why do you not like Boom Boom? I guess you think his success was all due to Beliveau.
pappyline
Registered User
I have nothing against Beliveau. I think he is one of the best of all time. Just that except for 55-56, there never was a year where he was the best player in the NHL. IMO you put too much emphasis on Cup wins which is a team award & you always give beliveau too much credit for those wins. Mikita had more points in 66 & Howe was only 2 behind. Both Beliveau & Howe had 10 playoff points. I personally have Mikita & Howe ahead of Beliveau that year.
Last edited:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
In '60 Horvath had 6 more points than Beliveau in 8 more games. He was a 2nd team all-star at Centre for a reason, he was not as good as Beliveau, not even in his best year. Hull had a great year but was rapidly bounced out of the playoffs and had one point to boot. Beliveau had a better PPG in the regular season had a 1st team all-star selection and helped the Habs win the Cup. Yes it is a team award, but there are also reasons why the Habs became a dynasty once Beliveau hit his prime, he was a big reason. We can agree he was never a floater out there. Henri Richard and Geoffrion barely trailed Beliveau in regular season points and outpointed him in the playoffs. They arent bad candidates either to be #1-2. '60 is not a cut and dry year.
Neither is '61. I would not argue if Geoffrion is considered #1 that year. Even Mahovlich had the best year of his career too. You want to take those two along with Beliveau and shake them up you might not be wrong which order you put them in, they were simply that close. I guess I like Beliveau's all around game better and his all around offensive package then as well.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Mikita had 1 extra point in 1 extra game that year over Jean. That's just nitpicking. We roll onto the playoffs and see a different side. Mikita has an unusually bad playoff and Beliveau scores 10 points and captains the Habs to the Cup. On paper all around it seems impossible to put Mikita ahead of him. Then we can look at intangibles. Both were great well rounded centers in '66, made their teammates better, had very good leadership and since Mikita was starting to settle down by then they were both candidates for the Lady Byng which Mikita won twice after this. Fairly comparable
pappyline
Registered User
Funny, but when it is not a cut & dried year, Beliveau always comes out on top even when he doesn't win any awards. There is absolutly no justification for putting Beliveau ahead of Geoffrion in 61. To me, Geoffrion is the easy #1 in 61. He scored 50 goals & won both the AR & Hart
Last edited:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Fair enough, like the post before I mentioned that isnt a wrong selection either.
pappyline
Registered User
'Don't like Big Phil's version so will do my own:
59-60
Hull, Howe,Beliveau, Plante, Horvath
60-61
Geoffrion, Mahovolich, Beliveau, Howe, Hall,
61-62
Hull, Howe, Hall, Bathgate, Plante
'62-63
Howe, Bathgate, Hull, Hall, Mikita
'63-64
Hull, Howe, Mikita, Pilote, Beliveau
'64-65
Hull, Mikita, Howe, Pilote, Ullman
'65-66
Hull, Howe, Mikita, Ullman,Beliveau
'66-67
Mikita, Hull, Howe, Ullman, Giacomin
'67-68
Hull, Mikita, Howe, Orr, Esposito
'68-69
Hull, Howe, Orr, Esposito, Hall
59-60
Hull, Howe,Beliveau, Plante, Horvath
60-61
Geoffrion, Mahovolich, Beliveau, Howe, Hall,
61-62
Hull, Howe, Hall, Bathgate, Plante
'62-63
Howe, Bathgate, Hull, Hall, Mikita
'63-64
Hull, Howe, Mikita, Pilote, Beliveau
'64-65
Hull, Mikita, Howe, Pilote, Ullman
'65-66
Hull, Howe, Mikita, Ullman,Beliveau
'66-67
Mikita, Hull, Howe, Ullman, Giacomin
'67-68
Hull, Mikita, Howe, Orr, Esposito
'68-69
Hull, Howe, Orr, Esposito, Hall
Last edited:
pappyline
Registered User
Good point, Everybody beats up on Bronco but that was a great year for Bronc
nly missed the AR by one point. Drop Moore at @ 5 for Bronco.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Not bad, you seem to be very Blackhawk friendly on the top end, which is fine since they had great players but isnt Hull a little high in '69? I cant see anything else but Espo being #1 in '69. By then he had catapulted himself to the top of the forwards in the NHL. 4th for a guy who wins the Art Ross and the playoff scoring lead? Esposito is vastly underrepresnted there. Only once the mid '70s came around did he get surpassed by a forward (Clarke) but until then he was usually #2 after Orr unless Parent was in there. How do you justify Espo being #4 behind Hull and Howe? Even Orr I think is behind him that year. This wasnt even his breakout year, he was great in '68 as well, this was just a dominating performance.
pappyline
Registered User
Statistically Espo would seem to be #1 in 69 but I just couldn't put him ahead of Hull, Howe & Orr. In my personal opinion he was never as good as these 3 regardless of the points he put up. You disagree & I am sure others do also & that is fine.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Fair enough. People forget how dominant Espo was though, and the brilliant playoff performer he also was. I dont think it was until '72 that people realized he could be great on his own without Orr's help (or before him Hull). '69 is one of those years I felt that he kind of broke away from the pack and that is a year I like to prove Espo critics out there wrong. He COULD do it on his own. Yes Orr had 64 points, but that was half of Espo's total and it while '70-75 show that Orr was integral to Espo's success to an extent I have always felt '69 proves that theory differently. BTW, Orr having 64 points as a defenseman at that time was earth shattering, and to think that was his worst full season for the rest of his career
pappyline
Registered User
I know that you witnessed it as I did but honestly can you really say Espo dominated that year. Playing with a Dman that scored 64 points was a huge boost in 68-69. Playing on a team that allowed you to hang in the slot is another boost. Don't forget Hull scored 58 goals in 68-69 which was 9 more than Espo & 8 more than anyone not named Bobby Hull ever scored. Watching Hull & Espo that year, can you honestly say Espo was the better player? On most top player lists Hull easily comes in top 10. Espo barely makes top 20.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Overall Hull was the better player in his career no doubt. Hull was still a goal scoring machine as well even at 30. I guess I like to combine the playoff performance as well. There are times when a poor playoff performance doesnt always sour a great season (Hull in '66 was still #1) but the same should be said for a great playoff. How can it be a hard thing to believe that the Hart, Ross and playoff scoring leader was the best in the world? Like I said before by the time '69 rolled around I thought Espo was the best forward until Clarke unseated him at around '75. The only better player was Orr from '70-74. And in '74 you might take Parent #2 but that was it. Hull was always in the top 3-5 from '69-72. No argument. But regardless of how Espo played the game very few have had the results he did. In 1972 (Espo's prime) would you have taken Hull over Espo? I wouldnt have. No disrespect to Hull but Espo had one of the best years in NHL history. '69 is just a notch below that I think. Espo had arrived then for good
pappyline
Registered User
We are talking about the 60's here & the 70's are irrrelevent. And yes, I can honestly say that I would always pick Hull over Espo. Hull was a guy you build a team around.To me, ESpo was a complimentary player. You get your Hull, Howe or Orr first & then go looking for guys like Espo.
But hey, if you are into stats only then Espo was your man in 69.
BTW, Geoffrion won the AR & Hart in 61 but you have him second behind his linemate. Not too consistent IMO.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Geoffrion isnt a bad pick for #1 in '61 but unlike Espo he didnt lead the NHL in points during the regular season AND playoffs. Espo did, and it wasnt close on either count. That's pretty good domination of the league. Throw in the Hart Trophy as well. That year more than anything proves he is more than just a complimentary player.
I noticed you also said that you would always pick Hull over Espo. I would too career wise and probably even peak wise as well, but what is it you meant by that? My thought was that Hull was the much better player in the '60s and other than near the end of the decade he wasnt in Hull's league. In 1962 Hull was better than Espo no doubt, Espo was not even in the league. But what about 1972? Would you have taken Hull over Espo in '72 as well? Is that what you mean by when you say you would always take Hull over Espo no matter what year? Because personally I think '72 showed his true dominance and proved how great of a leader he was and that he could be great without Orr
pappyline
Registered User
Yep, without batting an eye. Hull didn't cease being a top notch player after 1969. Was still scoring 50 in the NHL & was outstanding in the 71 Stanley cup playoffs. He had a 77 goal season in the WHA. At age 37, he was the top goal scorer for team Canada in the 76 Canada cup. Espo also played on that team & if I remember correctly, Espo saw less & less ice time as the tournament went on (think he mentions it in his book).
Last edited:
