Who Hurt Their All-Time Rank by Playing Too Long?

[jimmysheva]

Roy was the reason there was a game 6 and 7 in 2002. Colorado were outplayed in 4 out of 5 games in game 1-5.

 

[Iapyi]

Is that what people mean with "compiler", though? At least to me, a compiler is not someone who had a great peak and tagged along for a couple of seasons at the tailend of his career. A compiler to me is someone whose totals make him seem better than he was, so someone that doesn't really have a fantastic peak (by alltime standards) but his totals make him look like he's an alltimer.

This is what makes no sense to me. If those were his totals then those are the #s he obtained. How is an actual black and white reality anything but? I understand the concept of which you speak, I get the thought process, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Reindl87]

Honestly, I have a hard time finding examples of players who did not play too long. Pretty much every great player, was around a few season too long. The only player who really enhanced his career late was Selanne.But that was die to his international play. His last two NHL seasons were not pretty either.

 

[JackSlater]

This is how I feel as well, but I don't think it's the reality for most NHL fans. I usually bring this up in the context of Neely vs. Lindros debates, for example. If Lindros retired after 99 and Neely did his best to keep playing into his 30s as a 10-goal a season 4th liner, what meaningfully would be different about their abilities and accomplishments as a player? And yet, in that scenario I imagine their reputations would be completely flip-flopped in the eyes of many (although thankfully Lindros's place in history has been somewhat restored now that we're many years removed from his retirement, so maybe it's no longer the best example).

I agree that for many people that isn't how they consider it, especially, as you've described, in the period after the player retires. People remember what they saw recently, so a broken down Lindros or a Coffey who's played for 18 teams in his last three years and so on. Those memories eventually fade and the player can probably be more accurately assessed by people.

 

[Eisen]

This is what makes no sense to me. If those were his totals then those are the #s he obtained. How is an actual black and white reality anything but? I understand the concept of which you speak, I get the thought process, it just doesn't make sense.

Take the often mentioned Andreychuk. He has one of the highest totals but was never a dominant scorer in any year. Played at the right time for a long time. Or Recchi who had some all star team. That isn't saying they weren't a good players, mind you. But it's different then Jagr, for instance, who has the totals but a peak that was outstanding as well.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I guess we're reading things different because that is exactly how I read it. I concur it is silly but I honestly see it that way. I often shake my head at the gross disrespect that is so often exhibited.

This is what makes no sense to me. If those were his totals then those are the #s he obtained. How is an actual black and white reality anything but? I understand the concept of which you speak, I get the thought process, it just doesn't make sense.

it’s ok to have that opinion, but those are in fact two different positions that, yes, sometimes get conflated.

you can scrutinize what a guy’s career totals tell us without blaming that guy for not retiring earlier.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I tend to agree with Bill James' take re: baseball players. No matter how poorly a player actually performed during a season, he can't have negative value. It's not his fault that his team allowed him to play and apparently anticipated positive value from him. If no team allowed him to play, then he would have zero value, so his value cannot go below that.

 

[Beville]

Patrick Marleau is definitely fitting the bill for me.

 

[The Panther]

I agree that for many people that isn't how they consider it, especially, as you've described, in the period after the player retires. People remember what they saw recently, so a broken down Lindros or a Coffey who's played for 18 teams in his last three years and so on. Those memories eventually fade and the player can probably be more accurately assessed by people.

Yes, agree. The worst possible times to assess any player, in historical terms are:
-- during the player's active peak (like McDavid now)
-- around the time the player retires (they're either way over-rated or they're under-rated for hanging around too long)

Need to wait until after the player is long gone and some dust has settled. Maybe five years post-retirement.

 

[crobro]

Tim Horton obviously

 

[psycat]

Gretzky! If he would just have a career ending injury by the early 90s there would be zero debate to be had(albeit then people would probably spin it differently!
I am the strongest advocate for Wayne being in a separate tier, there is no big 4 in my mind.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Gretzky! If he would just have a career ending injury by the early 90s there would be zero debate to be had(albeit then people would probably spin it differently!
I am the strongest advocate for Wayne being in a separate tier, there is no big 4 in my mind.

actually that reminds me, when mario retired the first time in 1997, he was above the 2 points/game threshold, 2.01.

he was 2nd all time, behind gretzky, who had 2.03.

a year later, mario got himself an NHL record while golfing and sipping arnold palmers, as gretzky's career points/game average fell to 1.97.

gretzky fell to 1.92 the season after, then he retired.

but then in 2001, mario came back and at the end of his magical half-year he had fallen below the 2 p/g threshold, to 1.99.

he fell further to 1.97 in his abbreviated 2002 season, then 1.925 in his last full-ish season, so still slightly ahead of gretzky.

then he plays 10 games in the '04 season and falls back slightly below gretzky.

he retires for the final time after 24 games in the post-lockout season and finishes with a career average of 1.88 points/game, roughly three points per 80 game season less than gretzky's average.

now none of this has anything to do with either guy's legacy, and it should be noted that mario would have fallen out of the top 10 in points in 2006 if he'd never come back, so playing did also have its statistical benefits. there probably also wouldn't be a pittsburgh penguins right now.

but it is interesting to me that by one metric, mario became the highest scoring player of all time by not even playing, and then by the same metric became no longer the highest scoring player ever when he came back and played—even though he was scoring at paces that would have won him art ross trophies in the two years he played more than 26 games.

maybe this is a bit of a reality check about our occasional overreliance on per game metrics?

 

[GMR]

actually that reminds me, when mario retired the first time in 1997, he was above the 2 points/game threshold, 2.01.

he was 2nd all time, behind gretzky, who had 2.03.

a year later, mario got himself an NHL record while golfing and sipping arnold palmers, as gretzky's career points/game average fell to 1.97.

gretzky fell to 1.92 the season after, then he retired.

but then in 2001, mario came back and at the end of his magical half-year he had fallen below the 2 p/g threshold, to 1.99.

he fell further to 1.97 in his abbreviated 2002 season, then 1.925 in his last full-ish season, so still slightly ahead of gretzky.

then he plays 10 games in the '04 season and falls back slightly below gretzky.

he retires for the final time after 24 games in the post-lockout season and finishes with a career average of 1.88 points/game, roughly three points per 80 game season less than gretzky's average.

now none of this has anything to do with either guy's legacy, and it should be noted that mario would have fallen out of the top 10 in points in 2006 if he'd never come back, so playing did also have its statistical benefits. there probably also wouldn't be a pittsburgh penguins right now.

but it is interesting to me that by one metric, mario became the highest scoring player of all time by not even playing, and then by the same metric became no longer the highest scoring player ever when he came back and played—even though he was scoring at paces that would have won him art ross trophies in the two years he played more than 26 games.

maybe this is a bit of a reality check about our occasional overreliance on per game metrics?

To me, Mario improved his legacy by coming back in 2001. The drop in PPG doesn't matter much considering it was the DPE. What he did during those several seasons was remarkable.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

To me, Mario improved his legacy by coming back in 2001. The drop in PPG doesn't matter much considering it was the DPE. What he did during those several seasons was remarkable.

absolutely, me too.

for a guy who i never liked because it seemed like he was a whiner and always sour about not getting preferential treatment, it showed me another side of him watching him come back that year and just look like he was having an absolutely blast playing the game.

olympics mario also was nothing but good vibes.

 

[JackSlater]

Lemieux's comeback was some of the most interesting hockey I've ever seen. He was painfully slow for most of the comeback, but could still dominate offensively with brains, hands, and size. I've never seen anything like it, basically the dad with a bad back playing hockey with his young kid's team or something. His comeback definitely did a lot for his off ice reputation though. Comeback Lemieux was suddenly hockey's magnanimous elder statesman, and fair or not I doubt that people could have predicted that he'd fill the role so well.

 

[shadow1]

Ilya Kovalchuk. There was a mystique around him for many years - he vanished from the NHL while still a top player, and put up great stats in the KHL for parts of (6) seasons.

Returns to the NHL and it's a complete travesty. Plays for three different teams, one of which healthy scratches him despite being at the bottom of the standings (LA Kings).

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	Note
2019 Kings	64	16	18	34	-26
2020 Kings	17	3	6	9	-10
2020 Canadiens	22	6	7	13	6
2020 Capitals	7	1	3	4	0	0G, 1A in 8 playoff games

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[ShelbyZ]

As far as Chelios, I don't know if they really hurt his rank, but his last 2 years probably didn't do him any favors.

Although likely aided by the Wings lack of depth/cap space, early struggles with injuries for Kronwall and the sudden loss of Fischer in those first 2/3 years post lockout, Chelios was serviceable in a regular role slotting in around #4/5D for a contending Red Wings team that was trying to rebuild a D-core around Lidstrom on the fly.

07/08 would've been the icing on the cake with him achieving a bunch of oldest ever or 2nd oldest to Gordie Howe milestones, breaking the record for most playoff played and then being the oldest player to win a Stanley Cup.

And as far as a role was concerned, Chelios was finally pretty much phased out as a regular during that run to the 2008 Cup.

Despite this and the fact the Wings have a bit of a log jam on D with Stuart now in the picture and prospects Meech and Quincey no longer waiver exempt, there's mutual interest between Chelios and the Red Wings to return for another year. He signs and the year pretty much stinks for him:

-He hurts his knee late in the preseason and his return continually gets delayed until early December
-An anticipated late October return for Chelios is part of the Wings justification for trying and failing to trade Quincey and then subsequently losing him on waivers. At the time, the move drew the ire of Wings fans as Quincey would quickly prove productive for the rebuilding Kings. Of course most would forget that anger when Ken Holland decided he needed to get him back 3.5 years later using a 1st round pick which ultimately led to Quincey being a scapegoat for his underwhelming to mediocre showing for the Wings during their final playoff streak years. Maybe if Chelios had retired after 2008, the Wings might've been able to keep Quincey, and at least see that he wouldn't be a fit later on.
-Once Chelios returned, he's clearly lost a spot and Babcock seems reluctant to use him
-This leads to the infamous story where Babcock plans to make Chelios a healthy scratch for the Winter Classic held in Chelios' home town. At the direction of Ken Holland, Babcock dresses Chelios as a 7th Dman, where he gets a small handful of shifts early on totaling less than 2 minutes of ice time, claims that he started drinking beer on the bench and then declined when asked if he wanted to take a shift late in the game.
-As the season wore on he only really sees action when the Wings have an injury or two to regulars on D. Once that player is healthy Chelios goes back to the pressbox. The Wings were so tight against the cap that year, that they really had no option otherwise. The Wings couldn't carry a full 23 man roster, and couldn't make regular call ups until later in the year. Because of this, fellow spare part Dman Meech was often the Wings defacto #13 forward, which opened up more opportunity for Chelios to play.
-Eventually they lose Lilja lonterm to a concussion and decide to recall Jonathan Ericsson full time to take his place rather than use Chelios (or Meech).
-Chelios gets a handful of playoff games due to injuries to other D
-He ultimately ends up being a turd in the punchbowl when some of his teammates cry foul of Crosby being late to the handshake line, which leads to the hockey media pointing to when Chelios intentionally skipped it 2 years earlier after the Wings got eliminated by the Ducks.

He then goes the Mike Keane route as the old guy playing for his hometown minor league team, which leads to his forgettable cup of the tea with the Atlanta Thrashers.

 

[Reindl87]

actually that reminds me, when mario retired the first time in 1997, he was above the 2 points/game threshold, 2.01.

he was 2nd all time, behind gretzky, who had 2.03.

a year later, mario got himself an NHL record while golfing and sipping arnold palmers, as gretzky's career points/game average fell to 1.97.

gretzky fell to 1.92 the season after, then he retired.

but then in 2001, mario came back and at the end of his magical half-year he had fallen below the 2 p/g threshold, to 1.99.

he fell further to 1.97 in his abbreviated 2002 season, then 1.925 in his last full-ish season, so still slightly ahead of gretzky.

then he plays 10 games in the '04 season and falls back slightly below gretzky.

he retires for the final time after 24 games in the post-lockout season and finishes with a career average of 1.88 points/game, roughly three points per 80 game season less than gretzky's average.

now none of this has anything to do with either guy's legacy, and it should be noted that mario would have fallen out of the top 10 in points in 2006 if he'd never come back, so playing did also have its statistical benefits. there probably also wouldn't be a pittsburgh penguins right now.

but it is interesting to me that by one metric, mario became the highest scoring player of all time by not even playing, and then by the same metric became no longer the highest scoring player ever when he came back and played—even though he was scoring at paces that would have won him art ross trophies in the two years he played more than 26 games.

maybe this is a bit of a reality check about our occasional overreliance on per game metrics?

Excellenz Point. Career ppg can be very misleading without context.

 

[GMR]

Lemieux's comeback was some of the most interesting hockey I've ever seen. He was painfully slow for most of the comeback, but could still dominate offensively with brains, hands, and size. I've never seen anything like it, basically the dad with a bad back playing hockey with his young kid's team or something. His comeback definitely did a lot for his off ice reputation though. Comeback Lemieux was suddenly hockey's magnanimous elder statesman, and fair or not I doubt that people could have predicted that he'd fill the role so well.

That said, he's still ranked below Orr and Howe on most HFBoards lists. While Howe had his own impressive comeback, Orr didn't. I sometimes wonder whether Lemieux's comeback actually moved any needles in his favor or merely solidified his top 4 ranking.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Sawchuk didn't hurt himself by staying, some saw him as the best goalie ever until his all-time records fell.

I still consider him the greatest goalie ever.

 

[Albatros]

Ilya Kovalchuk. There was a mystique around him for many years - he vanished from the NHL while still a top player, and put up great stats in the KHL for parts of (6) seasons.

Returns to the NHL and it's a complete travesty. Plays for three different teams, one of which healthy scratches him despite being at the bottom of the standings (LA Kings).

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	Note
2019 Kings	64	16	18	34	-26
2020 Kings	17	3	6	9	-10
2020 Canadiens	22	6	7	13	6
2020 Capitals	7	1	3	4	0	0G, 1A in 8 playoff games

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

A not insignificant part of that was poor management by the Kings though, he was still their 4th best scorer despite not playing the full schedule.