Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by 29GoalHoglund, Jul 21, 2017.
Personally, I'd be very inclined to include both Brad Richards and Mike Gartner on a top 300 list.
So would I, but all those metrics you used can also be used in the same way for dozens of centers if you pick the right set of years for them. Richards is a guy who's not quite as good as his point totals. He was very assist heavy, and spent a lot of time picking up PP assists on the point. He also played half his career in a division easier to score points in.
I see where you're coming from there.
I see him as a playmaking centre with the added defining characteristic that he was also very good playoff performer; the latter is what sets him apart from the likes of Koivu, Broten, Weight, Zhamnov, Gomez, Ribeiro, Federko etc etc. You can go on. That's not to say those guys were necessary not good in the playoffs; he was notably good and accomplished there.
I'd have him at or near the top of a list of assist-heavy centres that one wouldn't classify as upper-tier centres. Guys like Thornton, Henrik Sedin and Backstrom would be in the highest-tier of this type of player. However, I would actually much rather have Richards for a playoff run than any of these three.
It's true that it's debatable whether he belongs on a top 300 list. I do think he has a considerable advantage over many similar types of players.
I think a guy like Oates would certainly beat him based on longevity and length of prime alone, but Oates also was a very assist-heavy point-producer outside out maybe two or three seasons.
Yeah, oates has a similar goals to assists ratio, but that's coming from a much, much higher point total, too, so...
According to hockey reference, their top ten era-adjusted point totals would be as such:
Their adjusted points differences in their respective ten best seasons are thus:
7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 17, 18, 19, 21 points.
I'd say the differences are enough to put Oates one tier higher, but I don't think he totally blows Richards away or anything. His offensive prime was also about two years longer (five years of 50 or more adjusted points versus three years of 50 or more adjusted points), so that helps his cause.
I'd probably place Oates in the top 101-150, I'm thinking. Obviously after you get through the true elites, you're going to have a whole bunch of comparable players that aren't separated by too much. I see myself putting Richards in the 250-300 range, but it's not set in stone.
By the way, I've read many of your posts, seventieslord, and I think you're about as knowledge about hockey history as anyone on the forum.
If you were making a top 300 OAT list, what sort of a "split" would you likely have between pre and post 1967 expansion players? Would it be about 50/50 or more weighted toward modern players?
I hate when people try to dismiss older eras as "bush League eras" because they all played an important role in the development of the modern NHL. There are stand-out players from all eras that ought to be included.
However, I think that selections of players from the 10s and 20s in particular should be made within reason. At one point, there were three teams in the League and fewer than 100 players. The NHL didn't even allow forward passing in the offensive zone until 1928-1929.
Therefore, I think players who were top five to top ten players at their positions for a period of several years during, say, the 80s, 90s, 00s or 10s should have an advantage when it comes to being considered for selection over players who were among the best but not the cream of the crop in the early days...
Ie... a guy like Modano or Denis Savard, for example, is a better choice for a list than a guy like Billy Burch (14th highest scoring forward from 1917-1929).
The best of that era (Cy Denneny, Joe Malone, Dye, Morenz, Nighbour and a select few others) get on and then that's pretty much it for those days...
...Or would you go a little deeper and add several more?
I'd say being even the tenth best centre of the 80s, for example, is more impressive than being the 15th or so highest scorer from an era in which players played against two or three other teams and then suddenly started facing many more players during the early expansion days of a League that still didn't allow forward passing in the attacking zone.
Briere (only because he was a beast in the playoffs)
I can't imagine a plausible case for Gaborik over Bondra. Bondra was clearly better at everything.
Malkin as #101?
It's hard to say because most lists i've seen are top 50, top 100. You rarely see top 300, let alone 500.
I think i'd feel comfortable ranking most players on your list from best to worst - but hard to say what# that slots each player in all time.
Damphousse > Koivu.
But is Damphousse #156? or 419? Hard to say.
Let's consider adjusted points to be a perfect metric for the sake of this post.
Adam Oates was 15 pts better than Brad Richards in a ten-season span. That is, 15 points every season.
That is, roughly, the difference between Ryan Getzlaf and Jeff Carter... That's not a small difference, at all.
I do have to echo Bob Holly. Once you start going after a top 100/200+ list it becomes quite subjective. You would see many drastically different lists the further you go.
I'll be releasing my months long project top 50 (top 100 will be done later this year hopefully) this week and even with that, I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who'd move players around from where I rank them.
I don't think that's true...
I view Bondra as a scoring specialist who wasn't the great playmaker in the world. I feel Gaborik is a little more well-rounded as an attacker.
Plus Gaborik made a name for himself when he played a significant role in getting the '03 Wild further than they really should have gone in the '03 playoffs. He also won a Cup as an important contributing member to a team.
Gaborik has some very impressive defensive point shares assigned to him for several seasons by hockey reference.
Defensive point shares of 2.6, 2.5, 2.4 and 2 are damn good for an offensive winger. I'm sure his time in Minny playing for Lemaire helped his defensive game quite a bit.
Bondra's best defensive point shares are fine for someone who scored a lot, but they aren't as strong.
He has a 2.1 for 2000-2001 but is usually in the 1.1-1.6 range.
I'd put him in the Forsberg, Fedorov etc group...
As in, I'd have him in the top 100.
Some might not, but those people would have to be particularly obsessed with pre 1970s hockey.
Yes, you're right.
However, the thing about a top 100 list is it has to exclude some very, very good players, which causes arguments as to who should and shouldn't have made it.
The usefull thing about as an extended list would be that it could give people an indication as to whether or not a particular player has any business being brought up for HHOF discussion.
If you're inclined to rank the players on my preliminary list, I'd implore you to go for it. It could help my endeavor somewhat. Input from multiple sources is a positive.
Yeah, I didn't say Richards is literally comparable to Oates; I meant that he's a lower-tier version of that type of player.
I did say Oates is a tier higher (you can argue two, but I think that's pushing it a bit considering he didn't have as much playoff success as Richards despite playing on some strong/competitive teams and he did have the Hull and Neely factor).
I think once you've filled in enough names, you have to give some consideration to assist-heavy players who aren't quite in that Oates/Sedin tier, and I feel Richards has a better case than the likes of Weight, Broten, Gomez, Ribeiro, Zhamnov, Ridley and others. I probably wouldn't include Briere, but he'd be a better choice than some of these other guys as well.
HR defensive point shares used to be of very questionable value, as pointed out in this thread (in particular posts #1, #9 and #16). Have they changed their approach in the meantime?
If anything, I just wanted to compare those two players to another two players when it comes to production. You can indeed say that Richards is something of a Poor Man's Oates.
I mean.... 15 points per season is... not exactly an insignficant gap.
Three time First Team All Star, two time Second Team All Star
Three time First Team All Star, One time Second Team All Star, Two time Lady Byng winner, Hart Trophy runner up.
I like those accolades better than some who made the list.
You necroed this thread for.... THIS?
Well, I had not responded to your post until now.
lol... I gave up on this ages ago.
Where did you go for more than eight months?
I just went on hiatus, I guess. I took a new job and have been very busy.
Man, we all see things so differently. I can't even imagine what my players in the 300 range would look like. I also have a weak knowledge of pre-WWII players. I'd be going mostly off of consensus lists, when I'd rather do my own research, or better yet watching them play myself.
Separate names with a comma.