Collected Best-On-Best Stats

[seventieslord]

I dunno, André Lacroix was a good player. Gerry Cheevers. Mark Howe, but he was a teenager, and Frank Mahovlich but he was old. Does anyone have the complete Canadian line-up from that '74 tournament? I can't find it anywhere.

Nah, he's pretty much right. Hull is the only player from the 74 summit that I can say with 100% certainty would've been on a true best on best team Canada in 1974. Howe and Mahovlich being wingers, I think it's more than likely they're on it too. Cheevers? Over Dryden, Parent and Esposito? Even Stapleton and Tremblay at that age would be very unlikely to make it over Orr, Park, Potvin, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson.

I don't think the definition of "best-on-best" is really of any importance, per se. Everybody is free to define it however they want.

What is important is how you use international play to evaluate individual players (and teams).

For that purpose, I personally include all the so-called best-on-best tournaments, and the three series we've mentioned...plus some World Championship play has been excellent (e.g. Soviet Union vs Czechoslovakia in the '70s).

Ironically, the five events that some people exclude - '72 Summit series, '79 Challenge Cup, '87 Renez-Vous, '16 World Cup, and the '25 4-Nations - are probably the five best of all the internaional events because these five have the highest average play...i.e. there are no weak teams, every game is against a high-caliber opponent. This doesn't exist in any of the other best-on-best tournaments.

So...what is the reason people are trying to exclude arguably the five best events?

As for the 2016 world Cup, it's nothing more than the gimmick teams ruining it and making it a glorified all-star game. It's like Bettman and co treated the league like it was an EA sports NHL 16 game and pulled players from their NHL rosters to build fantasy teams and run a simulation to see how they'd perform against each other. The Young guns and Europe teams were simply made to shoehorn as many good players into the tournament as possible. Team Slovakia and Switzerland would've had lesser players but at least would've been cohesive units playing for the honor of their countries, as opposed to their "segment of the continent of Europe not covered by Russia, Czechia, Sweden or Finland", or worse, playing against their own home countries for the.... "honor of their age group? Or something?". You can't just put teams like that together and expect the fire and emotion you'd get in a natural international setting. This is why that tournament isn't seen in the same light as the others.

 

[Habsfan18]

Nah, he's pretty much right. Hull is the only player from the 74 summit that I can say with 100% certainty would've been on a true best on best team Canada in 1974. Howe and Mahovlich being wingers, I think it's more than likely they're on it too. Cheevers? Over Dryden, Parent and Esposito? Even Stapleton and Tremblay at that age would be very unlikely to make it over Orr, Park, Potvin, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson.

I wonder what a true best on best lineup would have looked like in 1974?

Hull - Clarke - Gilbert
Cashman - Esposito - Hodge
Mahovlich - Mikita - Cournoyer
Martin - MacLeish - Goldsworthy

Something like that? Unless I'm forgetting someone obvious. I feel like that Bruins line would have been kept together. You could maybe make a case for Mike Walton or Andre Lacroix, but there's a pretty slim chance they're beating out the NHL guys. Mikita I'm a bit unsure of by 1974.

Howe possibly beats out Cournoyer or Goldsworthy? I'm not so sure, but based on name value alone I can see it.

 

[Staniowski]

Nah, he's pretty much right. Hull is the only player from the 74 summit that I can say with 100% certainty would've been on a true best on best team Canada in 1974. Howe and Mahovlich being wingers, I think it's more than likely they're on it too. Cheevers? Over Dryden, Parent and Esposito? Even Stapleton and Tremblay at that age would be very unlikely to make it over Orr, Park, Potvin, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson.

As for the 2016 world Cup, it's nothing more than the gimmick teams ruining it and making it a glorified all-star game. It's like Bettman and co treated the league like it was an EA sports NHL 16 game and pulled players from their NHL rosters to build fantasy teams and run a simulation to see how they'd perform against each other. The Young guns and Europe teams were simply made to shoehorn as many good players into the tournament as possible. Team Slovakia and Switzerland would've had lesser players but at least would've been cohesive units playing for the honor of their countries, as opposed to their "segment of the continent of Europe not covered by Russia, Czechia, Sweden or Finland", or worse, playing against their own home countries for the.... "honor of their age group? Or something?". You can't just put teams like that together and expect the fire and emotion you'd get in a natural international setting. This is why that tournament isn't seen in the same light as the others.

I understand why many people think those two teams were gimmicks, but it's being greatly overplayed. Team Europe made the finals, and Team North America were also successful. Their games weren't anything like all-star games. And it's just your imagination that they weren't putting forth a great effort, or whatever it is that you think. Have you ever watched golf? The most intense golf played in the sport is by Team Europe in the Ryder Cup.

The big question, though, is why are people including some events as best-on-best, and others as not? Is it just to organize things in your mind? If so, then nobody cares....

But, if you're suggesting the excluded ones don't matter as much, then that is definitely wrong, because the five that people are sometimes excluding are arguably the five strongest of all. If you're excluding them for this reason, then you're a fool.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The team NA youngsters was an embarrassment to the sport and a low point in international hockey history. There's a reason they're not doing it again. And there's a reason players didn't speak highly of it.

Playing against your own country was gross. And it completely neutered team USA.

Best on best is a pretty easy definition. Country versus country without structural impediments. North America isn't a country. NHL All Stars isn't a country.

 

[Habsfan18]

I wonder what a true best on best lineup would have looked like in 1974?

Hull - Clarke - Gilbert
Cashman - Esposito - Hodge
Mahovlich - Mikita - Cournoyer
Martin - MacLeish - Goldsworthy

Something like that? Unless I'm forgetting someone obvious. I feel like that Bruins line would have been kept together. You could maybe make a case for Mike Walton or Andre Lacroix, but there's a pretty slim chance they're beating out the NHL guys. Mikita I'm a bit unsure of by 1974.

Howe possibly beats out Cournoyer or Goldsworthy? I'm not so sure, but based on name value alone I can see it.

I forgot Gilbert Perreault! He likely takes Mikita's spot.

Hull - Clarke - Gilbert
Cashman - Esposito - Hodge
Mahovlich - Perreault - Cournoyer
Martin - MacLeish - Goldsworthy
Mikita, Howe (spares)

Potvin - Orr
Robinson - Savard
Lapointe - Park
Vadnais

Dryden
Parent
Esposito

Yeah, I'm definitely not seeing room for any other WHA talent making a case for a roster spot. Hull and Mahovlich are the only sure things, IMO.