HOH Top Non-NHL Europeans: Rules Discussion thread (see post 205 for new rules draft)

[begbeee]

I think I asked this before in somewhere, but how about the UK/Canadians like Jimmy Foster? He did play part of his career in Europe and represented European country in international tournaments, but he isn´t exactly a European.

Born in UK, played in Europe, represented GB..he is an european in "hockey" sense. I would not claim Mikita is Slovak in hockey sense either.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Born in UK, played in Europe, represented GB..he is an european in "hockey" sense. I would not claim Mikita is Slovak in hockey sense either.

You are very correct that Mikita is not a european in a hockey sense, but he did not ever play over here either. He had as close to a 100 percent NHL career one can have. Therefore he is hardly known to most hockey fans over here besides from a vague legend about him that spread to mostly Chechoslovakia, but no one ever saw him play. I guess his two games in the Summit Series are the only games where a precious few at least in theory could have seen him, maybe some friendlies if Chicago ever did them.

 

[Theokritos]

Born in UK, played in Europe, represented GB..he is an european in "hockey" sense.

He learned to play hockey in Canada and had an impressive career there before signing in England when he was 30. As far as hockey is concerned he is as Canadian to me as Olaf Kölzig. Or a Stan Mikita signing with Slovan Bratislava in 1971 and playing for Czechoslovakia at the 1972 IIHF World Championship.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't think you can include Seth Martin without making the project a transatlantic one instead of a European one. Hard to deny the logic of the following post:

Seth Martin definitely is worthy of discussion but then so are Don Head, Jack McCartan, Willard Ikola. All served to bridge the gap between North American amateur and European hockey. Three of the above went on to play in the NHL which would serve as contemporary comparisons to NHL hockey of the early sixties.

Likewise Bobby Rousseau, Tommy Williams, Darryl Sly, 1960 Olympians who played in the NHL as did European Olympians Jaroslav Jirik and Ulf Sterner.

Personally I'm in favour of sticking with European players only, otherwise I expect that we'd lose a lot of European voters. But if there is enough interest in a North American internationals project, I'd volunteer to help organize & administer that one as a follow-up project after the European ranking.

 

[Jablkon]

Looks like there are three options then. Ordered from least permissive to most permissive.

1. No players who played in the NHL at all.

2. Players who had their primes in Europe only (Makarov, Nedomansky, Fetisov eligible).

3. All players including career NHLers eligible, to be judged on what they did outside the NHL only (Selanne, Heatley, Sundin, Hasek also eligible).

(To be decided later - if there is a cut off point for players who are "too early").

Any other options?

1. - too much strict. There are players with several starts in NHL who were superstars on national or european level.

2- definetely. Czechoslovaks were allowed to play abroad only after they reached age of 30. So first must be group of players who left before the 1989 (limit for czechs, 1990 for russians?) I would allow all czechoslovaks and russians who played abroad since they spent there just insignificant part of their carreer. This would also include immigrants who somehow crossed borders before their reached 30 (just handful of players, or you can apply the same rule as below - more than half of the carreer in Europe - it decides Stastny case). Others from this group (swedesm finns?)- more than half of the carreer in Europe.

3. It does not make sense at all. They are NHL superstars so why to include them on a list? There is only one tricky group of players like Makarov etc. This would be second group - Players who started their carreer before 1989/1990 and left legally after this time. Rule should be easy - more than half of the carreer in Europe (this easilly includes guys like Fetisov and exclude Hasek which is completely correct IMO).

Then you make the third group - others. Same rule - more than half of the carreer in Europe. This group would be criterion for players like Selanne etc. /btw. he wouldnt be on list even if he had followed this criteria as he did not make such a impact in Europe/), Dopita, Patera, Radulov, etc.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is it time to put this to a vote and get started?

 

[VMBM]

I´m comfortable with Stastny so I´m going to use him as an example according to my rules:
WC finnishes: 1,1,2,2,
OG finnishes: 6 (Lake Placid), - Lillehammer doesnt count as he played in NHL that season
CC: 2,
CSSR league champion: 1x
Best player in CSSR: 1x
I don´t know if it´s enough to crack the top 40/50/60

IMO making Stastny eligible would be tricky.

Based on his CSSR/international accomplishments alone, there's no way he would crack my top 40. BUT of course the fact that he is the greatest Slovak player of all-time (and one of the best, if not the best, Czechoslovak players) would probably make me choose him over some true non-NHL players that had much longer and better international and domestic careers. How would Stastny's brilliant achievements in the NHL not have an effect on one's opinion?

 

[seventieslord]

I really think we should include any players who peaked in Europe, and that would include Makarov, Fetisov, and Nedomansky for me.

I like this the best.

 

[steve141]

I really think we should include any players who peaked in Europe, and that would include Makarov, Fetisov, and Nedomansky for me.

If so, what are we ranking, is it their total career, or their time outside of the NHL?

Compare for example Krutov and Larionov. If their entire careers are considered Larionov has the clear advantage, but if their time outside of the NHL is considered only, Krutov quite possibly has the strongest case.

This question will probably have as much effect on the project as the eligibility question.

 

[MXD]

On Seth Martin : I know I've stated my opinion on this before... but if you get Martin in, you pretty much have to get Harry Watson in (he's a non-NHL'er, his biggest "feat" was during Olympics, and, well, his status as a Canadian is debateable).

The biggest hurdle with Watson is that he can only be compared to four players we sortof know anything about, including two that were his teammate. And that he kinda played in the Stone Age of International Hockey.

I don't have much qualms about making Peter Stastny eligible. In fact, keeping him out, while considering eligible a player like Lennart Svedberg (or even his brother Marian), would be something of a headscratcher, as the European careers of those two weren't significantly longer than Peter's. I'm not sure Peter makes it on merit (... he might, but Marian might be a tad ahead from what I know).

And there's plenty of reasons to distinguish Peter (and Marian) from Mats Sundin.

 

[VMBM]

I don't have much qualms about making Peter Stastny eligible. In fact, keeping him out, while considering eligible a player like Lennart Svedberg (or even his brother Marian), would be something of a headscratcher, as the European careers of those two weren't significantly longer than Peter's. I'm not sure Peter makes it on merit (... he might, but Marian might be a tad ahead from what I know).

Peter Stastny was an NHL player, Lennart Svedberg was not

Why is Svedberg a "headstratcher"? If you think that he did enough internationally and domestically during his 28-year life (and/or that he had super skills), you have him (somewhere) on your list. If not, you don't.

And tell me seriously that Stastny's NHL career would not have a big influence on the voters and thus on his ranking, even when it is made clear that the list should focus on European/international careers. However, if this would not be the case, it would be ridiculous to have Peter Stastny on a list like this at #40 or so; obviously he was a lot better than many guys that would probably finish ahead of him, so it would be disparaging in a way. I mean, this should also be about the greatest (non-NHL) European players of all-time, not just about greatest careers (not always exactly the same thing).

Marian Stastny is a tough case, I'll give you that much; if (and hopefully when) e.g. Krutov will be eligible, maybe he should be too.

 

[MXD]

Peter Stastny was an NHL player, Lennart Svedberg was not

Why is Svedberg a "headstratcher"? If you think that he did enough internationally and domestically during his 28-year life (and/or that he had super skills), you have him (somewhere) on your list. If not, you don't.

And tell me seriously that Stastny's NHL career would not have a big influence on the voters and thus on his ranking, even when it is made clear that the list should focus on European/international careers. However, if this would not be the case, it would be ridiculous to have Peter Stastny on a list like this at #40 or so; obviously he was a lot better than many guys that would probably finish ahead of him, so it would be disparaging in a way. I mean, this should also be about the greatest (non-NHL) European players of all-time, not just about greatest careers (not always exactly the same thing).

Marian Stastny is a tough case, I'll give you that much; if (and hopefully when) e.g. Krutov will be eligible, maybe he should be too.

Oh boy, something got lost in translation.

Svedberg is obviously not a headscratcher as far as eligibility is concerned. If anything, he's the kind of player this project specifically targets.

The "head scratching" occurs if Peter is ineligible, despite his European Career being not significantly shorter than Svedberg's.

And it gets even worse with Marian, whose career spans about the same number of years as Svedberg, and whose NHL career didn't reach the insignificance levels of Krutov (or Kiessling, or Sterner) but was otherwise far removed from, say, Larionov (or even Nedomansky, even if the latter was post-prime while Marian was at least a bit younger, though that's mainly on the basis of longevity). The best comparable I can probably come with for Marian is Alexei Kasatonov.

Of course, if I had to rank them, regardless of their eligibility, it would go like this : Svedberg, Marian, Peter.

I'm painfully aware that, with Peter, it's a bit hard to distinguish his European career from his body of work as a whole. As I said, I'm not even sure P. Stastny makes my Top-40 on merit, and I'm pretty sure Marian has a better pre-NHL resume (if only because it is slightly longer). Peter's case is quite similar to Hasek, in a way.

 

[Theokritos]

Is it time to put this to a vote and get started?

I think so. A poll has been added with the question: Which players should we rank?

1. All Europeans, based on what they did outside of the NHL or WHA, or
2. Only Europeans who spent their peak years in Europe, or
3. Only Europeans who never played in the NHL or WHA

 

[MXD]

Voted 1, mainly to avoid any problems with the Kamensky/Loob/Ratakallio group as to whether they peaked in Europe or not. Otherwise I'd be firmly in group 2.

 

[seventieslord]

ok, so "only europeans who spent their peak years in Europe" is going to win here, so now what?

- we need to be sure we are clear on who is eligible. I think in most cases this is clear... perhaps in all cases. I actually can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would surely be a borderline case worthy of pre-discussion. Valeri Kamensky? Hakan Loob? Marian Stastny? Jorgen Pettersson? Aleksey Morozov? I'm really reaching here.

- we also need to be sure we all agree on whether we're judging these players based only on their non-NHL career, or whether we're judging their complete bodies of work, including their NHL play.

 

[begbeee]

Lot of questions raised, because it´s a vague description with grey areas which will never be solved exactly.
That´s why the first option is an exact science, the second is not.

In wider sense, this is why democracy is not always the right option.

 

[Theokritos]

Lot of questions raised, because it´s a vague description with grey areas which will never be solved exactly.

Just like the positional question in the earlier project, right? Think of those who played forward and defenceman during their career. Red Kelly etc.

we need to be sure we are clear on who is eligible.

Yes, just like we sorted out who we consider a center and who we consider a winger before.

we also need to be sure we all agree on whether we're judging these players based only on their non-NHL career, or whether we're judging their complete bodies of work, including their NHL play.

I'm in favour of the latter option. We should handle this analogous to the positional projects: The best wingers list is not a ranking of players who only played wingers, it's a ranking of players who played the majority of their career as wingers.

 

[Johnny Engine]

If we judged players that fit the "prime in Europe" criteria only by what they did in Europe, I can't help but think that many voters are going to use players' North American careers as kind of a smell test for the raw information - to rehash the oldest argument in the book, we know Larionov was a good player, not so much for Krutov, and that knowledge will colour anyone's interpretation of what they actually did.

It may actually be a positive thing to have these unspoken compromises in the voting.

 

[seventieslord]

the first option is an exact science, the second is not.

For the second option to not be an "exact science" (for all intents and purposes, that is), there would need to be some players for whom reasonable people can disagree on whether their prime was mainly in North America or Europe.

I thought of a few examples but I don't think those ones are very tough to answer. The floor is yours...

I'm in favour of the latter option. We should handle this analogous to the positional projects: The best wingers list is not a ranking of players who only played wingers, it's a ranking of players who played the majority of their career as wingers.

Yeah, I'm in 100% agreement here.

 

[Pominville Knows]

He was 25 when he came to North America. Do you think his earlier career is more significant or as significant as his NHL years?

I would not have a problem with ranking Hasek under a guy like Tretiak if that would be my verdict in this project if we for a fact do a list mainly for north americans who dont know much about international hockey, especially pre NHL Olympics. Even the Canada Cups is not nearly as well known as the NHL for many.

 

[Ola]

I voted all Europeans, based on their play in Europe, just think the more simple rules the better. There will be border line cases that are hard to pin down with the other option. HÃ¥kan Loob for example just is a top player ever in the SHL by he played his prime in NA.

 

[Theokritos]

There will be border line cases that are hard to pin down with the other option.

How many borderline cases would there be if we think of players who have a realistic shot in this project? Loob and ... ?

 

[MXD]

How many borderline cases would there be if we think of players who have a realistic shot in this project? Loob and ... ?

Kamensky. Marian if one really wants to nitpick.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Kamensky. Marian if one really wants to nitpick.

Kamensky might be the best examplem. Marian is clearly non-NHL prime

 

[MXD]

Kamensky might be the best examplem. Marian is clearly non-NHL prime

Well, in a world where Nedomansky's performance in the CSSR is sometimes frowned upon, the next logical step (in such a world) would be to say that Stastny's first two seasons in the NHL are more imipressive than everything he did back there.

(I'm clearly not making that argument by the way. The more accurate way I'd explain this is that Marian's prime started in CSSR and ended in the NA, but clearly spanned more years in CSSR than in NA)