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

[seventieslord]

It's not easy, that's true. On the surface, Peltonen stacks up pretty well internationally against a player like Sologubov for example, and in a much more competitive era:

Sologubov: 10 international medals
Peltonen: 13 international medals

For starters, I think "medal counting" is a terrible place to start trying to determine who the best players are/were.

Sologubov: Best defenceman at WC three times
Peltonen: Three time WC All Star Team

"best defenseman" and "one of the three best forwards" are not the same thing.

There are era considerations to be made for these players for sure, and yes Peltonen played in a more competitive era, but he was just a face in the crowd. Sologubov was frequently cited as a potential NHL star in his time - when there were only 30 NHL jobs for defensemen. Maybe he was not NHL star-caliber. I often hypothesize that myself. But it's likely he could have at least played, making him a top-30 defenseman worldwide. Peltonen was nowhere near that high in the pecking order for forwards worldwide. I'll state again for emphasis: Nowhere near.

I get the feeling that most on this board value the World Championships of the 60s/70s over the 80s/90s even though the number of competitive teams have been much higher during recent years.

I think most do, but it's not without good reason. Those tournaments in the 60s/70s featured most of the best non-NHL players in the world, in a time when the NHL was very small and europeans were stuck in their homeland.

Today's world championships aren't seen as that big a deal because no nation is sending all their best players (because they're still competing in the NHL playoffs more often than not), whereas in the 60s and 70s, most countries were (perhaps all except Canada).

 

[VMBM]

Fetisov
Makarov
Tretiak
Holecek
Firsov
Mikhailov
Vasiliev
Larionov
Petrov
Kasatonov

Maltsev
Suchy
Ragulin
Sologubov
Bobrov
Pospisil
Martinec
Krutov
Lutchenko
Tsygankov

Liapkin
Nedomansky
Balderis
Starshinov
Mayorov
Jirik
Golonka
Drozdetzky
Lala
Yakushev

Davydov
Ivanov
Kralik
Novy
Shadrin
Ji. Holik
Ja. Holik
Hlinka
Tumba
Sjoberg

Kuzkin
Vikulov
Svedberg
Pervukhin
Bilyaletdinov
Bubla
M.Dvorak
Machac
Kapustin
Liba

Babich
Dzurilla
Shuvalov
Guryshev
Almetov
Alexandrov
Loktev
Konovalenko
Myshkin
Shalimov

Gusev
Lindmark
Bykov
Rautakallio
Bjorn
Stoltz
Lebedev
Kallur
M.Stastny
Sterner

Kuehnhackl
Lukac
L.Holmqvist
Kozhevnikov
Eldebrink
Starikov
Tregubov
Zhluktov
Babinov
Stelnov

there's 80 right there. Try taking out 20 to make room for Peltonen. There are at least 20 more I'd name before considering him.

Well, that's your top 80, isn't it?

I don't see any problems with comparing Peltonen with the likes of Lebedev, Tregubov, Starikov or even Gusev (I hate him). There are Finnish players that I would consider before him, though - namely Veli-Pekka Ketola (if he's eligible), Lasse Oksanen, and Pekka Marjamäki, to name a few.

BTW, interesting list. I know for certain that Larionov will not be in the top tier on my initial list; neither his international nor Soviet league career is good enough. I don't think Lyapkin will be that high either. And I think you're giving Pekka Rautakallio too much credit for his short - but good - NHL career. I mean, what (special) did he do internationally, for example? He was one of the best Finnish players and certainly one of the best defencemen up to that point, but was he really better than Ketola, Oksanen, Marjamäki etc?

Personally, I'll have e.g. Krutov and Hlinka higher than most probably have - initially, at least.

"best defenseman" and "one of the three best forwards" are not the same thing.

How much harder was it to be the "best defenceman" in the 1950s/early 1960s than an "all-star forward" in the 1990s/2000s? I don't really know, I'm just asking...

 

[Theokritos]

Some more players with brief NHL experience who peaked outside of the NHL, and therefore should be eligible:

Jorgen Jonsson
Anders Carlsson
Anders Eldebrink
Jarmo Myllys

No question all of them should be eligible.

Kim Johnsson might be worth discussing, no?

4-5 seasons of senior hockey in Sweden before he came to NA at the age of 23, then he played in the NHL for 10 consecutive years (only interruption: the lockout season) before retiring. I don't see much of a case for him to be eligible. Is there evidence his best years were before he became a NHLer?

Helminen, Ruzicka, and Stastny are easy yeses in terms of eligibility. I don't think there's much debate there.

Agreed.

Naslund and Peltonen seem easy no's, unless I missed something major about their European careers.

There is a good sample size of them performing in the NHL in their prime, but then of course there is what you have called the "Morozov clause". I'll give it a positive wording: A player whose non-NHL years you'd prefer if you'd want to make a HOF case (or case for the 'Hall of Very Good' or 'Hall of Good') for him. Peltonen and Morozov are obviously in that group. HÃ¥kan Loob is another one and Valery Kamensky enters the debate due to his 1991 injury IMO. Personally I'd rather have one player too many being eligible than the other way round in the arguable cases. It's not like any of those guys was already discussed in the positional projects, so including them wouldn't create any unnecessary redundance either.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, that's your top 80, isn't it?

I don't see any problems with comparing Peltonen with the likes of Lebedev, Tregubov, Starikov or even Gusev (I hate him). There are Finnish players that I would consider before him, though - namely Veli-Pekka Ketola (if he's eligible), Lasse Oksanen, and Pekka Marjamäki, to name a few.

BTW, interesting list. I know for certain that Larionov will not be in the top tier on my initial list; neither his international nor Soviet league career is good enough. I don't think Lyapkin will be that high either. And I think you're giving Pekka Rautakallio too much credit for his short - but good - NHL career. I mean, what (special) did he do internationally, for example? He was one of the best Finnish players and certainly one of the best defencemen up to that point, but was he really better than Ketola, Oksanen, Marjamäki etc?

Personally, I'll have e.g. Krutov and Hlinka higher than most probably have - initially, at least.

it's not my list at all, it's just a demonstration of how quickly you can get to 80 names without even seeing Peltonen on the horizon. it's very loosely ordered and is just all the names I could come up with in 10 minutes by scanning a few lists I had access to. My actual list would look very different (so your critiques of it are kinda irrelevant).

How much harder was it to be the "best defenceman" in the 1950s/early 1960s than an "all-star forward" in the 1990s/2000s? I don't really know, I'm just asking...

I think the players earning that award, when they were not canadian, were putting themselves in the conversation for best in the world outside the NHL. In modern times, we've seen what caliber of forward can earn an "all star forward" nod - players who are very mediocre in the NHL can earn it by playing a few good games for an overachieving team.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think the players earning that award, when they were not canadian, were putting themselves in the conversation for best in the world outside the NHL. In modern times, we've seen what caliber of forward can earn an "all star forward" nod - players who are very mediocre in the NHL can earn it by playing a few good games for an overachieving team.

Examples?

Not many mediocre NHL players in the WHC are there?

And it's been brought up a couple of times trying to rate or compare tournaments in the 50/60's and later on and there is quite a difference both in elite talent, concentration and overall talent in the tournaments.

 

[MXD]

Examples?

Not many mediocre NHL players in the WHC are there?
.

Mediocre might be a bit of a stretch, but I don't think any ever thought of Nicklas Hagman as anything else than a very, very average NHL'er.

 

[KriminellPipa]

Some more players with brief NHL experience who peaked outside of the NHL, and therefore should be eligible:

Jorgen Jonsson
Anders Carlsson
Anders Eldebrink
Jarmo Myllys

No question all of them should be eligible.

So a legend like Petteri Nummelin is also eligible then I presume?

 

[Theokritos]

So a legend like Petteri Nummelin is also eligible then I presume?

He sure should be eligible.

 

[Theokritos]

So how do the others feel about the eligibility of Loob, Kamensky, Peltonen and Morozov? Seems like the final decision we have to make before we deciding whether it's going to be a top 40, 50 or 60 list.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So how do the others feel about the eligibility of Loob, Kamensky, Peltonen and Morozov? Seems like the final decision we have to make before we deciding whether it's going to be a top 40, 50 or 60 list.

Loob seems like the "least eligible" to me

 

[Batis]

Loob seems like the "least eligible" to me

Yes I agree. Considering that Loob spent 6 seasons in the NHL between the age of 23 and 28 I think it is hard to fit him in the criteria "spent the majority of their peak years in Europe". On the other hand I think it could be argued that Loob was at least almost as good in 81/82-82/83 and 89/90-92/93 as he was during his time in North America. So that would give him 6 seasons in Europe that was at least somewhat similar in quality as his 6 seasons in North America. But unless someone wants to put forward an argument for that Loob was better at age 21-22 and 29-32 in Sweden than he was at age 23-28 in the NHL I still personally dont think that he should be eligible for this project.

 

[Theokritos]

Fair enough. Loob, Näslund, Peltonen out; Kamensky and Morozov in?

 

[steve141]

Loob seems like the "least eligible" to me

Loob's prime is split halfway between the NHL and the SHL. I think it makes more sense to fall on the inclusive side and let the voters sort it out than to exclude and leave people who read the rankings wondering what happened.

I think many people don't realize how strong Loob's Swedish record is, ending his career as the all-time leader for both goals and points for both single seasons and career.

Here's how Loob placed in the yearly points scoring race in Sweden (regular season+playoffs):

1980: 50+
1981: 3
1982: 1
1983: 1 (set record for goals and points)
1990: 1
1991: 1
1992: 1
1993: 1
1994: (injured)
1995: 9
1996: 4

Overall, six consecutive years as the top scorer, plus three more years as an elite scorer.

It seems weird to me to leave the all-time leading goal scorer in the SHL out from a ranking of the top Non-NHL Europeans.

 

[Batis]

Loob's prime is split halfway between the NHL and the SHL. I think it makes more sense to fall on the inclusive side and let the voters sort it out than to exclude and leave people who read the rankings wondering what happened.

I think many people don't realize how strong Loob's Swedish record is, ending his career as the all-time leader for both goals and points for both single seasons and career.

Here's how Loob placed in the yearly points scoring race in Sweden (regular season+playoffs):

1980: 50+
1981: 3
1982: 1
1983: 1 (set record for goals and points)
1990: 1
1991: 1
1992: 1
1993: 1
1994: (injured)
1995: 9
1996: 4

Overall, six consecutive years as the top scorer, plus three more years as an elite scorer.

It seems weird to me to leave the all-time leading goal scorer in the SHL out from a ranking of the top Non-NHL Europeans.

While I agree that Loobs career in Sweden is very impressive I really don't think that the regular season and playoff scoring should be combined especially in the early 80´s seasons when only the top 4 of the 10 teams made the playoffs. In 1982 Loob was actually 4th in regular season scoring but two of the players ahead of him (Ivan Hansen and Mats Näslund) played for teams who missed the playoffs which of course made it easier for Loob to pass them. And in 1981 Loob was not even top 10 in regular season scoring but won the playoff scoring race. And as four players in the regular season top 10 missed the playoffs and three other players in the top 10 was relegated in the first round of the playoffs (semifinals) Loob could of course climb much in the combined scoring race. Here is Loobs top 10 finishes in the regular season scoring according to Hockey Archives.

81/82: 4th
82/83: 1st
89/90: 3rd (Tied for 2nd)
90/91: 1st
91/92: 1st
92/93: 1st
94/95: 7th (Tied for 6th)
95/96: 3rd

Still very impressive of course. And while I dont have a big problem with including Loob in the project I personally dont think that he quite qualifies under the current criteria "spent their peak years in Europe". Then we would have to change it to something like "players who spent roughly half their prime, or more, in Europe"

 

[seventieslord]

Fair enough. Loob, Näslund, Peltonen out; Kamensky and Morozov in?

someone explain "Peltonen out" to me. He played less than 400 NHL games and about 1000 internationally.

 

[VMBM]

someone explain "Peltonen out" to me. He played less than 400 NHL games and about 1000 internationally.

No one seemed to suggest it, so I don't know, but maybe Theokritos considers Loob's and Peltonen's (and Näslund's) cases equivalent (?).

Peltonen did play in the NHL as early as 1995-97 and again 1997-2001 (he was born in 1973). On the other hand, only in the 1999-2000 season did he play (near) full season (79 games), and spent much of those periods in the IHL or AHL.

So I would say that his 'life's work' was definitely done in international competition and in the domestic/European (e.g. Swedish, Swiss) leagues.

I will certainly not lose any sleep if Peltonen isn't eligible, but still he was a somewhat legendary 'modern' international player, who did not have much of an NHL career to speak of.

---

How about Veli-Pekka Ketola? Born in 1948, played 3 seasons in the WHA (the Jets, Calgary Cowboys) 1974-77. I think he was very much considered the best Finnish forward of his time.

 

[Theokritos]

Peltonen spent 5 out of 6 seasons in North America in the age range of 22-28, that's why I had him "out". But it's true that one would rather go with his European career to make a case for him, so I've got no issue with him being eligible. Veli-Pekka Ketola should be in too.

Any questionable/borderline cases left to solve?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think there are two ways to go about doing this:

1) After discussion, decide which players are eligible and which are not. Make a list with any name anyone could possibly think of and whether he is eligible or not. Voters are expected to stick to the list.

2) Leave it open-ended. Let each voter decide who should be eligible or not.

We also need to decide if the list is going to be 30, 40, 50, or 60 names long.

 

[Theokritos]

2) Leave it open-ended. Let each voter decide who should be eligible or not.

We had that poll with a result in favour of "Only Europeans who spent their peak years in Europe." If we leave it open-ended and guys like Hašek and Sundin appear on some ballots that would defeat the whole preliminary discussion & polling so far, wouldn't it?

 

[seventieslord]

We had that poll with a result in favour of "Only Europeans who spent their peak years in Europe." If we leave it open-ended and guys like Hašek and Sundin appear on some ballots that would defeat the whole preliminary discussion & polling so far, wouldn't it?

agree. option 1 is the way to go.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We had that poll with a result in favour of "Only Europeans who spent their peak years in Europe." If we leave it open-ended and guys like Hašek and Sundin appear on some ballots that would defeat the whole preliminary discussion & polling so far, wouldn't it?

The poll was to determine criteria. It's perfectly acceptable to let individual voters determine how to apply the criteria. It's also perfectly acceptable to have the group decide how to apply it, of course.

 

[Ben Grimm]

Thanks for having a 3rd option in the poll. Democracy has spoken.

 

[Theokritos]

I think there are two ways to go about doing this:

1) After discussion, decide which players are eligible and which are not. Make a list with any name anyone could possibly think of and whether he is eligible or not. Voters are expected to stick to the list.

2) Leave it open-ended. Let each voter decide who should be eligible or not.

We also need to decide if the list is going to be 30, 40, 50, or 60 names long.

Any more input on this?

 

[KriminellPipa]

Any more input on this?

For me, #1 After discussion... seems like the best option.

 

[Theokritos]

agree. option 1 is the way to go.

For me, #1 After discussion... seems like the best option.

The poll was to determine criteria. It's perfectly acceptable to let individual voters determine how to apply the criteria. It's also perfectly acceptable to have the group decide how to apply it, of course.

2-1 so far. Do we need another poll?