Players Who Are Less Than Their Resumes?

[CokenoPepsi]

As I said, Hossa needed a #1C to be successful while Alfie didn’t.

He wasn’t the same kind of offensive catalyst.

I mean, Alfie wasn't successful in those years.

Hossa was definitely the guy

 

[Hippasus]

I mean, Alfie wasn't successful in those years.

Hossa was definitely the guy

It was like Hossa 1a, Alfredsson 1b, and Havlat 1c. They were built based on right wing for a couple seasons there.

 

[NyQuil]

I mean, Alfie wasn't successful in those years.

Hossa was definitely the guy

And was traded for a reason.

Why keep Alfie if he wasn’t the guy?

It’s because he was the guy, and team management and the fans knew it.

Hossa
2002-2003 80 45-35-80 +8
2003-2004 81 36-46-82 +4

Alfredsson
2002-2003 78 27-51-78 +15
2003-2004 77 32-48-80 +12

He scored 4 more points on the 1st line in 6 more games than Alfie did with a rotating cast of centres?

I mean, I'm not seeing this separation you speak of. Clearly Bryan Murray didn't either.

No team trades the guy.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

And was traded for a reason.

Why keep Alfie if he wasn’t the guy?

It’s because he was the guy, and team management and the fans knew it.

Hossa
2002-2003 80 45-35-80 +8
2003-2004 81 36-46-82 +4

Alfredsson
2002-2003 78 27-51-78 +15
2003-2004 77 32-48-80 +12

He scored 4 more points on the 1st line in 6 more games than Alfie did with a rotating cast of centres?

I mean, I'm not seeing this separation you speak of. Clearly Bryan Murray didn't either.

No team trades the guy.

Just because you are the guy doesn't mean it always works out and a change is needed.

Let's look at the playoffs.

Hossa

2002-2003 18 5-11-16 -1
2003-2004 7 3-1-4 0

Alfie

2002-2003 18 4-4 8 -3
2003-2004 7 1-2 3 +0

You see a pretty big seperation there.

Alfie would not have got back Heatley in a trade

 

[wetcoast]

I think most if not all serious fans have players they consider less impressive than their careers look on paper.

Who are players you think aren't as good as their accomplishments make them look? Whether it's because of great players and/or teams elevating them. weak competition, injuries to rivals at unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on perspective) times or other factors, which players have careers that are flattering to their actual abilities and impact?

I hate to be that guy but as a Canucks fan the Sedins are my immediate answer whenever I hear of a variant on this topic.

I'm sure there are greater examples but as a Canucks fan I found their twilight years and supporters argument utterly nauseating.

But then again I think for the sedins it's more of their reputation than their resume.

Lindros as well.

 

[wetcoast]

So, you got the thread's intent exactly backwards then...?

I gets that he literally does but to me it seems that for a lot of people in an emotional sense interchange hype/resume with a negative thought about certain players right?

After all out first instincts are about perfections except for the extreme view that have all of hockey memorized.

I find that even being a die hard hockey fan for all of my 50 something years I still find new ways to think and appreciate about hockey and it history as well as it's future and to me that's why it is the greatest sport in the world.

 

[wetcoast]

Again, versus the resume is the deal here...

M.Richard - It's tough because he is supremely technically skilled, but wingers that don't do much but shoot I just find to be overrated by the whole winger AST and the unbalanced attack. In the context of top 10 or whatever, I'll pass.

Ovechkin - Same basic deal as Richard really. All time great, but I'd strongly prefer players with more dimension. (inb4 "he has SO MANY dimensions!")

T.Lindsay - Again the LW thing, but he's a super worker, but not very efficient. Played like he was being chased by bees.

Tony Esposito - I talked about him at length in the goalie project thread. He's not a missing link butterfly guy...he's a guesser and kind of a mess. He got what he deserved in the playoffs. But I could fill this list with goalies right now haha - Gump Worsley for instance.

Norm Ullman - I never really thought 1300 points or whatever he had matched his play. I will say that in going back through the goalie tape, he did pop a little better at times. Still...101 on our list? Get lost...

Peter Stastny - Does anyone have any idea who has the 2nd most points in the 80's? Anyone? Has anyone heard that one? We get it. I'd like to go back and see if he was even better than Goulet. We have him ahead of Dale Hawerchuk? Boo. We have him over Gilbert Perreault? I should be rolled up in a carpet and thrown in a lake if I'm responsible for that.

A couple years ago, I might have said Red Kelly here, but he had some really nice games when I was doing the goalie stuff, so I don't think that anymore.

Good list and for Stastny I've been thinking in the last year that maybe the whole he was second in points in the 80s which I never thought was a good argument means even less as his perception to me is slipping but maybe that's just me.

And I'm kind of surprised that Dionne hasn't come up yet but that reminds me of Lafleur........ that will cause a very strong reaction no doubt.

Tony's brother Phil as I have been reading the thread and thinking about it more.

 

[wetcoast]

I wonder where Fleury fit there, high talent obviously and the yoga still body to have such longevity, in some part the resume is insane.

WJ MVP, Vezina, 3 cups (*2 game played in 2016, did really well in 2017 but Murray took the net back), all-decade first team, could he reach 600 win, 100 playoff win.

In other it is down to earth, no other top 3 vezina or all star team outside the Vezina season, lost his spot in the playoff-regular season during his should have been prime, -24 career GSAA, never made team Canada post juniors, so maybe it averages out an ok in line resume when you weight all of it.

The first thing that comes to mind in that the 2 share the same area of meh, MAF is kind of like the goalie version of Mike Gartner/Joe Thornton here.

 

[wetcoast]

What bout Ken Dryden, 258w-57L, .922 career save percentage, 6x cup, calder, smythe,, 5 vezina, all that in just 7 season (all star team in all but one of his career)

Hart: 2-4-4 despite his own team competition, 317.2 career GSAA in only 397 games, Montreal did not do that well in 1974 without him which is a big plus on his resume, the list is long considering, should he not be talked about a bit like Hasek-Roy for the best prime with that resume, are we too harsh for the summer series, the guy won in average 10 playoff games a year, in an era where the max was often 12 for Montreal !

He was probably less than that, not having to play against Mtl versus all the other goaltender of his time and playing for them, even if we say he is one of the best ever at it.

He doesn't fit and I say this as a very impressionable youngster and Hab hater and generally confused about how to rank and think about goalies I recognized and respected Dryden impact greatly.

But then again I read the game when it first came out and it really resonated with me on an emotional level.

 

[wetcoast]

John Tavares

His resume isn't all that great is it?

Went and looked

Top 10 in goals 4 times

Assists 2 times.

Points 2 times,

 

[NyQuil]

Just because you are the guy doesn't mean it always works out and a change is needed.

Alfie would not have got back Heatley in a trade

If Hossa was the guy, they would have found a way to keep him.

He wasn’t and they didn’t.

 

[The Macho King]

If Hossa was the guy, they would have found a way to keep him.

He wasn’t and they didn’t.

Proof is in all the Cups the Sens won without him.

Chara clearly wasn't the guy either.

 

[NyQuil]

Proof is in all the Cups the Sens won without him.

Chara clearly wasn't the guy either.

They didn’t trade Chara.

 

[DitchMarner]

I hate to be that guy but as a Canucks fan the Sedins are my immediate answer whenever I hear of a variant on this topic.

I'm sure there are greater examples but as a Canucks fan I found their twilight years and supporters argument utterly nauseating.

But then again I think for the sedins it's more of their reputation than their resume.

Lindros as well.

Lindros' on-paper career definitely underrepresents his talent level and dominance in his prime.

You can argue he's overrated based on what he actually accomplished, but I think his proponents base their high opinions of him more on his raw ability and how much of an impact he made per game in his prime than on things like Hart and AST voting records, scoring race finishes, awards etc.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

If Hossa was the guy, they would have found a way to keep him.

He wasn’t and they didn’t.

An older playoff disappointing player in Alfie did not have the value to trade for Heatley...but the better player and younger player Hossa did.

 

[The Macho King]

They didn’t trade Chara.

They chose to keep Redden over him.

GMs make bad decisions all the time. Argument from Authority, especially from a GM who never won anything, is dumb.

 

[rmartin65]

GMs make bad decisions all the time. Argument from Authority, especially from a GM who never won anything, is dumb.

I mean… kind of. If your car breaks and your mechanic (the authority here) tells you to do one thing and I (decidedly not an authority in the field) tell you another, you should probably go with the authority figure.

 

[The Macho King]

I mean… kind of. If your car breaks and your mechanic (the authority here) tells you to do one thing and I (decidedly not an authority in the field) tell you another, you should probably go with the authority figure.

I didn't use the best example but saying "GM made the right call because he's the GM" when he has a similar high profile flub in the exact same era and GMs writ large make terrible decisions all the time is just... annoying.

That's to say a GM is less an authority than someone with objective expertise. GMs have more in common with bad weathermen than mechanics.

 

[rmartin65]

I didn't use the best example but saying "GM made the right call because he's the GM" when he has a similar high profile flub in the exact same era and GMs writ large make terrible decisions all the time is just... annoying.

I agree that saying "GM made the right call because he's the GM" is a bad argument, but I don't think it means that we shouldn't take authority opinion into consideration.

That's to say a GM is less an authority than someone with objective expertise. GMs have more in common with bad weathermen than mechanics.

Here is where you lose me. Some GMs may have objective expertise- I'd wager most of them do.

FWIW, there are bad mechanics out there too. All professions have professionals who are bad or inadequate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take expert opinions into account.

 

[The Macho King]

I was more going for the armchair GM argument that all GMs are dumb than anything more than that. But point taken.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

First one is Corey Perry. He's got a lot more hardware (Hart and Rocket) than his contemporary and teammate Ryan Getzlaf. If you go strictly with the trophy case Perry looks way better, but if you watched them a lot you would know that Getzlaf was more important to the team and the better overall player.

Perry is the first name that came to mind for me too. I've posted a variation of this a few times:

• Hart trophy? Yes, Perry won the Hart, which is the single most prestigious award anyone can win. But he was lucky that he had by far the best season of his career when most of the top players had off years - Crosby missed half the year, Ovechkin had his weird two-year slump, Malkin missed half the season, Kane wasn't a superstar yet, Datsyuk missed 30 games, etc.
• Stanley Cup? Yes, Perry won a Stanley Cup. At a minimum, he was definitely less valuable than Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer, JS Giguere, Ryan Getzlaf and Samuel Pahlsson. He was roughly on par with Andy McDonald, Francois Beauchemin and Teemu Selanne (and I think there are good arguments for at least two of them over Perry). So he's at best the 6th most valuable player on a Cup winning team, and realistically probably more like 8th. Not bad, but if this is the cornerstone of his Hall of Fame case, it's a weak one.
• Olympic gold medals? Hopefully nobody uses the 2014 Olympic goal as an argument for Perry's induction. He scored 1 point in 6 games on a powerhouse team. His stats were better in 2010 but those 5 points in 7 games look impressive until you realize that most of his production came in blowouts. Of his five points, he scored a goal that made it 7-0 against Norway, then goals that made it 5-1 and 7-2 against Russia. He did score a big goal in the gold medal game but that doesn't make him a Hall of Fame player.

Perry was a top twenty scorer just three times in his career. That's a ridiculously low amount for a HOF forward. He brought some toughness and hitting ability to his teams, but I don't think he's substantially better than his numbers make him look. Wheeler, Kessel and Spezza (who nobody consider HOF'ers) each have more years in the top twenty in scoring. Pavelski is tied with Perry [2024 edit - he's now passed Perry]. The best thing I can say is Pavelski has one more year in the top twenty than Zach Parise, and that doesn't exactly scream "Hall of Fame".

 

[MadLuke]

And he added a lot of playoff stories to his resumes, list of forward with more playoff games than Corey perry

Mike Keane
Bryan Trottier
Kris Draper
Glenn Anderson
Guy Carbonneau
Claude Lemieux
Mark Messier

 

[Voight]

Always thought Scott Stevens was better than Scott Niedermayer. If you just go by comparing their resumes though, Nieds blows him and a lot of other defenceman better then him out of the water.

Years from now when people look back at Tampa Bays threat of a dynasty, it will be a wtf moment seeing Pat Maroon winning 3 cups in a row.

Marc Andre Fleury is a weird one. Looking at it without context you would think he’s a top 5 goalie in the world. 2 of his cups he wasn’t the main starter, Olympic gold medal without playing a game. Wins veznia in a weird Covid shorten season and then traded for nothing after. Had a long string of years even after winning his first cup of being a bad playoff performer and lost his starter job temporary. I feel like all the negatives in his career will be forgotten as he’s a HOF goalie but his career has been such seesaw.

Not to mention, Vasilievskiy was the 1st AST selection that year.

I'm going with Price. His entire career all you heard was the hype and potential but he really only put it together and hit that level for about 18 months of his career.

Outside of the Hart his career and #s are equal to Tuukka Rask.

.917/2.51 and 110 GSAA for Price vs .921/2.28 and 149 GSAA for Rask.

1x AS-1 for Price vs 1x AS-1 and 1x AS-2 for Rask.

1,3,4,5,7,9,10 Vezina for Price vs 1,2,5,7,7 for Rask.

I second this.

 

[MadLuke]

I second this.

Which part of Price resume stated here made him sound more than the players he was.

Was Price career not worthy of a single all-star finish, 2 time Vezina finalist, .917/2.51 110 GSAA ?

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think that guy meant "reputation" and not "resume"