Ovechkin comes to mind as a player whose career I have followed from beginning to end and think he gets vastly overrated by Hart voting.
Players you think are better or worse than the evidence would suggest?
- Thread starter Felidae
- Start date
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 9,375
- 2,733
A bit undisciplined is an understatement and I would question if he really was the second best defenseman for a decade. I give Pronger 06 as his best playoffs. After and before that he generally cost his team (ducks overcame it). Pretty bad PKer for an "elite" two-way defenseman as well.
Fatass
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 23,974
- 15,679
Equipment makes a big difference to players from the older era. Skates and sticks. Goalie equipment was very different. Skating on old tube skates with little to no support and bad edges made the game different. Wooden sticks meant boy guys with elite skills and forearm/hand strength could shoot hard. Goalies wore equipment that absorbed sweat and water from the ice and got super heavy during games, so it was small to keep the weight down. Wasn’t much protection.
The best players (the greats) would be the best players in any era. Howe would be a star now and McDavid would be a star in the ‘50s. Espo would score 50 now and OV would score 50 in the ‘70s.
If there is a difference it would be in the toughness of the players. All guys would need to know how to handle themselves.
The best players (the greats) would be the best players in any era. Howe would be a star now and McDavid would be a star in the ‘50s. Espo would score 50 now and OV would score 50 in the ‘70s.
If there is a difference it would be in the toughness of the players. All guys would need to know how to handle themselves.
It would be good if the OP referenced the HOH ratings. Esposito would be a great example of being rated lower than the evidence (record breaking numbers and many more Art Rosses than forwards rated above him) would suggest.
Among current players, I think Draisaitl is worse than the evidence (scoring finishes/PPG) would suggest.
Among current players, I think Draisaitl is worse than the evidence (scoring finishes/PPG) would suggest.
Last edited:
Given vastly different conditions, I don't see much reason to believe that a player that mastered a specific set of conditions would necessarily have enjoyed similar success if the conditions were different. Several HHoF goalies were 5'6" or smaller, it's as good as certain that they wouldn't even make the league today. Good if anywhere in pro hockey.
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 12,086
- 15,246
I mean, trophy counting is pretty surface level though, especially with goaltending, arguably the most unpredictable position.
No one thinks Bobrovsky is overall a better goaltender.
Lundqvist I think is a case of someone that was incredibly consistent as one of the best for a long time, but didn't really have that singular season where he stood clearly above the rest. The stats and his award voting record reflect that for the most part.
Bobrovsky is someone that peaked high but only ever reached that level once or twice with nothing else to show for it. Like a lesser version of peak Tim Thomas without the postseason prestige.
Maurice Richard and Valeri Kharlamov are a little overrated due to their cultural importance.
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 12,086
- 15,246
No?
I'm not even saying I necessarily agree, but Esposito never displaying the same dominance without Orr will always be a question mark whether fair or not and the 1972 summit series is too small a sample size to disprove any doubts.
I know he won an Art Ross in 1968 when Orr played only 67 games. But Orr still won the norris that year, and that was Esposito's weakest art Ross win. He wouldn't go on to dominate to the extent he did until a few years later, which also coincided with Orr's best years.
I think it's completely reasonable to question how much of that record breaking, statistical dominance was attributed to Orr and whether he could replicate it in Orr's absence. Unfortunately, we'll never know the answer.
For the record, I'm of the opinion that star players will almost always find a way to produce at similar levels regardless of circumstance. I think Jagr is a very good example. His 1998 season, relative to competition, is around the same level as his 1995 season but without the lemieux question mark. So I probably take Esposito's stats at face value more than the average user.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Not to oversimplify it, but yeah...Blake had big hits and a big shot. Numminen was Mr. Efficiency.
I mean, this was an era where Vladimir Kosntantinov got dangerously close to a Norris...yuck.
I remember you claimed Petrov was overrated and that even his 150th place on this board's ranking was way too high because he didn't pass your eye test. Somehow though he always outscored everyone while being a defensive forward.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I think it was your claim that we were way off on Petrov. Then I asked you to handpick a game that would change our minds on him and that I would do the work to cut up the game for you to show him off in the interest of finding the truth. Then we did that, I made the video, and it confirmed my belief and changed no one's mind because he's worse than his numbers indicate...
Mike C
Registered User
The opposite side of this, is Espo had good success independent of Orr when Bob was injured and with Rangers. As someone posted, Espo's presence benefited Orr in reciprocal fashion. If I wanted to play this out, which I don't because I consider Orr to be in the top 2 of all time greats-- I would say Orr's numbers are inflated because of Phil's goal scoring prowess.
I don't beleive that to be true nor do I believe Orr propped up Phil
Star players will find a way to produce at similar levels
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
In keeping with the Esposito example, I find it hard to evaluate superstars who played a large portion of their prime with another superstar.
Guys like Draisaitl, Malkin, Kurri, Messier, Fedorov. (just fishing for examples, not looking to debate really)
Their talent is always undeniable, so it's not a question of whether they deserve the accolades.
But even in a situation where they are on separate lines, they typically play together on the PP and may see worse defensive opposition due to the presence of their teammate.
In those cases, we often try to isolate those situations where the other guy was injured or if one or the other was traded to another team. It still may be a relatively small sample, and in a lot of those cases though, the player in question may no longer be in their prime.
I used to laugh at the cyclical "Alfredsson is good because he plays with Spezza and Heatley, Heatley is good because he plays with Alfredsson and Spezza, Spezza is good because he plays with Alfredsson and Heatley" arguments that permeated discussion in the 2000s.
In some cases the sum of the parts exceeds their individual talent, but perhaps in others, it holds them back as they don't see the puck as much.
Guys like Draisaitl, Malkin, Kurri, Messier, Fedorov. (just fishing for examples, not looking to debate really)
Their talent is always undeniable, so it's not a question of whether they deserve the accolades.
But even in a situation where they are on separate lines, they typically play together on the PP and may see worse defensive opposition due to the presence of their teammate.
In those cases, we often try to isolate those situations where the other guy was injured or if one or the other was traded to another team. It still may be a relatively small sample, and in a lot of those cases though, the player in question may no longer be in their prime.
I used to laugh at the cyclical "Alfredsson is good because he plays with Spezza and Heatley, Heatley is good because he plays with Alfredsson and Spezza, Spezza is good because he plays with Alfredsson and Heatley" arguments that permeated discussion in the 2000s.
In some cases the sum of the parts exceeds their individual talent, but perhaps in others, it holds them back as they don't see the puck as much.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,273
- 16,653
Blake was a Dion Phaneuf that stayed out west. So all the voters saw was the highlight reels.
Konstaninov was Chelios without the PP time. Getting that close was fine.
Mike C
Registered User
Since we were talking about the super series I just picked the first game I could find from one of the exhibition games. He scored like 3 points including 2 goals if I remember correctly. You had a preconceived view of him so you were looking for things to cherry pick. Afaik you blamed him for giving up a goal despite the fact Kharlamov was the guy nearest to the NYR player who scored and Petrov wasn't really responsible at all. Someone, I think @Batis if I am not mistaken made a thread on penalty killing and Petrov had the highest goal difference out of every Soviet player. Basically Petrov dominates all statistics but somehow is much worse than it looks according to you.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Why/how would I have pre-conceived notion of Petrov without watching him? So, he has huge numbers, right? So anything that I knew about him before watching him must have been positive, right? Then, because I actually go back and watch the games, I went "ah, he's good, not great...not as great as his numbers for me." ...you came along and sang the praises of his numbers and I said, "prove it on tape." And then you pointed to a game, I did the work for you, and Petrov - as expected - was in line with my other viewings. Good player. But you want him up in the Bobby Clarke area, I don't think he's as good as Paul Kariya...
It's not "somehow", it just is. Stats don't match output all the time. Dennis Maruk, Tim Thomas, Brian Elliott, P.A. Parenteau, Jonathan Cheechoo, Chris Osgood, etc. If we could just sort by [stat], this forum would have six threads...
No it's because my thread wasn't just about Petrov being underrated. I also tried comparing him to the best Canadian center of the 1970s Clarke and I painted a very unfavorable picture of him that is why some of you guys had the need to somehow prove Clarke was better and that Petrov was overrated. If I remember correctly you already wrote negatively about Petrov before I sent the game and even predicted you eventually disregarding of him as a star player.
The comparisons you draw are ridiculous. Dennis Maruk for example ended up with a below PPG despite playing only like 12 seasons in the easiest highest scoring era of the last 60 years (mid 70s to mid 80s) and had a one outlier superseason without which he wouldn't even be mentioned by anyone. Maruk also played several WCs and didn't perform nearly as well as Petrov who was way past prime in those very same tournaments.
Petrov on the other hand played better against better competition. That is why he led in the SuperSeries in points and also did better against better teams internationally:
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
You predicted that I would continue to find Petrov's game tape underwhelming relative to his numbers? Well, the best predictor of future is events...
Look, I'm not trying to convince you that he's anything that you don't want him to be. My offer was, earnestly, "if you find me a game where he looks amazing, I'll go to bat with you on raising his level in this forum."
There wasn't many games to choose from because I know the shtick. You'd call any game which wasn't against Canada/NHL not convincing so I had to choose one of the few games he played against the NHL that I could find a youtube of so I picked the game that had already been mentioned in the thread.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I can say without any shred of a doubt that you have me confused with someone else. My whole job is adjusting for the skill level of a player at a level when he's playing against teams that are 95% not going to be NHLers haha
You could have had him in a game against Iraq and I still would have been able to figure out whether what he was doing was because he was great or whether he was getting away with stuff because he was playing against Iraq.
So, since it sounds like you have buyer's remorse, I'll re-make the offer. Point to the game, I want to see it. I'd much, much, much rather be right than wrong about a player's on ice performance. So if my talent evaluation of Petrov is wrong and I've been dealt some bad games, I want it corrected.
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 12,086
- 15,246
How about Rod Langway?
In his prime won 2 Norris trophies, was a finalist one other time, and had an impressive hart record for a defenseman. Purely based on his defensive abilities.
He seems like a prime candidate for being worse than the evidence suggests. But then again, considering how rare it is for the voting committee to get behind a purely defensive defenseman winning the Norris much less being a hart finalist (just skimming through, it seems unprecedented?), he could just as easily be a "better than the evidence suggests" type of player given his completely unremarkable offensive production in the highest scoring era.
In his prime won 2 Norris trophies, was a finalist one other time, and had an impressive hart record for a defenseman. Purely based on his defensive abilities.
He seems like a prime candidate for being worse than the evidence suggests. But then again, considering how rare it is for the voting committee to get behind a purely defensive defenseman winning the Norris much less being a hart finalist (just skimming through, it seems unprecedented?), he could just as easily be a "better than the evidence suggests" type of player given his completely unremarkable offensive production in the highest scoring era.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I recently cut up Langway video and posted it in a Langway thread. I don't think he necessarily belongs in this thread. At least, I wouldn't immediately go there.
BarnabyJones PI
I'd kindly settle for a tall glass of milk.
Numminen could be overappreciated at times in Winnipeg, IMO. For every mistake that Olausson would make, someone would quickly chime in about how dependable Numminen was. And I certainly understand that Olausson could be eratic, but I felt that Numminen got too much credit on the blue line when a lot of times the team itself was mediocre.
I always thought that Numminen's defensive reputation, was a bit overblown. And the main reason I even started to consider that, was in '91-'92, the moment Mike Lalor (of all people) started to play with the team, I felt that the team had an identity in their own end; as opposed to just having a bunch of guys who can generate offense from the back end (Housley, Olausson, and Numminen). Igor Ulanov certainly gave the team something that they were missing (dirty/physical play), but Lalor seemed more dependable, and that whatever he was doing felt like a starting point to build off of. They finished 8-3-4 down the stretch after acquiring Lalor on March 2nd, 1992.
A team with Numminen could be rudderless, which is exactly how I felt about the team from '93 to '96, and a number of his years in Arizona. While he does a bunch of the "right" things, I feel like he plays everything too correctly, too safe, no mistakes, etc. Great in a vacuum, but whatever he's doing correctly isn't spreading throughout the team, or specifically the defensive corps. He's hard to fault, but that's it, he's a bit too understated.
When Paddock took over as the GM, and wanted to toughen up the team by loading up on former WHL players, coupled with the team having a bunch of tough guys already (specifically Domi), the team became WAY TOO polarizing. You go from having half of the team made up of offensively skilled players (who don't do enough of the little things), and the other half made up of bruisers. Too many of those guys together, and they become a bunch of knuckleheads taking stupid penalties; like the early to mid-'90s Sabres teams. The Jets were seriously lacking in high IQ guys who could bridge the two. I recall that Mike Keane and the Jets were interested in one another, and they seriously could have used that type of a player then. If not Mike Keane, something in line with what the Devils and Stars were doing, going after smart players; the last remains of the Montreal '80s developmental factory.
I'm saying this, because Numminen is one of those key guys who seems to be absolved of having any responsibility during that period. Maybe, speak up a little bit. I know that there were issues between Selanne and Quintal (and others) during that stretch, but you never hear anything about Numminen, who I think could have helped out in some ways.
He's not a #1 defenseman, and while his offensive numbers were actually quite nice, I felt that he would only make moves with AQs, +QQ, AKo. A VERY tight range. Had he been in Lidstrom's position in the '90s, being surrounded by very knowledgeable people like Mark Howe, Brad McCrimmon, watching guys like Fetisov and Konstantinov up close, and learning when to open things up from a smarter version of Paul Coffey, I have no doubt that he would have made another jump or two in his game, and we'd be talking about a HOF player (cuspy at worst).
I always thought that Numminen's defensive reputation, was a bit overblown. And the main reason I even started to consider that, was in '91-'92, the moment Mike Lalor (of all people) started to play with the team, I felt that the team had an identity in their own end; as opposed to just having a bunch of guys who can generate offense from the back end (Housley, Olausson, and Numminen). Igor Ulanov certainly gave the team something that they were missing (dirty/physical play), but Lalor seemed more dependable, and that whatever he was doing felt like a starting point to build off of. They finished 8-3-4 down the stretch after acquiring Lalor on March 2nd, 1992.
A team with Numminen could be rudderless, which is exactly how I felt about the team from '93 to '96, and a number of his years in Arizona. While he does a bunch of the "right" things, I feel like he plays everything too correctly, too safe, no mistakes, etc. Great in a vacuum, but whatever he's doing correctly isn't spreading throughout the team, or specifically the defensive corps. He's hard to fault, but that's it, he's a bit too understated.
When Paddock took over as the GM, and wanted to toughen up the team by loading up on former WHL players, coupled with the team having a bunch of tough guys already (specifically Domi), the team became WAY TOO polarizing. You go from having half of the team made up of offensively skilled players (who don't do enough of the little things), and the other half made up of bruisers. Too many of those guys together, and they become a bunch of knuckleheads taking stupid penalties; like the early to mid-'90s Sabres teams. The Jets were seriously lacking in high IQ guys who could bridge the two. I recall that Mike Keane and the Jets were interested in one another, and they seriously could have used that type of a player then. If not Mike Keane, something in line with what the Devils and Stars were doing, going after smart players; the last remains of the Montreal '80s developmental factory.
I'm saying this, because Numminen is one of those key guys who seems to be absolved of having any responsibility during that period. Maybe, speak up a little bit. I know that there were issues between Selanne and Quintal (and others) during that stretch, but you never hear anything about Numminen, who I think could have helped out in some ways.
He's not a #1 defenseman, and while his offensive numbers were actually quite nice, I felt that he would only make moves with AQs, +QQ, AKo. A VERY tight range. Had he been in Lidstrom's position in the '90s, being surrounded by very knowledgeable people like Mark Howe, Brad McCrimmon, watching guys like Fetisov and Konstantinov up close, and learning when to open things up from a smarter version of Paul Coffey, I have no doubt that he would have made another jump or two in his game, and we'd be talking about a HOF player (cuspy at worst).
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
Proposal: Brady Tkachuk to New York Rangers- Latest: frightenedinmatenum2
-
Yeah Sullivan Sucks, but Dubas needs to be talked about too...- Latest: BlindWillyMcHurt
-
