Players you think are better or worse than the evidence would suggest?

[frisco]

We ranked him 132nd here. But that greatly overstates the difference. Between 1st and 132nd on our list, I see 52 players who were either pre-NHL or European players (who were outside of the scope of THN's list), or players too young to have been ranked ahead of Perreault at the time (some who were 25-33 but most whose careers hadn't even begun).

So really, the HOH forum ranked him about 80th all-time by the same criteria as THN (NHL only, circa 1998). Is that so egregious compared to 70th?

I know he's your favorite player but did you think he could be ranked top 100 forever? It's been 36 years and a lot of great players have come and gone in that time.

That's a good point. 1998 Hockey News list includes all NHL history to that point (Perreault is #47) but no Europeans. If we just focus on NHL players whose careers had ended by 1998, there are quite a few NHLers ahead of Perreault on the HOF list but behind him on the THN list. And I don't think there's anyone higher than Perreault on the THN list but ranked lower than him on the HOF.

Just an example to explain what I'm talking about might be Brad Park. He's #49 and a couple spots behind Perreault in the THN list. But on the HOF list Park is #47 and Perreault #132. This NOT a Park vs. Perreault argument, but just an example of what I'm talking about.

So, that's where I get the underrated theme. Not a big deal and that's me just skimming a glance at the results. Feel free to check my work.

My Best-Carey

 

[BadgerBruce]

This one is a bit off the board.

Imagine that you are the captain of a Memorial Cup winning team and the recipient of the Canadian junior hockey player of the year award in 1957-58. You are now 20 years old and the consensus across the hockey land is that you are the finest junior hockey player in Canada.

But about a half dozen years earlier, you turned down the chance to sign a C-card with the Toronto Maple Leafs when Ken Reardon, representing the Montreal Canadiens, came to your parents home in Kirkland Lake and offered 5 $100 bills on the spot if you’d sign a C-Card with the Habs.

Playing for the Leafs some day was your childhood dream. But $500 is $500, so you sign with Montreal.

And now, in 1958, you are joining a dynasty team (that’s good) but also playing behind Jean Beliveau and the Pocket Rocket (that’s bad).

Had you signed that C-card with Toronto, you would not be joining a dynasty team and you’d compete for ice time down the middle against George Armstrong and Billy Harris. Maybe you’d have been a key player on the “dynasty-waiting-to-happen” Leafs a few years later. Maybe Punch Imlach wouldn’t have identified defenceman Red Kelly as the guy he’d convert into a pivot to go head-to-head against Beliveau. You definitely had the wheels and the smarts for that job.

But you didn’t sign with Toronto, and so you sucked it up with the Habs and became the best 3rd line centre in the NHL for the next dozen years. You win 6 Stanley Cups and even have a Calder trophy to show your friends, but at the end of those dozen years you’re still playing behind Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard. You’re a career “checking line centre,” respected as the best in the league at that role, but still … this isn’t how you envisioned things unfolding when you came out of junior.

That’s the barebones story of Ralph Backstrom, a hockey player who, quite rightly, doesn’t get a sniff at this board’s Top 200 players of all-time list but was, in my view, WAY better than most people today think.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Before the answer in the last paragraph, I got that it was Ralph Backstrom. That makes me happy.

Jacques Lemaire probably belongs in this thread. George Armstrong for me too if I recall.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Doesn't Ryan Getzlaf's career look a little "underwhelming" in terms of accolades compared to how good he was?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Getzlaf is a good one.

 

[wetcoast]

If we are considering players who are better than their voting records/stats show I'll offer some.

Duncan Keith won 2 Norrises, but only has one more top 5 finish. But he spent a decade as a top five defensemen in the league, who was able to be a heavy-minute playoff machine. In particular, his outlet pass and defensive play contributed a lot to the Blackhawk's playoff success.

Chris Pronger has a spotty Norris record, but was the second best defensemen in the league for a decade. His playoff runs in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 were excellent. But he only won one Cup and no Smythe because he was a bit undisciplined.

Both were recognized as greats, but their actual trophy case is paltry in comparison to their on-ice ability.

This is fair although Pronger gets some mileage out of his Hart.

Speaking of Harts I came here to say Bobby Clarke gets overrated around these parts due to his 3 Harts and he was my favorite non Canuck player growing up as I've always loved heart and soul guys.

Clarke was 7th on this sections top center list but really was he any better all time than say Forsberg who came in at #20?

 

[Gambitman]

A little before my time but I feel Billy Smith doesn’t get the respect he deserves. His name is never mentioned in any kind of top goalie conversation but his record in elimination games is unbelievable. The guy won 19 playoff series in a row in a 21 team league.

 

[The Panther]

I guess players that were propped up by better teammates are an easy target for the "worse" category. Like Esposito, Kurri.

Jari Kurri was just as great as the evidence proves in 1988-89, without Gretzky. He was probably a few years past his peak already, yet he scored 102 points (missing four games), was a 2nd-team All Star (could just as easily have been 1st), and also got Selke and Lady Byng votes.

A little before my time but I feel Billy Smith doesn’t get the respect he deserves. His name is never mentioned in any kind of top goalie conversation but his record in elimination games is unbelievable. The guy won 19 playoff series in a row in a 21 team league.

I absolutely agree with this one. Billy Smith is way under-regarded on this forum.

I didn't see the guy in his prime (vaguely remember seeing him when he was getting old and nearly washed-up), but whenever I see clips of him in his heyday he always looks very contemporary.

 

[The Panther]

I would argue that Maurice Richard is under-rated today (quite a bit, at that) for the very same reasons people are arguing he's over-rated: (a) cultural icon and (b) started in war-time. People now are quick to try to dismiss him, as if being a cultural icon should be held against someone's on-ice performance, and as if Richard played entirely during WWII (in reality, two of his 14 or 15 prime years were during the war).

 

[MadLuke]

Never achieved a ppg Toews could be both, some evidence would down play him, some maybe overrate him, not sure on which side the net balance goes.

Mike Komisarek, made the starting line up of an all star game, at one time got a 5th place Norris vote, was a 200+ block shot/hits big body and once signed a 4.3 million cap hit/5 years contract when that was a lot of money.

 

[VanIslander]

1. Yushkevich was one of the great defensive defensemen in NHL history (i loathe the Leafs; he repeatedly was a top-3 star).

2. Axelsson, P.J. is not on the list of top 100 Bruins all time but I can't name a half dozen better defensive wingers ever after Gainey.

3. Pronger, Chris is every bit as good as Larry Robinson (no insult to the latter; a childhood hero), but he never gets credit for being above the likes of MacInnis and Coffey.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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).

this was a very entertaining read, and very much the way i remember those jets teams my canucks played in back to back first rounds.

re: numminen specifically, i think of him in the ballpark of glen wesley, jay bouwmeester, and dan hamhuis. B, occasionally B+ offensively; A- defensively with an A defensive peak, but not physically imposing at all.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

this was a very entertaining read, and very much the way i remember those jets teams my canucks played in back to back first rounds.

re: numminen specifically, i think of him in the ballpark of glen wesley, jay bouwmeester, and dan hamhuis. B, occasionally B+ offensively; A- defensively with an A defensive peak, but not physically imposing at all.

Thank you! Honestly, the Canucks ruined high school for me, and the years that followed.

-- '91 Scott Arniel's 5 minute high sticking penalty with Coutnall capitalizing on it in overtime coupled with Ron Caron (in March) saying "Here, please take a ton of our depth! Anything for Garth Butcher." I felt that the Canucks collectively played bigger once that trade was made. You might have Bure (who didn't play small) and Ronning, yet, it seemed like everyone else on the team was 6'3" plus. Jets play a meaningless game vs the Oilers to close out the season, while everyone watching from Winnipeg was treated to a Petr Klima hat trick; which I'm sure the Oilers-brass didn't care for since he hit the 40-goal mark on the season which unlocked a bonus (lol).

-- '92 Games 5, 6, and 7 were total annihilations. John Paddock going with Rick Tabaracci because he showed the team some glimmer of hope in his late season match-ups vs the Canucks; despite Essensa finishing 3rd in Vezina voting that year. In fairness, I sort of understood the reasoning going with Tabaracci, seeing how the Jets struggled vs the Canucks all year long until their final two meetings of the year (Tie+W for the Jets). Still, VERY small sample size, and you don't give up on your full time goalie in that situation. Reminds of the Wade Phillips/Doug Flutie situation in Buffalo (to an extent). One could easily wonder if Troy Murray was born in 1952 midway through the series.

-- '93 More of the same as '92. For some reason, owner Arthur Griffiths was allowed to barge into any room he wanted to in Winnipeg...

-- '94 (and beyond), the Peca hit ('95), and just what you'd expect from the Jets at the time, too many stupid penalties. There's a bit of an inmates running the asylum (IMO) at that point in time. Who's there to put Dave Manson on a bit of a leash? Domi? Tkachuk (who's the captain at some point)? Kris King can play smart I supposed, but not in that environment, and not with those guys going all Lord-of-the-Flies.

Two teams going in different directions, with the Jets not capitalizing on that influx of talent they had coming in around that time. I never would have thought that the Jets would have sucked following '93.

 

[Felidae]

Jari Kurri was just as great as the evidence proves in 1988-89, without Gretzky. He was probably a few years past his peak already, yet he scored 102 points (missing four games), was a 2nd-team All Star (could just as easily have been 1st), and also got Selke and Lady Byng votes.


I absolutely agree with this one. Billy Smith is way under-regarded on this forum.

I didn't see the guy in his prime (vaguely remember seeing him when he was getting old and nearly washed-up), but whenever I see clips of him in his heyday he always looks very contemporary.

Jari Kurri did prove he would be a top 10 point producer without Gretzky, but I think its fair to say out of his "prime" seasons, that one was by far his 2nd weakest.

8th in points, 9th in PPG, and a clear decline in his goalscoring.

A noticeable downgrade from the guy who was consistently top 3 in PPG, Goals and GPG from 1983 to 1986. I think it's fair to question whether he would have reaches those same heights without Gretzky.

Although the season prior he had a slightly worse season while Gretzky was still an Oiler, so a bit more evidence to suggest Kurri's greatness independent of Gretzky.

 

[Albatros]

Kurri's decline was by and large quite linear, neither Gretzky's departure from Edmonton nor being reunited with him in LA changed the fortunes much one way or another. He just peaked in his mid-20s like many do.

 

[sr edler]

What constitutes as evidence here? Are we talking RS points, scoring finishes, awards, Cups?

I'll only speak on players I've seen extensively, so from early 90s and up, but two 90s/early 00s guys without flashy RS peak numbers or awards that were still very elite at their crafts IMO were Mike Modano and Mats Sundin, we had them in a thread head-to-head here recently.

I don't think Modano is underrated defensively, but probably offensively. I remember having a convo here on this board some grey moons ago about Keith Tkachuk, and someone brought up that game against Russia in the World Cup where he scored 4 goals. Okay, so I went over and watched the tape, and while Tkachuk still kinda looked like a chump, Modano was absolutely flying out there (!) opening up space, making plays, all things nice. He was the undisputed 1C on those golden era US teams. Not Lafontaine or Roenick or anyone else, but the dog food guy.

On the flip side, Auston Matthews to me seems to lack that crucial edge to his game that would propel you to legitimate all-time greatness. I remember Marner having an ice cold start to the 21–22 season, but then 10–15 or so games into the season he started buzzing hard, and voila, Matthews conveniently started to bag a shit ton of pucks. I don't know what it is exactly, but I've wondered lately if it could have something to do with things coming too easy for him early on (aka the curse of Brunnström) as a rookie, so he never felt he really needed to branch out into uncomfortable space.

Why did Matthews average less PK time than Nylander last season, for instance?

But yeah, I guess "evidence" (?) would put Matthews in a tier above Modano and Sundin, but I don't really see it myself, at least not so far.

 

[NyQuil]

Why did Matthews average less PK time than Nylander last season, for instance?

But yeah, I guess "evidence" (?) would put Matthews in a tier above Modano and Sundin, but I don't really see it myself, at least not so far.

I still have a hard time equating PK time to a player's defensive effectiveness or even effectiveness as a penalty killer.

So much of it has to do with their deployment in other situations, and more importantly, the other players on the team capable of playing that position and that role.

If you have a guy who is slightly worse at being a PKer but it keeps your superstar's minutes down, you employ that guy because the superstar's advantage at PP and ES is prohibitively more.

 

[frisco]

A little before my time but I feel Billy Smith doesn’t get the respect he deserves. His name is never mentioned in any kind of top goalie conversation but his record in elimination games is unbelievable. The guy won 19 playoff series in a row in a 21 team league.

Yeah, I think that's good. Islanders always were cinches in make the playoffs and had a high quality backup that kept Smith fresh for the playoffs so his regular season numbers rarely were eye catching. But his playoff record is immaculate. Sort of a reverse Luongo.

My Best-Carey

 

[Hobnobs]

What constitutes as evidence here? Are we talking RS points, scoring finishes, awards, Cups?

I'll only speak on players I've seen extensively, so from early 90s and up, but two 90s/early 00s guys without flashy RS peak numbers or awards that were still very elite at their crafts IMO were Mike Modano and Mats Sundin, we had them in a thread head-to-head here recently.

I don't think Modano is underrated defensively, but probably offensively. I remember having a convo here on this board some grey moons ago about Keith Tkachuk, and someone brought up that game against Russia in the World Cup where he scored 4 goals. Okay, so I went over and watched the tape, and while Tkachuk still kinda looked like a chump, Modano was absolutely flying out there (!) opening up space, making plays, all things nice. He was the undisputed 1C on those golden era US teams. Not Lafontaine or Roenick or anyone else, but the dog food guy.

On the flip side, Auston Matthews to me seems to lack that crucial edge to his game that would propel you to legitimate all-time greatness. I remember Marner having an ice cold start to the 21–22 season, but then 10–15 or so games into the season he started buzzing hard, and voila, Matthews conveniently started to bag a shit ton of pucks. I don't know what it is exactly, but I've wondered lately if it could have something to do with things coming too easy for him early on (aka the curse of Brunnström) as a rookie, so he never felt he really needed to branch out into uncomfortable space.

Why did Matthews average less PK time than Nylander last season, for instance?

But yeah, I guess "evidence" (?) would put Matthews in a tier above Modano and Sundin, but I don't really see it myself, at least not so far.

Modano is like the invert 90s star. His offense is underrated and his defense is overrated.

 

[pi314]

Alex Ovechkin will retire massively overrated.

Have seen him cherry pick and pad his stats in so many obvious defensive situations. Over and over.

Some people will have him as a top 5-10 guy when he retires.

In real hockey, there is no way I would take him in a game 7 over Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, MacKinnon, Messier, Roy, etc.

He’ll be remembered higher because stats.

But he has a lot of empty stats mixed in there.

 

[Felidae]

What constitutes as evidence here? Are we talking RS points, scoring finishes, awards, Cups?
.

Anything that points to their individual ability. Scoring/award finishes, regular/playoff points, how their ability is viewed by peers. Basically most things other than stuff exclusively team based like cup counting, wins, etc. Should go without saying of course that how they performed during team based accomplishments counts as "evidence" to their ability.

 

[Mobiandi]

Kiprusoff is the best goalie of the 00s and would have at least 1 or 2 more Vezinas and some deeper playoff runs if his workload was managed better.

His best back-up is probably Roman Turek who renegotiated his contract to allow the Flames to keep Kipper and then retired during the lockout. Other than his first and last seasons, he played 70+ games each year for the Flames.

I won’t even get into the GM Darryl Sutter side of things

I’m also romantic for the times when goaltending was an instinctual position. Equipment changes and eventual corrections and overcoaching have eliminated the spirit and personality once seen in NHL goaltending. For my money, it died the day Kiprusoff retired and it’s a shame because there were games where he, alone, was worth the price of admission

 

[Mike C]

Jari Kurri was just as great as the evidence proves in 1988-89, without Gretzky. He was probably a few years past his peak already, yet he scored 102 points (missing four games), was a 2nd-team All Star (could just as easily have been 1st), and also got Selke and Lady Byng votes.


I absolutely agree with this one. Billy Smith is way under-regarded on this forum.

I didn't see the guy in his prime (vaguely remember seeing him when he was getting old and nearly washed-up), but whenever I see clips of him in his heyday he always looks very contemporary.

Playoff Billy was a different kind of animal. He felt the opposition was trying to take money out of his pocket

57-13 during the dynasty years in the playoffs. That's 81.5 percent

 

[Mike C]

If you guys might indulge me to translate to other sports

Baseball-- Sammy Sosa(even pre steroids) worse

Hoops--James Harden Wilt Chamberlain ,way worse

 

[Michael Farkas]

Re: that Ovechkin comment. I have some room in my bomb shelter for when that gets found out by a certain handful of posters haha

Playoff Billy was a different kind of animal. He felt the opposition was trying to take money out of his pocket

57-13 during the dynasty years in the playoffs. That's 81.5 percent

When we did the best goaltenders project here, I thought I was gonna find someone way worse than his fame indicated on film. The Isles played D, their backups had really good numbers, etc. All signs were pointing to Smith being grossly overrated by his stats and awards. Not the case. Very good goaltender. Very high hockey sense. Came away pleasantly surprised.