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

[Michael Farkas]

Oh, yeah, we're definitely losing Niklas Hjalmarsson to the sands of time. Almost immediately. In fact, a year after he was traded to the Coyotes, it felt like he disappeared from memory...

 

[daver]

The NHL scoring Pairs thread brings up some names and an interesting dynamic:

Jari Jurri, Nick Backstrom, Bossy/Trottier, Howe/Lindsay, the Sedins, and Draisaitl.

I think it is well established that Kurri and Backstrom are rated significantly below the level their statistical resume would dictate while their notable partners are rated at the level their statistical resume would dictate.

Bossy/Trottier and Howe/Lindsay are rated at the level their statistical resume would dictate.

The Sedins are probably rated a bit below.

Why doesn't Lindsay lose points like Kurri and Backstrom for playing with a GOAT?

Will Draisaitl lose any points?

 

[Sentinel]

Zetterberg only has one major award, a Conn Smythe. He was better than that. He was hurt by having an almost (but not entirely) identical teammate who excelled at another category (visual).

I still don't know how to reconcile Maurice Richard's almost pathetic award record: a single Hart trophy with his godlike reputation. I guess he was better than that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Why doesn't Lindsay lose points like Kurri

I tried...

 

[jigglysquishy]

I tried...

You've pushed a lot of my opinions over the years including

Goaltending is voodoo and no goalie is a top 5 player all time
Lindsay was unrefined and not as great as his numbers
Shore was a high event player ala a Karlsson/Burns. When the good outweighed the bad it was great. But when the bad outweighed the good it was awful.
That we, collectively, have undervalued defensemen

 

[Michael Farkas]

Tell all your friends!

 

[MadLuke]

I still don't know how to reconcile Maurice Richard's almost pathetic award record: a single Hart trophy with his godlike reputation. I guess he was better than that

To take a in our memory example, Yzerman-Sakic could easily have been a 0 Art Ross, 0 Hart trophy duo (if Lemieux start 01 earlier who knows...), they have 2 Hart finalist spot when you combine both their legendary career. Corey Perry regular season trophy case is not that dissimilar to them combined.

There a lot of circumstantials going on for those single season binary trophy and for those with voters you add what go on in people mind.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Niedermayer has one Norris. Probably deserved more. He was a better player than awards show.

Crosby is obvious. Two hart trophies. The eye test says he is way better than that. Obviously injuries, not ability, got in the way. There are guys with more hart trophies who probably don't rank ahead.

Bobrovski stands out. Two vezina trophies. Yet, the eye test doesn't reflect that most times.

To take a in our memory example, Yzerman-Sakic could easily have been a 0 Art Ross, 0 Hart trophy duo (if Lemieux start 01 earlier who knows...), they have 2 Hart finalist spot when you combine both their legendary career. Corey Perry regular season trophy case is not that dissimilar to them combined.

My question with him is always what his HOF outlook would be if not for Crosby's injury.

As for Sakic, I don't think he wins the Hart if Lemieux played that full season.

 

[MadLuke]

Niedermayer has one Norris. Probably deserved more. He was a better player than awards show.

Maybe in a sense, but 4 cups, Norris, Smythe, 2 golds, world cup, juniors, world, memorial cup mvp.

He is a bit covered in team trophy, having won everything that was available pretty much.

Not a lot of people have 2 Norris or more (13 defenceman), Chara/Pronger/MacInnis are all in there, a single Norris would not hurt you necessarily that much in a Top 15 D conversation of all time.

Considering how long his peak was, I am not sure if a single Norris is unrepresentative of his career, he played at Norris level for only 3-4 seasons, won one, not a bad ratio, to win 2-3 people usually will have to play at norris consideration level for 6-10 years.

 

[The Panther]

I still don't know how to reconcile Maurice Richard's almost pathetic award record: a single Hart trophy with his godlike reputation. I guess he was better than that.

I don't think Richard has anything to apologize for.

If the Rocket trophy (ha!) and the Conn Smythe had existed back then, Richard would have won 5 Rockets and probably two Conn Smythes. Take away the Chicago Blackhawk-awarded phantom assists in 1947 and the suspension of Richard with three games left in 1955 and he would have had two scoring titles as well (he finished 2nd in scoring five times). He was 1st-team All Star EIGHT times (sometimes over Howe), and retired as far-and-away the top goal scorer in history. Until today, he's probably the best playoff goal scorer, ever.

 

[Namba 17]

Bobrovski stands out. Two vezina trophies. Yet, the eye test doesn't reflect that most times.

Both were fully deserved.
His vizina finishes are:
1, 1, 8, 8, 9
It gives you pretty clear picture what a player he was.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Both were fully deserved.
His vizina finishes are:
1, 1, 8, 8, 9
It gives you pretty clear picture what a player he was.

I didnt say how vezina winning seasons weren't deserved.

He has an odd career where most years, the eye test doesn't reflect that caliber of player.

 

[Namba 17]

I didnt say how vezina winning seasons weren't deserved.

He has an odd career where most years, the eye test doesn't reflect that caliber of player.

My point was that his record reflects his caliber pretty well. And your eye test is right.
He is an average NHL starter with below average PO performance. But from time to time he is capable to have vezina-caliber season all of a sudden. The main problem is that nobody can predict what season will he have.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Andreychuk's stats aren't reflective of the player he was.

Had he retired at 34, there is zero chance he makes the hall. Instead, he hung around for another ten years scoring 18 goals a year. Compiler at it's finest.

He may be the perfect player to use when describing how stats can be very misleading.

 

[daver]

I tried...

So #38 in the last Top 100, just behind Trottier and Bossy, Kurri is #76. Feels like he should be a #50 guy.

 

[The Panther]

Andreychuk's stats aren't reflective of the player he was.

Had he retired at 34, there is zero chance he makes the hall. Instead, he hung around for another ten years scoring 18 goals a year. Compiler at it's finest.

He may be the perfect player to use when describing how stats can be very misleading.

That's true, but who is being mis-led by his stats? I've never heard anyone on here argue that he was a top player. If anything, the vast majority feel he never should have sniffed the Hall of Fame. (None of this is to say he wasn't a very good, at times great, player, or that he wasn't an exceptional goal scorer, etc. He was, he just wasn't a Hall of Famer.)

No one in their right mind should be looking at career stats as the determiner of "Hall worthiness". In Andreychuk's case, it doesn't exactly take a deep-dive further to reveal his relative offensive level:

Peak "adjusted" (by Hockey Ref.) points totals:
90 / 80 / 80 / 69 / 68
Peak "adjusted" (by Hockey Ref.) goals totals:
48 / 44 / 38 / 36 / 34
Top Finishes in Points:
9th
Top Finishes in Goals:
4th / 9th

His peak was basically Kris Letang.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Kris Letang...?