What? The vast majority of his playing time was in the Original Six, when the league was very, very, good. Post expansion(1967) there was a definite dearth of talent, especially on the expansion teams. Scoring stats shot up due to the weak sisters in the league at that time.
Rank These Goat Talents by Team Success
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
Staniowski
Registered User
What you're referring to is about the number of NHL teams. In the Original Six, with only six teams, the talentbin the hockey world was certainly more concentrated, and, largely because of this, and the smallness of the hockey world, the NHL was stable and generally good.
But what I'm referring to is the overall talent in the sport. The top-end talent and especially the depth of talent wasn't very strong at any point in the O6. It just kind of seemed like it was because there were only six teams. The talent did certainly increase somewhat over time in those 25 years. The '60s had a lot more talent than the early '50s, which was pretty weak.
But if you compare, say, the early '60s talent to the early to mid '70s, there's a lot more depth of talent in the latter. It looks different because, rather than being spread over six teams in the early '60s, it was now spread over 30 or 40 teams, or whatever....in the NHL, WHA, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Sweden, and a bit in Finland.
During Lemieux's career, the Penguins were 13th in points out of 21 teams and missed the playoffs 9 times. Pretty underwhelming.
1962 Cup Winner - Leafs (2nd place), Hawks - (3rd place)
1963 Cup Winner - Leafs (1st place), Hawks - (2nd place)
1964 Cup Winner - Leafs (3rd place), Hawks - (2nd place)*
1965 Cup Winner - Habs (2nd place), Hawks - (3rd place)
1966 Cup Winner - Habs (1st place), Hawks - (2nd place)
1967 Cup Winner - Leafs (3rd place), Hawks - (1st place)*
1968 Cup Winner - Habs (1st place), Hawks - (4th place)
1970 Cup Winner - Bruins (T1st place), Hawks - (T1st place)
1971 Cup Winner - Habs (4th place), Hawks - (3rd place)*
I don't think you can say they weren't well positioned to win another Cup or two during that stretch with two superstar forwards/players; a recipe that worked for the Wings, the Habs, and the Bruins during the O6.
Both players had the highest PPGs during their primes.
Beliveau had a slightly higher PPG dominance in his prime but missed more games so that kind of evens out. Hull's goalscoring dominates his peers while, as you say, Beliveau's goalscoring is a strength but not close to being generational, let alone, Top 3/4 all-time.
Their individual playoff numbers are quite similar to their regular seasons ones with the gap in goalscoring being not as large as it was in the regular season. It is the vast difference in team success that makes it hard to pick one over the other with any clarity.
Was it simply good fortune that Beliveau played on a franchise that was clearly advantaged during the O6 and into the late '70s or should he be viewed as carrying his team to Ten Cups. The answer is somewhere in the middle.
Was Hull, despite his numbers, not good enough to get his Hawks another Cup or two or were the Hawks simply not positioned like the Habs, Leafs and Wings to be perennial contenders during the O6? The answer is somewhere in the middle.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 27,740
- 24,410
They certainly could have but I think that just shows they were the third best team of the era. The Leafs 4/6 cups from 62 through 67 is a bit of an interesting thing to look at with only one 1st place in that timeframe.
Then you have Montreal which finished in 1st in 1955-56, every year from 1957-58 through 1961-62 and as well as in 1963-64, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69 for 10 first places in 14 years and won 9 Cups in that stretch as well.
Staniowski
Registered User
Chicago of the '60s is a very interesting case. They were arguably the 4th most successful team (out of 6 teams) in the decade, and yet people can't stop talking about them.
One factor in their lack of success was that all of their star players are at least somewhat overrated.
And they don't have much depth, and they appear to be poorly managed.
Their trading away Esposito, Stanfield, and Hodge - players who weren't really important to them - is indicative of the team's disfunction.
One factor in their lack of success was that all of their star players are at least somewhat overrated.
And they don't have much depth, and they appear to be poorly managed.
Their trading away Esposito, Stanfield, and Hodge - players who weren't really important to them - is indicative of the team's disfunction.
