Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Espo did lead the league in assists 3 times and was 2nd four times. He was a pretty good playmaker.
Round 2, Vote 1 (2009 update)
- Thread starter FissionFire
- Start date
Espo did lead the league in assists 3 times and was 2nd four times. He was a pretty good playmaker.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Is there too much emphasis on the playoffs and winning the Cup when comparing players?
Taking the top 5 from last year's list:
Gretzky - 20 years - 4 Cups
Orr - 9 years - 2 Cups
Howe - 26 years - 4 Cups
Lemieux - 17 years - 2 Cups
Hull - 16 years - 1 Cup
That's 88 seasons, 13 Cups.
Teams win Cups, not individuals.
Taking the top 5 from last year's list:
Gretzky - 20 years - 4 Cups
Orr - 9 years - 2 Cups
Howe - 26 years - 4 Cups
Lemieux - 17 years - 2 Cups
Hull - 16 years - 1 Cup
That's 88 seasons, 13 Cups.
Teams win Cups, not individuals.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Those players are just plain the best, cups or no cups.
that's an average of 3 cups per player. I'm sure that's right in line with the average of the top-100.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Emphasis
Emphasis should reflect why the game is played. The season is played to qualify for the playoffs which start an elimination process that ends with the winning of the Stanley Cup.
While there is a wide range of in season recognition with trophies, All Star teams and such these should be recognized a simply by products of the main objective which is winning the Stanley Cup.
Teams cannot exist without individual players, nor function without coaches, support staff, management and ownership. How each player contributes to the ultimate in team success is the true measure of the individual as a player. And so forth along the line.
Emphasis should reflect why the game is played. The season is played to qualify for the playoffs which start an elimination process that ends with the winning of the Stanley Cup.
While there is a wide range of in season recognition with trophies, All Star teams and such these should be recognized a simply by products of the main objective which is winning the Stanley Cup.
Teams cannot exist without individual players, nor function without coaches, support staff, management and ownership. How each player contributes to the ultimate in team success is the true measure of the individual as a player. And so forth along the line.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
Well then I hope you can recognize the difficulty of winning a Cup increases significantly as the number of teams increased.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Conversely
Conversely you should realize that repeating as a Stanley Cup Champion increases significantly as well AND that the importance of a player contributing to a Stanley Cup winning team should be recognized with a proportional increase in appreciation instead of being downplayed.
Conversely you should realize that repeating as a Stanley Cup Champion increases significantly as well AND that the importance of a player contributing to a Stanley Cup winning team should be recognized with a proportional increase in appreciation instead of being downplayed.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
You make my point.
Those are just the plain best, period. Yet the amount of Cups they won is about the average of the top 100. Its probably the average of any player that stays in the league for 15 years or more. So how is that a determining factor when comparing indiviual players?
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
All true.
But none of that addresses player comparisons.
Bobby Orr won 2 Cups. So did Don Awrey.
Mario won 2, so did Grant Jennings.
Howe won 4, Gordie Lane did too.
Gretz has 4, Randy Gregg has 5.
But these players are not comparable.
50 goal scorers, 100 point scorers, Hart winners, Norris winners, first team all-stars.
Players with these qualifications are comparable.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Comparisons
It does address player comparisons BUT you have to understand how to compare.
Warren Godfrey(Boston / Detroit) and Jean- Guy Talbot(Montreal) were usually 3-4th defensemen on teams and contemporaries. There may be anomalies that provide an edge in one direction or another such as a an award or achievement. But if we consider Stanley Cup Championships teams where each was a contributing member then the advantage shifts to Jean Guy Talbot, a member of seven Stanley Cup winning teams while Warren Godfrey was never a member of a Stanley Cup winning team.
Your Bobby Orr / Don Awrey comparison is superficial. True, both were members of two Stanley Cup winning teams, in fact they were teammates. Elementary statements. Then it becomes a questions of looking at their contributions and quantifying the contributions. Who contributed how much to the winning of each Stanley Cup.
Taking your numerical benchmarks you can do the same. Looking at the contributions of all 50 goal scorers to Stanley Cup winning teams, why some did and others did not, etc.
It does address player comparisons BUT you have to understand how to compare.
Warren Godfrey(Boston / Detroit) and Jean- Guy Talbot(Montreal) were usually 3-4th defensemen on teams and contemporaries. There may be anomalies that provide an edge in one direction or another such as a an award or achievement. But if we consider Stanley Cup Championships teams where each was a contributing member then the advantage shifts to Jean Guy Talbot, a member of seven Stanley Cup winning teams while Warren Godfrey was never a member of a Stanley Cup winning team.
Your Bobby Orr / Don Awrey comparison is superficial. True, both were members of two Stanley Cup winning teams, in fact they were teammates. Elementary statements. Then it becomes a questions of looking at their contributions and quantifying the contributions. Who contributed how much to the winning of each Stanley Cup.
Taking your numerical benchmarks you can do the same. Looking at the contributions of all 50 goal scorers to Stanley Cup winning teams, why some did and others did not, etc.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Why is rocket richard better than Phil Esposito?
5 art ross trohies, 2 hart trophies and 16 seasons as a top 30 scorer. Rocket Richard is totally overrated.
Stan Mikita is better defensively, has more scoring titles and more hart trophies. Wow rocket richard was a great playoff performer on a team with 10 hall of famers, that should replace the fact that the other 2 have vastly superior hardware.
5 art ross trohies, 2 hart trophies and 16 seasons as a top 30 scorer. Rocket Richard is totally overrated.
Stan Mikita is better defensively, has more scoring titles and more hart trophies. Wow rocket richard was a great playoff performer on a team with 10 hall of famers, that should replace the fact that the other 2 have vastly superior hardware.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Well, this is progress. At least you have moved beyond saying Esposito was a leech who had everything handed to him by Orr on a silver platter.
should be reworded to say "Maurice Richard was a standout playoff performer on a team with 10 hall of famers."
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Hardware
No player with a Stanley Cup Championship has ever offered to trade his hardware for any of the multiple trophies, nominations, All Star recognitions or benchmark achievements that you hold so dear.
On the other hand players such as Jean Ratelle,Brad Park, Bill Gadsby, and others with multiple trophies, nominations, All Star recognitions or bench mark achievements state how the one element lacking in their career resume is the lack of a Stanley Cup Championship.
Ray Bourque clearly expressed at the end of his Boston career the desire and his happiness at being traded to Colorado so that he could have a better chance at being part of a Stanley Cupp winning team as opposed to receiving more additional hardware or personal accolades.
Even the players have spoken and the Stanley Cup championship is what matters.
No player with a Stanley Cup Championship has ever offered to trade his hardware for any of the multiple trophies, nominations, All Star recognitions or benchmark achievements that you hold so dear.
On the other hand players such as Jean Ratelle,Brad Park, Bill Gadsby, and others with multiple trophies, nominations, All Star recognitions or bench mark achievements state how the one element lacking in their career resume is the lack of a Stanley Cup Championship.
Ray Bourque clearly expressed at the end of his Boston career the desire and his happiness at being traded to Colorado so that he could have a better chance at being part of a Stanley Cupp winning team as opposed to receiving more additional hardware or personal accolades.
Even the players have spoken and the Stanley Cup championship is what matters.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
This is very damning of Bobby Hull. I had him as a virtual lock to make my #5 spot, now I'm not so sure. He is arguably the greatest goal scorer of all time, but I want a player who is top 5 of all time to make those playing with him better. And the fact that Hull had so much trouble meshing with centers tends to indicate that he did not.
Contrast it to Beliveau (the best Canadien ever in my opinion - his playoff statistics through two dynasties are incredible, as are his Hart Trophy shares), who seemed to play well with anyone. Though I would like to see a link that supports Canadiens1958's assertion that Beliveau was the guy the Canadiens put their rookies with at even strength to teach them the Canadien system.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
The top 4 are the top 4. And the fact that Hull made 5th is a good indication that not much stock was put into winning the Cup at all. 1 Cup over a career when there are only 6 teams is.... not a very good ratio.
pappyline
Registered User
And that is not their fault. If Bill Gadsby had played his career with Montreal he would have many many cups. Bill Gadsby should not be penalized for not winning cups & Henri Richard should not be over rewarded for winning them. It is OK to rate players on their playoff performance but winning the cup is due to circumstance. If you rate players higher due to winning cups then you are a cup counter and overloading your list with montreal players.
Lou Angotti, Andre Boudrias, Terry Caffery, Bryan Campbell, Gerry Goyer, Andre Lacroix, Pit Martin, Stan Mikita, Danny O'Shea, Paul Terbenche and Jim Wist.
Other than Mikita & Martin (edit-Lacroix had some success also), this is a nice list of fringe players and really illustrates the lack of depth these Hawk teams had. These spare parts all were given the chance to make it with Hull but it didn't work out. They ended up being fringe players wherever they went. It is well known that Mikita's & Hull's playing styles didn't mesh & they really didn't need each other to become better players. I actually thought Martin & Hull did work together OK. Hull did mesh well with his RW's though. He played almost all his Hawk career with Balfour & Maki on the RW . He also meshed well with Hay, Esposito, Nilsson, and Hedberg and he made all these players better. Espo, of course, went on to even greater days with the Bruins but that was a reflection of his role in playing a particular team style.
Regarding Beliveau's teaching role, I have never heard this before and also would like to see some support for this statement.
Damn hard to win a cup in this period. Hawks won one & Detroit(with Howe) didn't win any. Montreal & Toronto won the rest & they were by far the deepest teams. The only year Chicago was deep was 61. That year they had Pilote, vasko, Evans, St' Laurent and Arbor on D with litzenberger, Sloan, nesterenko, murphy as third line players. They never had this kind of depth again during the original 6.
Reward playoff performance but don't be a cup counter. Cups are won by being in the right circumstances.
Last edited:
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
I agree - but to use our modern goalies again, 3 Conn Smythes and 4 Cups is significant enough to propel Roy beyond Brodeur who has 3 Cups and only one more Vezina - it is not enough to propel Roy beyond Hasek whom has 3 more Vezinas and 2 Harts to Roy's 0.
I have a hard time believing Hasek would not have similar, if not more success in the playoffs if he had found himself on similar teams to Roy.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Jean Beliveau and Rookies
If you are willing to mine the data:
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi
You will see that during the 1969-70 and 1970-71seasons rookies like Lucien Grenier, Marc Tardif, Guy Charron and Phil Roberto had (EV) playing time with Jean Beliveau, some scoring their first NHL goal or assisting on key Beliveau goals.
If you are willing to mine the data:
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi
You will see that during the 1969-70 and 1970-71seasons rookies like Lucien Grenier, Marc Tardif, Guy Charron and Phil Roberto had (EV) playing time with Jean Beliveau, some scoring their first NHL goal or assisting on key Beliveau goals.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
If = The Slippery Slope
Do not mean to single you out but qualifying any hypothesis with if is simply inviting the wrong conclusion
If = the slippery slope.
Fact the Detroit Red Wings signed Gordie Howe as a youngster. The New York Rangers who had the first chance did not. If the NY Rangers had signed Gordie Howe what happens to hockey history ................. stop. Speculate all you want but do not view it as fact.
This is a history board = what happened not a fantasy board.
Do not mean to single you out but qualifying any hypothesis with if is simply inviting the wrong conclusion
If = the slippery slope.
Fact the Detroit Red Wings signed Gordie Howe as a youngster. The New York Rangers who had the first chance did not. If the NY Rangers had signed Gordie Howe what happens to hockey history ................. stop. Speculate all you want but do not view it as fact.
This is a history board = what happened not a fantasy board.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Gordie Howe vs Bobby Hull
Show me where Bill Gadsby has been penalized. Now you grant that that Henri Richard should be rewarded BUT not over rewarded. Making progress.
First bolded.Gordie Howe played with centers like Earl Reibel and Parker MacDonald who had career years with him and some interesting runs.Gordie Howe and the 1954 & 1955 Red Wings won a Stanley Cup with Earl Reibel. Gordie Howe also regularly played with transient border line NHL talents like Gary Aldcorn, Alan Johnson, amongst others, turning them into contributors for awhile.How does this reflect on Bobby Hull who could not manage to improve the team performance playing with a superior talent like Phil Esposito?
Second bolded - Yvan Cournoyer's 1964-65, 1965-66 where he was slowly intehrated as a powerplay specialist on the first powerplay unit centered by Jean Beliveau.Producing a key goal in the 1965 Finals - seventh game and contributing to the 1965 and 1966 Canadiens Stanley Cup Championships.
Third bolded.Cups are won by adapting to circumstances and integrating new players. !959 Playoffs with Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard missing the majority of the games Bernie Geoffrion adapted to Ralph Backstrom and Ab McDonald while Henri Richard and Dickie Moore integrated Marcel Bonin and the team won another Stanley Cup.
Another example. Bobby Clarke helping integrate a disappointing Reggie Leach into the Flyers, developing a scorer who contributed to the Flyers going to three consecutive Stanley Cups, winning two.
Third example - used elsewhere in this thread. 1967 Toronto Maple Leafs, a veteran team, integrating two younger players of average to average plus skills - Jim Pappin and Pete Stemkowsi and getting the scoring boost that produced an unexpectd Stanley Cup Championship.
Cups are won by creating winning conditions by adapting to circumstances.Those players who contribute to the creation of the winning conditions should definitely be recognized and rewarded.
Show me where Bill Gadsby has been penalized. Now you grant that that Henri Richard should be rewarded BUT not over rewarded. Making progress.
First bolded.Gordie Howe played with centers like Earl Reibel and Parker MacDonald who had career years with him and some interesting runs.Gordie Howe and the 1954 & 1955 Red Wings won a Stanley Cup with Earl Reibel. Gordie Howe also regularly played with transient border line NHL talents like Gary Aldcorn, Alan Johnson, amongst others, turning them into contributors for awhile.How does this reflect on Bobby Hull who could not manage to improve the team performance playing with a superior talent like Phil Esposito?
Second bolded - Yvan Cournoyer's 1964-65, 1965-66 where he was slowly intehrated as a powerplay specialist on the first powerplay unit centered by Jean Beliveau.Producing a key goal in the 1965 Finals - seventh game and contributing to the 1965 and 1966 Canadiens Stanley Cup Championships.
Third bolded.Cups are won by adapting to circumstances and integrating new players. !959 Playoffs with Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard missing the majority of the games Bernie Geoffrion adapted to Ralph Backstrom and Ab McDonald while Henri Richard and Dickie Moore integrated Marcel Bonin and the team won another Stanley Cup.
Another example. Bobby Clarke helping integrate a disappointing Reggie Leach into the Flyers, developing a scorer who contributed to the Flyers going to three consecutive Stanley Cups, winning two.
Third example - used elsewhere in this thread. 1967 Toronto Maple Leafs, a veteran team, integrating two younger players of average to average plus skills - Jim Pappin and Pete Stemkowsi and getting the scoring boost that produced an unexpectd Stanley Cup Championship.
Cups are won by creating winning conditions by adapting to circumstances.Those players who contribute to the creation of the winning conditions should definitely be recognized and rewarded.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
The only "irony" I find here is your use of the word.
70's doesn't deserve the treatment you're giving him, though I understand it's considerably more personal for you. Your arguments in favor of Richard certainly have merit, but not to the point that they render criticism irrelevant, especially when we're comparing the Rocket to the greatest players of all time.
That the Rocket was a poor defensive player and an angry freak is simply fact. Whether or not this (playing and life) style helped or hurt his teams is an interesting question. It may be that Richard's singlemindedness and near-madness were exactly what those Habs needed, and that the team would have been less successful had he been a mellower man. Perhaps Bobby Orr's Bruins would have won the 4-5 Cups they should have if Bobby had been the kind of man Richard was? Could be.
Or perhaps those Habs were so good that they succeeded in spite of Richard's instability and selfishness (and further thanks to Toe Blake for taming the beast), and would have been better with less of a berzerker for a leader? It's hard to say.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Frank Selke
My criticism of Maurice Richard's failed efforts at self-control are well known and supported by fact - Frank Selke replaced Dick Irvin Sr with Toe Blake because the coach had lost control of the situation. That Toe Blake regained control and produced results five consecutive Stanley Cup Championships, merits the praise that I have directed his way.
I have also criticized the Boston coaching during the Bobby Orr era. The temperment comparison you raise is irrelevent compared to the coaching issue. When handled properly in Montreal coaching changes produced desired results. When mishandled in Boston coaching changes did not produce the desired results.
My criticism of Maurice Richard's failed efforts at self-control are well known and supported by fact - Frank Selke replaced Dick Irvin Sr with Toe Blake because the coach had lost control of the situation. That Toe Blake regained control and produced results five consecutive Stanley Cup Championships, merits the praise that I have directed his way.
I have also criticized the Boston coaching during the Bobby Orr era. The temperment comparison you raise is irrelevent compared to the coaching issue. When handled properly in Montreal coaching changes produced desired results. When mishandled in Boston coaching changes did not produce the desired results.
pappyline
Registered User
Doesn't mean he taught them the montreal system.. just means he passed the puck to them for a goal. Anyway, all these players probably knew the montreal "system" by the time they got to the big team.
Absolutely they should. But players can "contribute to winning conditions" on teams that go out in the first round. To cite an example from earlier in the thread, this is what happened when Bobby Hull scored 8 goals in 5 games in a series that his team lost.
If you can't recognize the fact that players can contribute to winning without their teams actually winning, then you aren't actually focusing on how players "contribute to winning", you are just focusing on whether their teams actually won. And that is pure and unabashed Cup counting.
You are probably going to respond with some argument that role players on the winning team do actually contribute more to winning, but that's just a circular argument. It's easy to construct a narrative that glorifies the Maxime Talbots of the world, the secondary contributors who pitch in here and there, but they never win Cups without Crosby and Malkin on their team. There are also "Talbots" on the losing team doing exactly the same thing, but nobody cares about them because their team lost.
In my opinion, Maurice Richard should not be rewarded at all because his team won a lot of Cups. He should be rated for how he played in the playoffs. All he could do was perform to the best of his abilities, and it was the actions of 25-30 other guys that by far mostly determined whether or not he was drinking champagne when the clock hit zero. Judging individuals on group results in hockey or any other setting is necessarily going to advantage some guys and disadvantage others, and if you don't account for that then of course you are penalizing the Parks and Gadsbys who never won.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I don't doubt this for one second. Every player wants the cup and I bet Park and Ratelle would trade everything for one. So would I if I were them.
However, just because that is what the players want the most, doesn't mean that's what we should primarily look for in their resumes when the time comes to judge them among the greats. Some players just don't get to win the cup.
