Round 2, Vote 1 (HFNYR Top NYR Centers)

[Crease]

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top 10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Voters will rank their top 10 of the available centers
• Final results will be posted and the top 5 vote getters will be added to the final list in order.
• The process will be repeated for the next 5 places with remaining players until a list of 10 players is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (8):
bernmeister, Cake or Death, Chief, Crease, Greg02, mike14, Ratelleitlikeitis, Richter Scale

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes. Anyone else who wishes to participate in the final vote will have until 5/20 (prior to the start of Round 2, Vote 2) to get their top 20 list in. Once Vote 2 begins, no additional lists will be accepted.

On that note, I hope everyone is ready to wrack their brains and debate with fellow Rangers fans and hockey minds. Have fun!

Click to read more...

 

[Crease]

Vote 1 will begin now and debates will run through Saturday 5/18. Any extension to this time frame will be announced prior to the deadline. Votes must be submitted no later than 5PM EST on Saturday 5/18, and voting will run until this time or until all voters have sent their vote in, whichever comes first. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Please PM votes to me, beginning on Thursday 5/16. I will be sending out confirmations when I receive ballots from the voters. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume I never received it and should either resubmit it or contact me to arrange a different method to submit the ballots.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 10 OUT OF THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS.

Vote 1 will be for places 1 through 5 on the Top 10 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Frank Boucher
Neil Colville
Phil Esposito
Mark Messier
Buddy O'Connor
Don Raleigh
Jean Ratelle
Clint Smith
Walt Tkaczuk
Phil Watson

 

[Greg02]

Thanks for organizing this, Crease.

First thoughts:

Frank Boucher is my clear number one. He was too good for too long leading the club to more success than any other center on this list. I think that I'd need to hear a phenomenal argument for Messier or Ratelle to unseat him.

Ratelle and Messier are two and three. I'm leaning towards Messier because he has a Hart and a Cup, but I'm definitely not 100% about it.

Colville was number four on my original list. He should definitely be above Raleigh, Smith, and Watson from what I understand about them.

Tkaczuk is another contender for number four. He doesn't have the trophy case that Colville does, but he has a reputation.

Buddy O'Connor should be ahead of Phil Esposito. Both are peak players as Rangers, and O'Connor peaked higher (as a Ranger).

This wouldn't be an issue until number 6 anyway, but I think Edgar Laprade should be here.

 

[bernmeister]

Also thank you Crease, for all the hard work in coordinating this.

I am open to discussion (what little time I have betw. now and the vote) if anyone feels strongly and wants to make the case of any candidate C.

My preliminary list is:
Boucher
Ratelle
Messier
Tkaczuk
Colville

I think 1 + 2 are clear cut.
3 and 4 not so much.
Tkaczuk was very skilled, and I lean to him at 3. But Mark guaranteed the Cup, so he gets the edge.
Colville seems best of the remaining bunch.

Don't anticipate too much discussion for most of 1-5.
Slot 6-10 is more open to debate.

 

[Greg02]

I'd love to hear why you have Messier clearly behind Ratelle and so close to Tkaczuk. Messier has the cup, the guarantee, and the Hart trophy as well as 10 seasons as a Ranger. It seems to me that he peaked higher than Ratelle (although Ratelle of course has longevity) and at the surface seems a clear step above Tkaczuk. But I didn't watch these guys, so I'm interested in hearing the thought process.

 

[Crease]

I'd also like to hear an argument for Ratelle over Messier.

My top three, FWIW, is:

1. Boucher
2. Messier
3. Ratelle

For me, what puts Messier over Ratelle are their playoff resumes. Now, Ratelle's Rangers made the playoffs more frequently than Messier's Rangers (65% to 50%, not counting Ratelle's 1960/61 season). But Ratelle's Rangers did absolutely nothing in the playoffs. His teams lost more first-round series than they won and on an individual level, his PPG average dipped from .95 in the regular season to .65 in the playoffs. Conversely, when Messier's teams made the playoffs, they went undefeated in the first round. His PPG also increased from .99 in the regular season to 1.14 in the playoffs. Add to all this his performance in 1994. Is the whole of Ratelle's regular season resume that much stronger than Messier's to justify putting him ahead of Messier in the ranking?

 

[Cake or Death]

Also thank you Crease, for all the hard work in coordinating this.

I am open to discussion (what little time I have betw. now and the vote) if anyone feels strongly and wants to make the case of any candidate C.

My preliminary list is:
Boucher
Ratelle
Messier
Tkaczuk
Colville

I think 1 + 2 are clear cut.
3 and 4 not so much.
Tkaczuk was very skilled, and I lean to him at 3. But Mark guaranteed the Cup, so he gets the edge.
Colville seems best of the remaining bunch.

Don't anticipate too much discussion for most of 1-5.
Slot 6-10 is more open to debate.

Tough to say. I actually had Ratelle in the 5 slot on my initial top 20 list, behind - in no particular order - Colville, Messier, Boucher and Watson. I'll make an overly simplistic point. And I am not comparing the following two payers, simply illustrating a point. But consider that Brad Richards in only one season in NY finished 6th in playoff scoring last season. Then consider that in his 15 years as a NYR Ratelle never once finished top 10 in playoff scoring. My voting decisions were based on much, much more than top ten playoff scoring, but it is an interesting point to consider nonetheless.

 

[jBuds]

Damn. Nicely done, Michael.

Note to others: this man was a hell of a goaltender in his prime... And of course...Knows the game all around...

As for opinions, here's my take as a hockey fan and someone who has grown up in taking blueshirt hockey.

Boucher
Mess
Ratelle

2 and 3 are separated by completeness, intangibles, and the maximization of the entire team under Mark's leadership, not just his linemates. Not to slight Jean's leadership; rather, complimenting Mess's as arguably the best ever. The MVP and Cup also serve as differentiators

 

[Crease]

Colville was number four on my original list. He should definitely be above Raleigh, Smith, and Watson from what I understand about them.

Colville, Smith, and Watson are all pretty much the same age and broke into the league on the Rangers around the same time. So there is a nice chunk of time where you can compare their Ranger careers side-by-side. Here is a simplistic breakdown, from the Preliminary Discussion thread:

1936-37 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Watson|22|48|11|17|28|0.58|T2
Colville|22|45|10|18|28|0.62|T2

1936-37 Playoffs

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Colville|22|9|3|3|6|0.67|1
Watson|22|9|0|2|2|0.22|T10

1937-38 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Smith|24|48|21|18|39|0.81|2
Colville|23|45|17|19|36|0.8|3
Watson|23|48|7|25|32|0.67|6

1937-38 Playoffs

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Smith|24|3|2|0|2|0.67|T1
Watson|23|3|0|2|2|0.67|T1
Colville|23|3|0|1|1|0.33|T6

1938-39 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Smith|25|48|21|20|41|0.85|1
Colville|24|47|18|19|37|0.79|T5
Watson|24|48|15|22|37|0.77|T5

1938-39 Playoffs

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Smith|25|7|1|2|3|0.43|T2
Watson|24|7|1|1|2|0.29|T3
Colville|24|7|0|2|2|0.29|T3

1939-40 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Colville|25|48|19|19|38|0.79|2
Watson|25|48|7|28|35|0.73|3
Smith|26|41|8|16|24|0.59|8

1939-40 Playoffs

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Watson|25|12|3|6|9|0.75|T1
Colville|25|12|2|7|9|0.75|T1
Smith|26|11|1|3|4|0.36|T7

1940-41 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Colville|26|48|14|28|42|0.88|3
Watson|26|40|11|25|36|0.9|4
Smith|27|48|14|11|25|0.52|6

1940-41 Playoffs

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Colville|26|3|1|1|2|0.67|T1
Watson|26|3|0|2|2|0.67|T1
Smith|27|3|0|0|0|0|T11

1941-42 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Watson|27|48|15|37|52|1.08|3
Smith|28|47|10|24|34|0.72|T4
Colville|27|48|8|25|33|0.69|T6

1941-42 Playoffs

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Watson|27|6|1|4|5|0.83|T1
Colville|27|6|0|5|5|0.83|T1
Smith|28|5|0|0|0|0|T13

1942-43 Regular Season

Player | Age | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | Rank
Watson|28|46|14|28|42|0.91|3
Smith|29|47|12|21|33|0.7|5

Smith had a reputation for going MIA in the playoffs. The stats certainly agree with this. I came across an anecdote that suggested his playoff woes was why the Rangers chose not to retain him after the 1942/43 season. This, among other reasons, is why I have him behind Colville and Watson. If you haven't noticed yet, I put strong emphasis on playoff performance.

Upon second look, Colville and Watson follow very close trajectories. Colville was the better goalscorer (NHL Top-10 Goals 3x) whereas Watson was the better passer (NHL Top-10 Assists 5x). Both played integral roles in the winning the Stanley Cup in 1939/40. Colville was voted second best center in the league that year (Milt Schmidt was #1) but Watson was awarded the retro Conn Smythe that year (link to that project here). So if anyone wants to share their thoughts on Colville/Watson, I'm very interested in listening.

Damn. Nicely done, Michael.

Note to others: this man was a hell of a goaltender in his prime... And of course...Knows the game all around...

Heh, thanks.

 

[Cake or Death]

Just throwing some career regular season and playoff numbers out there for all 10 guys during their time with the NYR.

Top 10 Scoring Finishes, Regular Season

Player | Goals | Assists | Points
Frank Boucher|4, 9|1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6|2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10
Neil Colville|6, 7, 10|2, 10|7, 7, 10, 10
Phil Esposito|8|-|-
Mark Messier|9|6, 6|5, 10
Buddy O'Connor|9|2, 9|2
Don Raleigh|-|2|4
Jean Ratelle|5, 6, 7|3, 5, 10|3, 4, 6, 6, 10
Clint Smith|4|6|4
Walt Tkaczuk|-|4|5
Phil Watson|-|1, 2, 4, 4, 10|4, 10

Top 10 Scoring Finishes, Playoffs

Player | Goals | Assists | Points
Frank Boucher|1, 4, 6, 7, 8|1, 1, 2, 5, 6|1, 1, 6, 6, 8
Neil Colville|3|1, 5, 7|1, 4
Phil Esposito|3|3|3
Mark Messier|2|3|3
Buddy O'Connor|4|6|10, 10
Don Raleigh|4|3|2
Jean Ratelle|-|9|-
Clint Smith|-|5|10
Walt Tkaczuk|-|-|-
Phil Watson|4|2, 9|1, 10

Career Regular Season vs Playoff PPG

Player | RS PPG | PO PPG | +/-
Mark Messier|0.99|1.14|+0.15
Don Raleigh|0.60|0.61|+0.01
Neil Colville|0.57|0.57|0.00
Phil Watson|0.66|0.60|-0.06
Phil Esposito|0.96|0.90|-0.06
Buddy O'Connor|0.69|0.61|-0.08
Frank Boucher|0.77|0.67|-0.10
Walt Tkaczuk|0.72|0.55|-0.17
Jean Ratelle|0.95|0.65|-0.30
Clint Smith|0.69|0.31|-0.38

 

[Chief]

The major difficulty in comparing players from different eras is trying to place values on accomplishments because of the different factors that impact those accomplishments (number of teams in league, games played, etc...)

Although I welcome as much info as we can find, I think that "Top 10" lists from different eras really distort the facts.

To be a Top 10 regular season scorer in 1927-28, means you were in the top 10% of scorers for that season.

To be in the Top 10% of a regular season scoring category in 1974-75, means you would have been in approx. the Top 32 of any scoring category.

To be in the Top 10% of a regular season scoring category in 1996-97, means you would have been in approx. the Top 46 of any scoring category.

If we're going to be fair to players from the last few decades, I think we have to look at where their stats placed them in terms of percentages of the applicable season's player pool and not just the place where they ranked on lists. Without doing any more research right now, I would think that Ratelle's and Messier's scoring accomplishments would compare more favorably and, in Ratelle's case, maybe even surpass Boucher's.

On it's face, Boucher seems to have many more accomplishments than Ratelle and Messier but when you try and quantify the differences in their eras, I think they all wind up a lot closer, which then opens up the discussion to other factors.

 

[Crease]

Chief, you are correct in that it is easier to finish top 10 in scoring in a smaller league. I will attempt to compile percentile finishes for Messier, Ratelle, and Boucher today. Do you think it's worth doing for the other seven that we need to place this round?

 

[Chief]

I think the data would be very valuable but if you find it's more time consuming than you thought, I would have no problem if you stopped after working up the data for Boucher, Messier and Ratelle.

 

[bernmeister]

I will see if I can reflect upon the good suggestions made.

Right or wrong, I try to be honest in my assessments of players esp. when suggesting deals, and try to note if and by how much my estimations are a bias or preference and how much I consider the evaluation to be so objective as to approach fact.

As noted, I have never forgiven Cat Francis for moving Park and Ratelle for Espo and Vadnais. Even then, I believed in 'no sacred cows'. But that was just a major bonehead deal.

Accordingly I may be guilty of morphing into Ratelle's actual Ranger numbers his post NY production. While they are in the same ballpark, IMO, I feel that with an exact equal complement of linemates, Ratelle uses a higher degree of skill and would score more. Ratelle had the best, wickedest backhander by far. Like there's something about Stamkos on his forehand, you know it's coming, but between timing and everything else you just can't stop it ----- that was Ratelle's backhand. That good.

Sorry HFB bros. Real world summons. More later.

 

[Crease]

I think the data would be very valuable but if you find it's more time consuming than you thought, I would have no problem if you stopped after working up the data for Boucher, Messier and Ratelle.

Took me a little over an hour to gather the data for Boucher, Messier, Ratelle. NHL.com "Stats" section has a "Past Seasons" tab that includes point rank for every player who played at least one game in a given season. I can probably get to the rest of the 10 eligibles later today. Here is the raw data for the aforementioned three:

[table="head;title=list"]Year | Player | Rank | Players | Percentile | PIM
1926/27 | Boucher | 7 | 135 | 94 | 17
1927/28 | Boucher | 3 | 133 | 97 | 15
1928/29 | Boucher | 6 | 133 | 95 | 8
1929/30 | Boucher | 2 | 142 | 98 | 16
1930/31 | Boucher | 8 | 168 | 95 | 20
1931/32 | Boucher | 15 | 135 | 89 | 18
1932/33 | Boucher | 13 | 157 | 91 | 4
1933/34 | Boucher | 3 | 158 | 98 | 4
1934/35 | Boucher | 4 | 166 | 97 | 2
1935/36 | Boucher | 19 | 156 | 88 | 2
1936/37 | Boucher | 46 | 161 | 71 | 5
1937/38 | Boucher | 125 | 153 | 18 | 2
1943/44 | Boucher | 73 | 137 | 46 | 2
1960/61 | Ratelle | 111 | 144 | 23 | 0
1961/62 | Ratelle | 86 | 135 | 36 | 4
1962/63 | Ratelle | 68 | 136 | 50 | 8
1963/64 | Ratelle | 93 | 150 | 38 | 6
1964/65 | Ratelle | 38 | 154 | 75 | 14
1965/66 | Ratelle | 18 | 163 | 89 | 10
1966/67 | Ratelle | 90 | 157 | 42 | 4
1967/68 | Ratelle | 4 | 244 | 98 | 18
1968/69 | Ratelle | 11 | 289 | 96 | 26
1969/70 | Ratelle | 6 | 288 | 98 | 28
1970/71 | Ratelle | 16 | 345 | 95 | 14
1971/72 | Ratelle | 3 | 338 | 99 | 4
1972/73 | Ratelle | 6 | 358 | 98 | 12
1973/74 | Ratelle | 32 | 389 | 92 | 16
1974/75 | Ratelle | 12 | 450 | 97 | 26
1991/92 | Messier | 6 | 709 | 99 | 76
1992/93 | Messier | 31 | 715 | 96 | 72
1993/94 | Messier | 30 | 792 | 96 | 76
1994/95 | Messier | 10 | 738 | 99 | 40
1995/96 | Messier | 13 | 777 | 98 | 122
1996/97 | Messier | 15 | 769 | 98 | 88
2000/01 | Messier | 52 | 889 | 94 | 89
2001/02 | Messier | 307 | 874 | 65 | 32
2002/03 | Messier | 149 | 888 | 83 | 30
2003/04 | Messier | 118 | 916 | 87 | 42 [/table]

Table is sortable by column.

Chief, you are absolutely right that if we compare performance against peers on a percentile basis, Boucher, Messier, and Ratelle are a lot closer to each other. Keep in mind this is regular season performance only.

Here is a breakdown of number of times each player was at or above the 90th percentile, 95th percentile, and 98th percentile:

[table="head;title=list"]Player | 90+ | 95+ | 98+
Messier | 7 | 6 | 4
Ratelle | 8 | 7 | 3
Boucher | 8 | 6 | 2 [/table]

In the raw data table, I included a column for PIM. The reason why I did so underscores why I value Boucher so highly. He won the Lady Byng a record 7 times. The award, which tends to be stigmatized as the "wuss" award thanks to guys like Don Cherry, traditionally was awarded to the player who played the game hard, clean, and with a high level of skill. Prior to 1957, minor penalties would go for the entire two minutes, no matter if a PP goal was scored. It was even moreso important then compared to today to avoid putting your team down a man. Boucher exemplified the ideals of hard, clean, high-level hockey so much they gave him the freakin' trophy to keep when he retired and replaced it with a new donation.

Ratelle had the best, wickedest backhander by far. Like there's something about Stamkos on his forehand, you know it's coming, but between timing and everything else you just can't stop it ----- that was Ratelle's backhand. That good.

I did not know this about Ratelle. Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[Chief]

Really great work with the chart, Crease.

 

[Greg02]

1970/71 Ratelle 95% 72pts under half of what the number one player Phil Esposito put up gets ranked above Boucher's 1932/1933 where he put up 35 points which, while still well under the league lead of 50, was good enough to get him a first AST selection.

 

[Crease]

1970/71 Ratelle 95% 72pts under half of what the number one player Phil Esposito put up gets ranked above Boucher's 1932/1933 where he put up 35 points which, while still well under the league lead of 50, was good enough to get him a first AST selection.

Yes, looking at the finishes in this manner is not without its own set of problems. Regardless, I still do not see a convincing argument for Ratelle over Boucher or Messier. Ratelle's playoff record is just so far below the other two.

I'd like to hear other voters thoughts on how to place Colville, Watson, and Tkaczuk.

I have these 10 candidates broken down into three tiers, the last two in no particular order:

Boucher
Messier
Ratelle

Colville
Watson
Tkaczuk

O'Connor
Smith
Raleigh
Esposito

 

[Greg02]

I don't know if this is placing too much stock in AST selections, but while both were playing well (putting up about the same number of points) it was Colville, not Watson who got a pair of 2ASTs. It's also Colville, not Watson who was inducted into the HHOF. Now, Watson has the Retro Smythe in his favor, but on the flip side Colville put up just as many points as him that year.

Now, to make it even harder, Colville missed three years in the war, and came back as a defenseman, being good enough on the blue line to also get recognition with a 2AST there as well. How you want to view that is variable. Colville seems to be the best of the bunch before going away, then has to miss years and comes back to the Rangers and still contributes a lot. In my opinion, I give Colville longevity credit in the rankings for the missed years/defensive work. On D, he was still a great Ranger. His prime as a center alone has him as top 10. Since he seems to be the better center, and also has the extra stuff, I put him above Watson.

Tkaczuk is tricky. He has two years where he (just) outscores Ratelle. The rest of his career he's either behind Ratelle or behind Esposito.

 

[Ratelleitlikeitis]

Thanks so much for all the time spent on research and stats.
It's a challenge to compare players from eras. I'm a product of the late original six into expansion era for my first taste of blueshirt mania, so many on this list were before my time. While some may say expansion players competed against watered down talent, they also were facing more elite players to compete against on the ice and statistically for award recognition. It was a time when more players were being developing their skills in minor and later, college programs. They started to face the challenge of greater travel while playing more games and potential injury. Here's my preliminary thought.

1. Messier - lore of 94 and greatest leadership perhaps of all time.
2. Ratelle - statistical leader, smooth skill and quiet leadership style
3. Boucher - historical great
4. Tkachuk - captain, strong 2nd line anchor, most games and solid stats.
5. Espo - leading scorer each year in blue, while arguably on the downside, '79 final.

 

[Greg02]

If you place Esposito above O'Connor, presumably because he did it longer, then why do you have Esposito above Colville?

 

[Zil]

Esposito should get downgraded if for no other reason than he's why they dealt a young Rick Middleton for an over-the-hill Ken Hodge.

 

[Cake or Death]

I had the same issue Chief mentioned. I mean, right off the bat, if a guy wins a Cup now it is a lot harder to win it against 1 in 30 odds than 1 in 6 odds. Same is true of winning awards, AS selections, top 10 finishes, etc - the larger the pool the more people vying for things.

I honestly took a long look at top 10 scoring, from when the Rangers entered the league to now, to see if there was any notable effect. I observed that a certain cream seems to always sit at the top, regardless of era. Right now, you have Stamkos, AO, Crosby, Kovalchuk, St. Louis in the top 10 consistently. Before that Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, etc.

The best are the best, and I don't think adding 20 more teams changes that, regardless of era. Where I did observe a noticeable change post-expansion was beyond the top 5 or 10 scoring leaders. The larger pool of players allowed more opportunity for variables, like a much larger group of potential players having a career year and so on, to shift the top 10 or 20 scoring spots.

I can't obviously put any exact number on it, but it might be in the 10-20% range more difficult to stay top 10 or 20 in scoring post-expansion. Though I did observe that regardless of era, the best were the best were the best. The 70s consistently saw Espo, Orr, Clarke, Lafleur in the top 10; the 80s, Gretz, Mario, Kurri, Bossy, Stastny, etc. But beyond the consistent "best" guys, the rest of the top 10 or top 20 scoring list post-expansion was being filled out by a wider range of players than it was pre-expansion.

While it is tougher to finish top 10 post expansion, I also think that's balanced out to some degree by the fact that guys generally have much better training and medical knowledge now and as a result much longer careers and thus more seasons to get a crack at things. It was not uncommon in the 20s or 30s, for guys to play only 8, 10, 12 seasons.

 

[Cake or Death]

Really great work with the chart, Crease.

Agree! Thanks for the great effort!

 

[mike14]

Ok, this argument isn't designed to persuade anyone (except possibly myself) as I've been flipping Ratelle and Boucher for the top spot since this thing started, but to make a case for Ratelle:

We’ll start with simple numbers. 3rd all time for Rangers in points, 2nd all time in goals, 3rd in assists and 6th all time in games played. Just those stats put you near the top. Now, numbers don’t mean anything, Messier has the 2nd most all time and he’s not the 2nd best player, but what they show is that in a Rangers sweater he played for a long time and played at a very high level.

5 ppg seasons (and another 2 where he was 1pt under) 2 seasons with 40+ goals and another 4 with 30+. His 100+ points season earned him the Pearson and his career Ranger ppg is below only Mess and Espo from this top 10 list (and then only barely). Yeah he isn’t right at the top of point scorers every season, but can you take points of him for playing in an era that saw the likes of Orr, Mikita, Clarke and Lemaire dominate the competition? Even with those greats he was top 10 in league scoring 5 times (6 if you include the trade year).

His playoffs aren't great, but a PPG of 0.64 isn't terrible, especially when that period was dominated by the Habs and Bruins running over the Rangers on their way to multiple cups.

Among out top 10 he’s 2nd games played, 1st in goals, 1st in assist and 1st in points, played in 8 ‘core’ seasons for the Rangers and his # hangs from the Garden rafters (don’t get me started on Rangers jersey retirements).

Is he a clear cut #1, hell no, but when you think of top Rangers he his a name that springs immediately to mind, more so when you narrow that down to just centers.

My top 3 have always been Ratelle, Boucher, Messier, with the first two swapping around and Mess stuck in 3rd, and I’m sure I’ll change my mind several more times before the vote.

Other thoughts, disappointing that more people didn't submit a top 20 list and be eligible for voting.

Also disappointed that my man Goyette didn't make it onto enough peoples top 10 lists. Ah well, 9 out of 10 ain't bad