Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[Killion]

Ratelle was very good defensively. You are somewhat underrating him.

Ya he most certainly was. Inducted into the HHOF in 1985 just a few short years after retiring. Very classy
player. His career intertwined with that of Rod Gilbert, the two of them having played together since Pee Wee.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Trottier barely got Selke recognition until the 1980s himself. This is late 70s version of Trottier.

I don't think voters in the early years of the Selke voted much for top line players. The trophy was designed to acknowledge defensive forwards and that shows in the voting.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Appears as though Perreault is another one of those players that became a good defensive player later in his career when he was past his offensive prime...similar to Peter Stastny...sounds like Perreault may have been a little better defensively later on (of course Stastny's had much better offensive numbers when they were in their primes).

Would be interested to hear how people rank Perreault compared to Datsyuk. Perreault only has a 2.6 edge in 7yr weighted vs.X and we know Datsyuk is miles ahead defensively during those years where he was described as very disinterested in defense. Perreault does have much better offensive longevity and the small rink/lack of a great puckmoving Dman factors that speculate he could have been better offensively than his numbers show. We have also seen criticism of Perreault for a lack in ability to use his teammates. I don't know much about his playoff performance, the one quote above suggests it wasn't anything particularly special.

Did we have these scouting reports for Hawerchuk anywhere?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Player's intangibles (results from coaches and players polls)

From this thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=680440

We have coach's polls from 1934, 1958, 1965, 1971, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1993, Jan 1994, May 1994
We have player's polls from 1981, 1990

Bowie, Malkin, and Datsyuk did not play during the time period covered by these polls and they are not listed. Hooley Smith is not mentioned on the 1934 poll we have, but that poll only contains a few categories. Larionov's career in the USSR obviously isn't being taken into account here.

*Note on Dale Hawerchuk: He does not rank on any of the full HOH polls we have. However, his LOH profile says: "In a poll of NHL general managers during the mid-1980's asking them to select the player they would start a franchise with, Hawerchuk was voted third behind only Gretzky and Paul Coffey."

Ratelle and Perreault's primes are heavily covered by these polls, and in every one of those polls, there was a question about "best defensive forward" or "best checker."

ALEX DELVECCHIO

Best defensive forward | 4th | 1958

DALE HAWERCHUK

To start franchise | 3rd | 198?*

ERIC LINDROS

Toughest player | 2nd | Jan 1994
Best power forward | 2nd | May 1994
Best at faceoffs | 3rd | May 1994

ADAM OATES

Most underrated | 2nd | 1990
Best playmaker | 3rd | 1990
Best playmaker | 1st | 1993
Best playmaker | 2nd | Jan 1994
Smartest player | 2nd | 1993
Best at faceoffs | 4th | 1993

GILBERT PERREAULT

Best skater | 2nd | 1976
Best skater | 5th | 1984
Best stickhandler | 2nd | 1976
Best stickhandler | 3rd | 1979
Best stickhandler | 1st | 1981
Fastest skater | 4th | 1976
Most natural ability | 2nd | 1979
Most natural talent | 2nd | 1981

JEAN RATELLE

Best playmaker | 5th | 1974
Smartest player | 3rd | 1979

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Did we have these scouting reports for Hawerchuk anywhere?

I posted what I have on Hawerchuk last round here

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, they aren't going to invent a myth that Ratelle was good defensively. But they are going to exaggerate how good. We already know Ratelle was good defensively anyway. You called him "excellent," which is where the disagreement lies. Perhaps it is just an argument of semantics, but I don't see Ratelle in, or really even close to, the class of Datsyuk, Delvecchio, or Smith in terms of defensive ability.

I guess I do see it as a matter of semantics.

I was responding to the notion that we should manipulate Ratelle's offensive stats relative to Perreault because he got help from Brad Park. Again, returning to my original point -- I really think that's a questionable move when he was also tasked with playing a two-way game and killing penalties rather than just cherry picking his points. If we are "adjusting" Ratelle for teammates, shouldn't we also "adjust" Perreault for defense?

AND BEHIND PERREAULT!

That's 4 All-Star nods for Perreault when Ratelle was in his prime!

You're overselling the difference here.

1972 - Ratelle finishes over 100 voting points ahead of Perreault in his peak season.
1973 - Perreault gets an effectively-meaningless "3rd AS" with only 21 of 432 voting points. Ratelle had 12.
1974 - neither had significant numbers
1975 - Perreault (age 24) with a 3rd AS compared to a single vote for Ratelle (age 34)
1976 - Perreault's peak scoring season, has a weak 75-point 2AS compared to Ratelle's 22 points.
1977 - Perreault finishes over 100 voting points ahead of Ratelle

If you add up their votes for these seasons, you get:
Perreault - 334
Ratelle - 170

Obviously still a significant margin, but it's nothing like the 4-to-1 margin that the rankings imply. And it's a margin that could just as easily be chalked up to the voters liking a younger, flashier player who's been carrying a worse team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess I do see it as a matter of semantics.

I was responding to the notion that we should manipulate Ratelle's offensive stats relative to Perreault because he got help from Brad Park. Again, returning to my original point -- I really think that's a questionable move when he was also tasked with playing a two-way game and killing penalties rather than just cherry picking his points. If we are "adjusting" Ratelle for teammates, shouldn't we also "adjust" Perreault for defense?

You have the clause after the word "because" wrong. Maybe I have not explained myself well.

The key point is that people who saw them play seemed to have preferred Perreault. So I started at looking for reasons why this might be, and that's when I started looking at the effect Park (and others) might have had on Ratelle.

You're overselling the difference here.

I'm not "selling" anything. I already had easy access to their top 3 finishes in All-Star voting. In modern times, each writer's ballot lets them rank their top 3, so it seems like a rational cut off for a quick comparison. Generally in depth comparisons are better, and thank you for that. But you could have really done without accusing me of "selling" something.

Obviously still a significant margin, but it's nothing like the 4-to-1 margin that the rankings imply. And it's a margin that could just as easily be chalked up to the voters liking a younger, flashier player who's been carrying a worse team.

Perhaps. But I'm not so quick in assuming that the writers don't have any idea of what they are looking at. At least not when they seem to be supported by the managers of Hockey Canada, or the 1997 THN panel.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Player's intangibles (results from coaches and players polls)

Bowie, Malkin, and Datsyuk did not play during the time period covered by these polls and they are not listed.

CBC Player Polls from the 2010-11 and 2011-2012 seasons, a time period when Datsyuk and Malkin played. Crosby will be shown as well for comparison.

2010-2011:

Toughest To Play Against:
1) Crosby 18%
3) Datsyuk 16%

Hardest To Take Puck Off:
1) Datsyuk 36%
2) Crosby 24%

Most Difficult To Stop (goalies):
2) Crosby 24%
t4) Datsyuk 5%

Smartest Player:
1) Crosby 29%
2) Datsyuk 24%

Cleanest Player:
1) Datsyuk 28%

Toughest Forward To Play Against:
1) Crosby 29%
2) Datsyuk 19%

----------------------------------------------

2011-2012:

Smartest Player:
1) Datsyuk 45%
2) Crosby 16%

Most Difficult To Play Against:
1) Datsyuk 26%
3) Crosby 9%
4) Malkin 7%

Hardest To Take Puck From:
1) Datsyuk 47%
2) Malkin 10%
3) Crosby 9%

Player Most Difficult To Stop (goalies):
1) Datsyuk 24%
t2) Crosby 12%
t5) Malkin 6%

Cleanest Player
1) Datsyuk 21%

Toughest Forward To Play Against:
1) Datsyuk 25%
3) Malkin 13%
4) Crosby 9%

-----------------------------------------------

Also worth noting in comparing Malkin and Datsyuk...

Kharlamov Trophy (most valuable Russian NHL player voted by Rusisian NHL players):

2006-2010: Ovechkin
2011: Datsyuk
2012: Malkin
2013: Datsyuk

2010 World Championship Best Forward: Datsyuk

2012 World Championship Best Forward: Malkin

 

[tarheelhockey]

You have the clause after the word "because" wrong. Maybe I have not explained myself well.

The key point is that people who saw them play seemed to have preferred Perreault. So I started at looking for reasons why this might be, and that's when I started looking at the effect Park (and others) might have had on Ratelle.

I guess what I'm taking issue with, is the idea that we need to "correct" Ratelle's stat advantages simply because they don't agree with the media voters:

"Yet Ratelle has moderate advantage in raw statistics. Once you account for the moderate advantage that Ratelle has (and I think you could argue that Brad Park alone can do that), then I really think the case for Ratelle over Perreault falls apart."

Why are we "accounting" for his stat advantage, when by all appearances one could just as easily "account" for Perreault's stats to make the gap even bigger?

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're proceeding from a belief that AS voting totals are more than just an indicator of player quality and are instead a definitive record of player quality. Why else would we feel compelled to reconcile the actual statistical record with them?

I'm not "selling" anything. I already had easy access to their top 3 finishes in All-Star voting. In modern times, each writer's ballot lets them rank their top 3, so it seems like a rational cut off for a quick comparison. Generally in depth comparisons are better, and thank you for that. But you could have really done without accusing me of "selling" something.

I see the word "overselling" as being value-neutral, like "overpaying"... that's all I meant by it. I thought I had seen it used without malice here before. My sincere apologies if it carried any kind of negative connotations.

Perhaps. But I'm not so quick in assuming that the writers don't have any idea of what they are looking at. At least not when they seem to be supported by the managers of Hockey Canada, or the 1997 THN panel.

It's not necessarily that the writers don't have any idea, but their expertise is... variable... and I don't see a difference of about 30 voting points per season being something that needs to be accounted for statistically.

As far as Hockey Canada, the only other tournament germane to the conversation is the '76 Canada Cup. Do we have any references on the rationale behind selecting that roster?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't think voters in the early years of the Selke voted much for top line players. The trophy was designed to acknowledge defensive forwards and that shows in the voting.

Right.. early it was the Bob Gainey trophy not the two way forward trophy.

That is one reason Selke voting, among others, is so difficult -- there are definitely trends.

 

[MXD]

*Note on Dale Hawerchuk: He does not rank on any of the full HOH polls we have. However, his LOH profile says: "In a poll of NHL general managers during the mid-1980's asking them to select the player they would start a franchise with, Hawerchuk was voted third behind only Gretzky and Paul Coffey."

I don't want to nitpick, but this seems to be closely related to the age of the player, and shouldn't be treated as "3rd best franchise player in the league at that moment".

Not to mention that, I'd take a wild guess in saying Mario wasn't in the league then.

 

[MXD]

Oh, by the way...

On overselling : Please, don't. It only incites voters to tweak their rankings, either upward or downward, and tends to detract from what I'd call the « truth ». If such a thing exists.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I posted what I have on Hawerchuk last round here

Thanks!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Brad Park

The impact of Brad Park on Jean Ratelle's stats has been raised.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/parkbr01.html

If you go back a couple of seasons or forward thru their Bruin years the point could be made that Jean Ratelle and the GAG line helped Brad Park offensively equally at least. With the Bruins the relationship was mutual.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess what I'm taking issue with, is the idea that we need to "correct" Ratelle's stat advantages simply because they don't agree with the media voters:

"Yet Ratelle has moderate advantage in raw statistics. Once you account for the moderate advantage that Ratelle has (and I think you could argue that Brad Park alone can do that), then I really think the case for Ratelle over Perreault falls apart."

Why are we "accounting" for his stat advantage, when by all appearances one could just as easily "account" for Perreault's stats to make the gap even bigger?

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're proceeding from a belief that AS voting totals are more than just an indicator of player quality and are instead a definitive record of player quality. Why else would we feel compelled to reconcile the actual statistical record with them?



I see the word "overselling" as being value-neutral, like "overpaying"... that's all I meant by it. I thought I had seen it used without malice here before. My sincere apologies if it carried any kind of negative connotations.





It's not necessarily that the writers don't have any idea, but their expertise is... variable... and I don't see a difference of about 30 voting points per season being something that needs to be accounted for statistically.

As far as Hockey Canada, the only other tournament germane to the conversation is the '76 Canada Cup. Do we have any references on the rationale behind selecting that roster?

Nobody in their right mind thinks that all star records are some "definitive" record of player quality. They are a record of what the writers thought of player quality.

Anyway, I am operating under two assumptions:

1. Statistics are not an absolute measure of a player's offensive performance; they are merely a measure of what he did under a certain context. As we move further down our list, team effects are going to become more and more important.

2. If the large majority who saw two players thinks the same thing, they should not just be casually dismissed. I think that a "collective eye test" is usually right, and we should have compelling evidence before we think it is wrong. And right now, we have a 3 district groups of purported "experts" (the writers who vote for AS teams, the execs who chose Team Canada, and the group of coach's, execs, and media members who comprised THN's 1997 panel) who all seem to prefer Perreault.

Basically, I think that if the "collective eye test" and statistics without context clash, we should first explore the context of the statistics before looking to dismiss the collective eye test

 

[Killion]

The impact of Brad Park on Jean Ratelle's stats has been raised.... If you go back a couple of seasons or forward thru their Bruin years the point could be made that Jean Ratelle and the GAG line helped Brad Park offensively equally at least. With the Bruins the relationship was mutual.

Ya I think for sure it was a two way street, mutually beneficial and in fact helped Park more than Ratelle, Gilbert & Hadfield. Ratelle & Gilbert had been playing together since childhood, through Junior together. Like the Glimmer Twins. In fact that line I think might hold the record for being together the longest in NHL history at something like 10+ seasons no? And Park, well, he fed off of it as much as fed it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't want to nitpick, but this seems to be closely related to the age of the player, and shouldn't be treated as "3rd best franchise player in the league at that moment".

Not to mention that, I'd take a wild guess in saying Mario wasn't in the league then.

Oh absolutely. If, say, 22 year old Hawerchuk was considered the 3rd best player to build around in 1985, that says as much about his perceived potential as it does about his ability. I just included it to be complete. Don't think it necessary adds much.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Others

You have the clause after the word "because" wrong. Maybe I have not explained myself well.

The key point is that people who saw them play seemed to have preferred Perreault. So I started at looking for reasons why this might be, and that's when I started looking at the effect Park (and others) might have had on Ratelle.

Your bracketed phrase (and others) opens a door that is problematic.
It suggests looking at positive and negative effects of others. RWs Rod Gilbert(HHOF) vs Rene Robert when considering offensive data.Defensively, Ed Giacomin and Gerry Cheevers(two HHOF goalies) vs non- HHOF goalies that supported Perreault. Harry Howell, Brad Park(HHOF d-men) vs Jim Schoenfeld for Perreault, Tim Horton being a wash, playing with both.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Your bracketed phrase (and others) opens a door that is problematic.
It suggests looking at positive and negative effects of others. RWs Rod Gilbert(HHOF) vs Rene Robert when considering offensive data.Defensively, Ed Giacomin and Gerry Cheevers(two HHOF goalies) vs non- HHOF goalies that supported Perreault. Harry Howell, Brad Park(HHOF d-men) vs Jim Schoenfeld for Perreault, Tim Horton being a wash, playing with both.

Its not that problematic. It's a door that only has to be opened when perceptions of a player - and his awards record - is way out of sync with his statistics

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i can't remember who it was, but somebody suggested twice that perreault should get some measure of credit for shepherding andreychuk and housley into the league. i disagree. both were extremely talented, high draft picks, and got by in their primes on god-given talents-- housley had the puck moving ability, skating, offensive vision; andreychuk had his big butt and excellent hands. both guys were notoriously terrible playoff performers; if anything, i'd question perreault's leadership as the young guys who came up under his watch got less than maybe they should have out of their abilities. i mean, vets are supposed to pass on intangibles right? and those two were extremely low-intangibles players.

compare to, say, fetisov or larionov. young guys who crossed paths with those two at crucial points in their development usually turned out to be winners. ditto larry robinson, or claude lemieux, or even bernie federko.

 

[tarheelhockey]

2. If the large majority who saw two players thinks the same thing, they should not just be casually dismissed.

I agree, but in this case it's not a large majority. 170 voting points is basically equivalent to a single 2nd AS nod, and it's spread over 6 years.

Basically, I think that if the "collective eye test" and statistics without context clash, we should first explore the context of the statistics before looking to dismiss the collective eye test

Again I agree, but in this case the context of the stats may actually favor Ratelle rather than punishing him. It's really hard for me to believe that Brad Park had a bigger effect on his numbers than his two-way game, penalty killing, etc. If anything I could see it as a wash (ie, Ratelle covers Park's rushes which ends up getting him extra assists) but to simply dismiss the statistical gap altogether? That seems like overkill, particularly since it hasn't yet been elevated from the realm of speculation.

the execs who chose Team Canada

I've managed to find just a small amount of source material to give us some insight on how that team was constructed:

Bowman... said that if he had to hand in his list today, he'd probably keep all six centremen -- Pete Mahovlich, Bobby Clarke, Marcel Dionne, Darryl Sittler, Phil Esposito and Gilbert Perreault. One reason is because several of the centres are versatile.

"Sittler," said Bowman, "is good defensively and can also kill penalties, while Dionne can play centre and right wing and also the power play."
...
Sittler played left wing on a line with Phil Esposito in Quebec City and Bowman thought he handled that position well.

Most of the players concede that Team Canada will keep intact the lines of Pete Mahovlich, Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt, and Bobby Clarke, Reg Leach and Bill Barber.

[This is noted in an article about the entire French Connection line being selected for Team Canada, even though they were slumping a bit.]

"What I liked was the variety we threw at them," said a happy Scotty Bowman, who will be the head coach for the tournament. "You had the shooting power of the Hull-Esposito-Dionne line, the speed of the French Connection, the puck handling of the Shutt-Mahovlich-Lafleur line and the tenacity of the Clarke line".

It would seem that the philosophy (which is actually pretty astute for such a short tournament) was to keep together the same lines that worked well in the NHL, and then add a couple of centers who could switch between positions without any hiccups. Both of those criteria would exclude Ratelle from consideration.

and the group of coach's, execs, and media members who comprised THN's 1997 panel

The other side of that coin is that the same list has Perreault (#47) ahead of Max Bentley (#48), who was added to our list several rounds ago. There's no telling what criteria went into that selection.

 

[seventieslord]

Wingers if combined in the 20-25 range, LW - with Joliat, Blake in the mix for top 5 pre 1950, so 10ish overall.

Center, definitely ahead of Sid Abel who also played LW and is already ranked.

Interesting... well, good to know Howe has someone else in his corner.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

So a bunch of quotes from former teammates or his GM in Boston (Sinden) and some more quotes about how he played a defensive role in the Summit Series.* Meh. I like Billy's dedication to research, but there's a reason he's known on the ATD board for sometimes really overselling guys.

Thanks for the shoutout. I guess we'll just stop including anything that a coach or GM says about a player in bios, it's totally useless. Is he a legendary defensive player? No. Was he a good two-way player that was good at faceoffs and good in his own zone? Yeah. He received some Selke support at the end of his career, which is more than what a bunch of the guys ahead of him have.

the THN Top 100 list, where Perreault snuck into the very bottom of the top 50.

Do you mean the list that has Guy Lafleur as the 11th best player of all time? Or Marcel Dionne 54th? You need to look no further than the player above Perreault, and the player below him to know that that list is trash. Directly ahead of Perreault at #46 is George Hainsworth, and directly after is Max Bentley (who was voted 24th best center ever in this project) at #48. My personal favorite of the list is Frank Nighbor at #100.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, but it's not just scoring; he is miles behind Makarov and Krutov in other aspects too, like Soviet MVP voting, all-star teams...

Internationally, Larionov never won the best forward award at the World Championships, like his linemates (Makarov 3 times, Krutov twice), and he was also less-frequently named to the WC all-star team (Makarov 8 times, Krutov 4, Larionov 2). Sure, Makarov makes many other Soviet forwards look mediocre too, so the comparison isn't all fair, but even Krutov was by all accounts clearly superior.

Vladimir Petrov did not do so well in the MVP voting either, but at least he was the top scorer both in the Soviet league and in the World Championships many times, outscoring his more heralded wingers Mikhailov and Kharlamov in the process. From what I've seen, Petrov was no slouch defensively either; I doubt that his and Larionov's roles were totally different, although I can accept that Larionov was more talented defensively.

Another Soviet center Vyacheslav Starshinov was also a lot more prolific scorer than Larionov, but I guess he is not going to get much consideration here, which I think might be right, as he was a star just before Soviet hockey really began to flourish. Who else is there? Shadrin, Bykov, Almetov, Zhluktov... some good players, but the best Soviet forwards were indeed mostly wingers.

But if someone can show that Larionov indeed was 'defense first center', when he played for CSKA/Soviet national team, then it would make some difference. But I don't think he was that.

I'm not seeing that either. Larionov, to me, was more of an average defensive player... a guy who wouldn't hurt you. I'm noticing him being talked about like a Gillmor or a datsyuk by a few people in this thread.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mentor Players

i can't remember who it was, but somebody suggested twice that perreault should get some measure of credit for shepherding andreychuk and housley into the league. i disagree. both were extremely talented, high draft picks, and got by in their primes on god-given talents-- housley had the puck moving ability, skating, offensive vision; andreychuk had his big butt and excellent hands. both guys were notoriously terrible playoff performers; if anything, i'd question perreault's leadership as the young guys who came up under his watch got less than maybe they should have out of their abilities. i mean, vets are supposed to pass on intangibles right? and those two were extremely low-intangibles players.

compare to, say, fetisov or larionov. young guys who crossed paths with those two at crucial points in their development usually turned out to be winners. ditto larry robinson, or claude lemieux, or even bernie federko.

Young Oilers the last few years could use a mentor or two.