Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Maybe I jumped too hard on OJ's measure - measuring total accumulated points over 7-10 years (have we decided what it is yet?) based on an "era" is somewhat arbitrary, but it's not nearly as much of a cherrypick as measuring how a player did over the course of his career vs other players who didn't share those same career years. I still think "#2 among centers in total points over X span" is somewhat arbitrary though.

To be honest, I'd be a lot less confident using the DPE as a "hard" time frame if it didn't so nearly match the generally accepted time frame for "prime"; both in terms of start/end age and in terms of length. But trust me, I had thought of all this from the start, and is why I steered discussion that way. Makes it very demonstrative of what he and Modano (and Sakic, of course) were capable of "at their peak/prime", and makes for very relevant addition to a comparison between them, imo.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I guess I'm of the belief that Sundin managing to stay a little healthier than most of the other great players of his era just isn't that important in an era of 82 game seasons. It's really only a big point in his favour against players who had similar per-game value yet consistently missed chunks of games. His total amount of seasons wasn't unusual for the era.

But even if his "per game value" which you refer to were to be based solely on PPG (which we're arguing is about as unfair as you can be to Sundin in an effort to be quick/concise, for the reasons given), it would still be "unusual for the era" by virtue of ranking in the top 10 out of literally 100s of centres who played enough games to consider over the entire period; his 0.98 right next to Modano's 0.99. And actually, if you look at the raw points list between '96/97 and '03/04, the number of centres who had 8 full seasons to contribute and produced at anywhere near that level is quite low (maybe a dozen, give or take?)

 

[Kyle McMahon]

And yet, over the time frame we're talking about, these two guys are about as close as it comes "overall" in terms of Hart and post season all-star voting, with Sundin actually having the edge in 2nd team all-star berths (and an olympic all-star berth, which wasn't even his gold medal winning olympics, but I digress).

I'm not going to totally throw out all-star and award voting for them, but they played in the era where voting started to become far less reliable. Heavy eastern bias, writers in non-traditional markets that may or may not know what the hell they're looking at, writers not even witnessing certain teams due to having 26-30 teams in the league. Dallas was notorious as the most boring team in the league (or at least in the West) and I seriously doubt many eastern-based writers were going to stay up past their bed time to watch Modano play. I'm not saying this is actually why Sundin has a better all-star record, but I wouldn't dismiss it either.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

But even if his "per game value" which you refer to were to be based solely on PPG (which we're arguing is about as unfair as you can be to Sundin in an effort to be quick/concise, for the reasons given), it would still be "unusual for the era" by virtue of ranking in the top 10 out of literally 100s of centres who played enough games to consider over the entire period; his 0.98 right next to Modano's 0.99. And actually, if you look at the raw points list between '96/97 and '03/04, the number of centres who had 8 full seasons to contribute and produced at anywhere near that level is quite low (maybe a dozen, give or take?)

I don't think that would be unfair at all to Sundin, it would be unfair to other players. Sundin contributed nothing beyond points, Modano excelled in other aspects of the game beyond offense.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I'm not going to totally throw out all-star and award voting for them, but they played in the era where voting started to become far less reliable. Heavy eastern bias, writers in non-traditional markets that may or may not know what the hell they're looking at, writers not even witnessing certain teams due to having 26-30 teams in the league. Dallas was notorious as the most boring team in the league (or at least in the West) and I seriously doubt many eastern-based writers were going to stay up past their bed time to watch Modano play. I'm not saying this is actually why Sundin has a better all-star record, but I wouldn't dismiss it either.

Trust me, the award voting aspect is so close "overall" (despite Sundin's seeming advantage by virtue of the post season berths, specifically) that it can only be used in an argument about how close they must be, imo; not which one necessarily rates above the other.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't think that would be unfair at all to Sundin, it would be unfair to other players. Sundin contributed nothing beyond points, Modano excelled in other aspects of the game beyond offense.

That's just... wrong. There's just no way he would have been the captain for a decade if it were anywhere close to true. He played in all situations and had heavy penalty-killing duties every season (particularly the '97-'04 stretch) on top of everything else. Kind of tying into your point, though, he IS one behind Sakic and Bobby Clarke in career SH goals; just 2 ahead of Modano.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That's just... wrong. There's just no way he would have been the captain for a decade if it were anywhere close to true. He played in all situations and had heavy penalty-killing duties every season (particularly the '97-'04 stretch) on top of everything else. Kind of tying into your point, though, he IS one behind Sakic and Bobby Clarke in career SH goals; just 2 ahead of Modano.

Perhaps I should have said I view Sundin as a player who was less than what his point totals/scoring finishes would indicate. Even in years where he was 2nd team all-star, he just never struck me as one of the top players in the game (as in, top 20ish). Modano definitely did though. Eyeball test.

 

[Theokritos]

I find it hard to believe the NHL didn't shape out what would Sundin become. In other words, he got better playing against better competition than what he'd have if he had stayed in Europe.

To me his international best on best resume suggest otherwise to a degree. Small sample size because we're looking at relatively short tournaments? Stops being an issue in my eyes if a player does it again and again over a long period of time. Three All-Star nominations (91 Canada Cup, 96 World Cup, 02 Olympics) is not a random result, there must be some substance to it. I believe playing in a different setup (for example international play, national team) can bring to light strenghts and weaknesses that are not so obvious otherwise (in the NHL). With Sundin, almost everytime you put him in that other setup (Team Sweden) he instantly looks like a much better player than he does at the Maple Leafs. And not against lesser competition! What precisely does this suggest? Not sure, I guess Sundin could and would have looked more impressive if Toronto played more like Team Sweden.

 

[MXD]

To me his international best on best resume suggest otherwise to a degree. Small sample size because we're looking at relatively short tournaments? Stops being an issue in my eyes if a player does it again and again over a long period of time. Three All-Star nominations (91 Canada Cup, 96 World Cup, 02 Olympics) is not a random result, there must be some substance to it. I believe playing in a different setup (for example international play, national team) can bring to light strenghts and weaknesses that are not so obvious otherwise (in the NHL). With Sundin, almost everytime you put him in that other setup (Team Sweden) he instantly looks like a much better player than he does at the Maple Leafs. And not against lesser competition! What precisely does this suggest? Not sure, I guess Sundin could and would have looked more impressive if Toronto played more like Team Sweden.

That completely doesn't adress my point, which was that Sundin developped into a better player because he played in the best league in the world, as opposed to playing in the 4th best league of the world.

It was the hypothetic case of Sundin being stuck behind the Iron Curtain.

 

[MXD]

Oh, and can we stop with the Sundin lovefest? The last page was totally painful to read and kindof became an argument AGAINST Sundin.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think that would be unfair at all to Sundin, it would be unfair to other players. Sundin contributed nothing beyond points, Modano excelled in other aspects of the game beyond offense.

Maybe you didn't mean to put it this way but you are implying that sundin brought zero to his game but points?

He wasn't a defensive liability out there like Big Ned and they don't make liabilities captains of their teams either.

As for many players playing 15 seasons now that's also a bit devious throwing it out there like that, it was 15 seasons at an extremely high rate of production, ie as a top 1/3 first liner in the league basically for 15 years straight, with a couple of drop down into the top 1/3 of the 2nd level of first line players.

he doesn't have the peak impact or PPG impact of a guy like Forsberg, Lindros or Sid, all of whom were downgraded as not being consistency enough and now we have an example of a center whose consistency is unquestionable over an extremely long period of time (15 years) with an oustanding international record.

His playoff record wasn't great but it wasn't Dionne poor either and his peak, which seems to be the problem most people have here is 39th all time on the VsX score for centers.

Exactly why has he dropped this far again?

My guess is that personal preferences seem to be getting in the way of the data here as the different reasons and arguments to discredit or downplay Sundin's greatness is really amazing.

He doesn't have team mates bumping up his stats or protecting him (careerwsie, relatively speaking) he plays in a large ultra competitive league not some 3 or 4 team league were most first line players seemingly make the post season all star team, it's really weird he has even dropped this far really, people are going to look at this and really scratch their heads.

 

[Sturminator]

Great fitness and diets have always existed it's just now that almost every player takes advantage of them so it's hard to tell if say a guy in 2013 has an advantage over a guy say in the 1910's.

Rubbish. Nutrition has improved hugely over the past 100 years, which is precisely the reason why players are so much bigger these days. Trust me, an average 3-4" increase in the height of adult men over the past century is not a product of evolution. There is no question that our diets today, and our knowledge of what constitutes a good diet and why, are vastly better than they were in the 1910's. There are going to be exceptions on either end, but there is no question that, compared to past generations, the average player today benefits from improvements in nutrition and sports science. The fact that there may be exceptions to a rule does not make the rule invalid or irrelevant; fallacious is one of the nicer words I would use to describe this type of argument.

For quite some time every player entering professional hockey has had a long and tough apprenticeship in jr/college ect... in the past, especially in the very early stages of hockey before it became truly organized top to bottom it was probably easier fro the cream to rise to the top as competition and playing styles didn't deter talent, say over size like it does today.

With respect to all but the infancy of the sport, this just reeks of misinformation. You think the junior and minor league feeder systems are something new? Back in the day - like say the 1920's - there were only around 8 teams in the league most years (it fluctuated a bit) and basically only the starters (first liners) got meaningful scoring opportunities. Great players like Pit Lepine and Cecil Dillon ended up stuck on lower units for the greater part of their primes because they couldn't replace the superstars ahead of them (in their cases Morenz and Cook).

Also as all players have gotten bigger/stronger/faster there has been a marked increase in serious injuries, something that is very noticeable from the mid 90's onward and it's just another thing that seems to be disregarded unlike the common refrain "well he played for a long time considering the era" for much older players.

Wut? How, exactly, do you know that there are more serious injuries now than there were a long time ago? I don't get the impression that you know much about the eras you are attempting to criticize here.

 

[overpass]

Since this always comes up with Sundin, here are the players he actually played with, by the numbers.

Numbers on the graphs are the % of Sundin's EV points that the listed player also recorded a point on, or a rough estimate of who Sundin played with at even strength. Data was compiled from the Hockey Summary Project by HFBoards poster matnor.

For comparison, Sakic's linemates.

I ran the numbers on Sundin's linemates back in 2012. Reposted above. Frankly it's hard to think of a centre on this list with a worse groupnof linemates, although playing in a 30 team league would contribute to that. Two partial years with Mogilny (a decade removed from 76 goals) and a couple of years with a late-30s Steve Thomas aren't much.

*********************

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I ran the numbers on Sundin's linemates back in 2012. Reposted above. Frankly it's hard to think of a centre on this list with a worse groupnof linemates, although playing in a 30 team league would contribute to that. Two partial years with Mogilny (a decade removed from 76 goals) and a couple of years with a late-30s Steve Thomas aren't much.

*********************

This is mainly name recognition though (or lack thereof). Didn't Modano generally outscore his linemates by at least as much as Sundin did?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This is mainly name recognition though (or lack thereof). Didn't Modano generally outscore his linemates by at least as much as Sundin did?

If that even turned out to be the case, which I doubt, how would that get balanced with what I submitted earlier about Sundin being 17% of all Leafs forward scoring between '96/97 and '03/04 vs. Modano being 16% of Dallas'? I mean, even if the gap between 1 and 2 is where you start here, and even if it turns out to favour Modano, obviously the gap as you get from 2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc must start tilting things back in Sundin's "favour".

But if the name recognition isn't enough, look furthermore into the age at which these names were in the equation for either guy, and how many of those seasons each guy actually put up beside them (i.e. the lists that have been linked already).

 

[overpass]

This is mainly name recognition though (or lack thereof). Didn't Modano generally outscore his linemates by at least as much as Sundin did?

What's wrong with name recognition? I could pull a bunch of stats to show that these guys who played with Sundin were pretty ordinary players for the most part, but I don't think that's necessary. We already know there's not much quality on that list.

 

[MadArcand]

Aside from Forsberg, that group playing with Sakic is hardly better than what Sundin had.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Aside from Forsberg, that group playing with Sakic is hardly better than what Sundin had.

Well... Forsberg in his prime is the biggest trump card any of these guys has in their hand. But even then, since I forgot to get into it before, here's the list of Avalanche scoring over the same period we're talking about: List.

Even beyond Forsberg, Hejduk and Tanguay represent more consistently reliable support scoring (also being present for no less than 5 of the 8 seasons) than anything we see on Modano's list, let alone Sundin's. Looks like Modano enjoyed more consistent offensive support from the defense than either of them, btw, which is almost surprising when you consider many people's perspective in hindsight re: what kept Dallas competitive with teams like Detroit/Colorado at the time (high emphasis on the two-way play of their forwards and goaltending, for examples).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What's wrong with name recognition? I could pull a bunch of stats to show that these guys who played with Sundin were pretty ordinary players for the most part, but I don't think that's necessary. We already know there's not much quality on that list.

I just think that if were talking about whether a player's stats are hurt by his team situation, his distance from his linemates in scoring is more important than the names of the linemates. Anyway, no argument that Sundin didn't have awesome linemates in Toronto, though I don't think hey were uniquely bad

 

[MadArcand]

Well... Forsberg in his prime is the biggest trump card any of these guys has in their hand. But even then, since I forgot to get into it before, here's the list of Avalanche scoring over the same period we're talking about: List.

Even beyond Forsberg, Hejduk and Tanguay represent more consistently reliable support scoring (also being present for no less than 5 of the 8 seasons) than anything we see on Modano's list, let alone Sundin's. Looks like Modano enjoyed more consistent offensive support from the defense than either of them, btw, which is almost surprising when you consider many people's perspective in hindsight re: what kept Dallas competitive with teams like Detroit/Colorado at the time (high emphasis on the two-way play of their forwards and goaltending, for examples).

Really, Hejduk and Tanguay were just solid complimentary players. Hejduk's about as much of a goal leech as you can find, leeching off Forsberg/Sakic with impunity. Better than the Hoglund class of linemates, but below Mogilny/Roberts, on par with Thomas/Renberg. Toronto's main problem was that it always acquired players to play with Sundin that were getting old and starting to go downhill (pretty damn fast, in some cases).

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Really, Hejduk and Tanguay were just solid complimentary players. Hejduk's about as much of a goal leech as you can find, leeching off Forsberg/Sakic with impunity. Better than the Hoglund class of linemates, but below Mogilny/Roberts, on par with Thomas/Renberg. Toronto's main problem was that it always acquired players to play with Sundin that were getting old and starting to go downhill (pretty damn fast, in some cases).

Regardless of our opinions of where any of these guys lie on the "talent" or even "role" scale looking back at their careers, the end result is right in front of us in terms of how much scoring support (let alone support on the defensive side of the puck) that actually translated into for either guy in comparison over the period in question. Obviously I agree with you agreeing with me that the bolded part contributed negatively to the whole situation.

 

[seventieslord]

I’ve voted.

I’m still puzzled by the fact that Lemaire gets any sort of support this high in the process. He was a very good player who could make this list if it went further down, but top-60 is an indefensible stretch.

As anyone who has paid attention to my arguments can tell, I try to be very cognizant of a player’s offensive and defensive worth. I think that ranking all centers by offensive value is a good starting point, followed by adjustments (some quite major) for defensive value and other considerations.

Lemaire’s offensive value is so far below the other players in this round, that he has to be a Keon-level stud defensively to really be in the consideration. However, the evidence to support him being anywhere near this level is just not there.

For starters, let’s quantify how much behind the field he is offensively. Recall when I showed how some modern centers scored based on adjusted points earlier in this thread. Turgeon, Sundin, Lafontaine, Sedin and Zetterberg posted between 1.06 and 1.18 adjusted points per game in their best 700 game periods. Lemaire’s output by the same method? 0.96. He’s 9% below the least of those players offensively (Stamkos and Roenick are both also in that range), and even below the likes of Nieuwendyk and Brind’Amour (0.98, 0.97), who have much longer careers, similar team-based positives (eras considered), and in Brind’Amour’s case, real substantiation for elite level defensive play. Every modern player mentioned above also had less dominant linemates than Lemaire tended to have during his career (this varies from player to player, of course).

So, what evidence do we have for Lemaire’s defensive ability to get him up towards the top of his class?

- No selke votes (the award existed for his last few seasons but he retired in his prime)
- No mentions in coach’s polls for best checker, faceoff man, smartest, defensive player, penalty killer, etc, to demonstrate that he was among the best in the league at anything
- Just 51 PPGA in his 12-year career, meaning he was not a regular penalty killer (aside from two seasons)
- No mentions of two-way or defensive play in any of the nine Complete Handbooks of Pro Hockey in which he appears (1972-1980)
- Occasional biographical mentions of him being a good two-way player

It seems that, while Lemaire was obviously not deficient defensively, the media doesn’t even seem to remember him as any better a defensive player than they remember a guy like Joe Nieuwendyk. And he would have to be much better than that defensively to make up the offensive edge Nieuwendyk (and all the rest of these mentioned names) has on him.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Maybe you didn't mean to put it this way but you are implying that sundin brought zero to his game but points?

He wasn't a defensive liability out there like Big Ned and they don't make liabilities captains of their teams either.

As for many players playing 15 seasons now that's also a bit devious throwing it out there like that, it was 15 seasons at an extremely high rate of production, ie as a top 1/3 first liner in the league basically for 15 years straight, with a couple of drop down into the top 1/3 of the 2nd level of first line players.

A lot of guys in the era had 15 seasons at a high rate of production. Whether it was 15 straight or 15 out of 17 doesn't really matter much, at least in my eyes.

Exactly why has he dropped this far again?

Well I'm not a voter in the project so I can't really comment, but there have been a lot of centers over the course of hockey history, and I personally never felt that I was watching one of the top 50 of all time during Sundin's career. Too many years where Sundin was just one of the crowd amongst top end forwards.

I'd probably have to be convinced he was better than Nieuwendyk or Brind'Amour. Not sure why he came up so many rounds before they did (if they even do at all).

He doesn't have team mates bumping up his stats or protecting him (careerwsie, relatively speaking) he plays in a large ultra competitive league not some 3 or 4 team league were most first line players seemingly make the post season all star team, it's really weird he has even dropped this far really, people are going to look at this and really scratch their heads.

It wasn't ultra competitive when Sundin was getting his 2nd team all-stars though. The three years right before the cancelled season were an absolute black hole for offensive talent.

I would say his placement would only look weirdly low to somebody who expected 45 of the top 60 to be players who peaked post expansion (extreme modern bias), judges players heavily based on career stats, or really loves international play.

Some people do love the international play, but World Championships in a post-iron curtain environment are something I don't personally take seriously. Brief tournaments of cobbled together rosters, where a guy could go out and score 5 or 6 points against Norway or France. Olympics are only a marginal upgrade on the situation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Two Position Forwards

I’ve voted.

I’m still puzzled by the fact that Lemaire gets any sort of support this high in the process. He was a very good player who could make this list if it went further down, but top-60 is an indefensible stretch.

As anyone who has paid attention to my arguments can tell, I try to be very cognizant of a player’s offensive and defensive worth. I think that ranking all centers by offensive value is a good starting point, followed by adjustments (some quite major) for defensive value and other considerations.

Lemaire’s offensive value is so far below the other players in this round, that he has to be a Keon-level stud defensively to really be in the consideration. However, the evidence to support him being anywhere near this level is just not there.

For starters, let’s quantify how much behind the field he is offensively. Recall when I showed how some modern centers scored based on adjusted points earlier in this thread. Turgeon, Sundin, Lafontaine, Sedin and Zetterberg posted between 1.06 and 1.18 adjusted points per game in their best 700 game periods. Lemaire’s output by the same method? 0.96. He’s 9% below the least of those players offensively (Stamkos and Roenick are both also in that range), and even below the likes of Nieuwendyk and Brind’Amour (0.98, 0.97), who have much longer careers, similar team-based positives (eras considered), and in Brind’Amour’s case, real substantiation for elite level defensive play. Every modern player mentioned above also had less dominant linemates than Lemaire tended to have during his career (this varies from player to player, of course).

So, what evidence do we have for Lemaire’s defensive ability to get him up towards the top of his class?

- No selke votes (the award existed for his last few seasons but he retired in his prime)
- No mentions in coach’s polls for best checker, faceoff man, smartest, defensive player, penalty killer, etc, to demonstrate that he was among the best in the league at anything
- Just 51 PPGA in his 12-year career, meaning he was not a regular penalty killer (aside from two seasons)
- No mentions of two-way or defensive play in any of the nine Complete Handbooks of Pro Hockey in which he appears (1972-1980)
- Occasional biographical mentions of him being a good two-way player

It seems that, while Lemaire was obviously not deficient defensively, the media doesn’t even seem to remember him as any better a defensive player than they remember a guy like Joe Nieuwendyk. And he would have to be much better than that defensively to make up the offensive edge Nieuwendyk (and all the rest of these mentioned names) has on him.

Paid attention to your arguments - seriously undervalue Syd Howe and other players able to play Center and another position with strong offense and very responsible defense.

The comparables you introduce always reduce to counting awards and honours out of context.

You raise Dave Keon as a comparable. Other than extreme circumstances, Keon only played center. Did it very well but at no time did he give his team two roster player flexibility like Syd Howe, Alex Delvecchio, Jacques Lemaire did or Henrik Zetterberg does. Sittler offered glimpses of this value in the 1976 CC, Sundin a bit with the Nordiques but neither sustained the diversity. Sadly having the ability to play two positions is a negative when it comes to honours and awards voting so Syd Howe, Alex Delvecchio, Jacques Lemaire, etc were short changed.

So the comparable that matters in this round offensively is Lemaire vs Zetterberg and Lemaire had a slight edge offensively.

That media, fans or pundits cannot or could not until recently, appreciate two position players reflects on them and not the talent of the players.The players you list in you 700 game comparable are basically one position players, one dimensional for the most part.

 

[thom]

Zettenberg won 2 Nhl Awards to Lemaire 0.Zettenberg pts per game is on par with Lemaire.Lemaire never led club once in assists which is hard if you cosider him elite.In 72-73 Jacques did lead team in scoring in 72-73 with 95 pts and yes in final play-offs in 1979 he tied with lafleur in league play-off scoring.But a very good example I will give is in 1979 Jacques was hurt for over 25 games despite that Lafleur had 129 pts and led team in scoring by 52 pts.