Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[MadArcand]

So, among the PCHA era forwards I'm thinking it goes:

Frederickson
Foyston
Morris
Keats
Dunderdale

what do you guys think?

I'd swap Keats and Morris, but otherwise that order seems OK.

 

[sr edler]

If a player like Datsyuk, who was also kind of a late bloomer & never dominated the league offensively, is 43rd a guy like Henrik Sedin should probably make the top 60. He's got a nice resume.

– Hart Trophy
– Art Ross Trophy [and a 4th place finish]
– 2 First All-Star Teams [against the Crosby–Malkin squad]
– Led the league in assists for 3 straight seasons

– Olympic gold & World Championship gold [9 points in 4 games]
– Two consecutive Presidents' Trophies as a Captain, and a Stanley Cup final appearance
– Sixth longest iron man streak [679 games]
– Guldpucken [as a teenager]

I get he got flaws [goal scorer, non-physical perimeter game, dubious defense sometimes] but those same flaws can be applied on both Oates & Thornton who's already long gone on the list.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd swap Keats and Morris, but otherwise that order seems OK.

I'm going to wait for Sturminator's big comparison (Sturm, PM me if you want help, but my time is limited).

But right now, I'm comfortable leaving Morris and Dunderdale off the list. Still think Fredrickson and Keats are guys I want on the list, and I am on the fence about Foyston. I could see Fredrickson going in this round and Keats and Foyston going in next round. But again, I think we should all wait and see before making up our minds.

 

[sr edler]

Can someone sell me on Henrik Zetterberg already over Mats Sundin at this point in his career?

Zetterberg led the 2004–05 Elitserien in points, arguably the best league in the world at the time. Though he only had 1 more point than Huselius in 16 more games. Huselius didn't care about defense though!

 

[MadArcand]

General thoughts on newcomers:

- What is the case against McGee? Short career? Then why should he be so behind Crosby or Malkin?
- Foyston > Morris/Dunderdale
- Sedin easily last

Top-4 locks: McGee, Nedomansky
Contenders: everyone else but Sedin, really

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

General thoughts on newcomers:

- What is the case against McGee? Short career? Then why should he be so behind Crosby or Malkin?
- Foyston > Morris/Dunderdale
- Sedin easily last

Top-4 locks: McGee, Nedomansky
Contenders: everyone else but Sedin, really

I'm happy that McGee showed up because I think he's worth discussing, but I think rather than ask us what the case against him is, why don't you tell us the case FOR him?

Anyway, the case against him is a very short career, and he was outscored decisively by Russell Bowie (a man with a much longer career) while they were in the same league together.

I'll leave the Sedin thing alone, other than to ask (again), what makes Lafontaine better?

 

[MadArcand]

I'm happy that McGee showed up because I think he's worth discussing, but I think rather than ask us what the case against him is, why don't you tell us the case FOR him?

Anyway, the case against him is a very short career, and he was outscored decisively by Russell Bowie (a man with a much longer career) while they were in the same league together.

Crosby outscores Malkin decisively when healthy.

McGee was a dominant player, even if outscored by Bowie. Compare that to someone like Sundin who wasn't even top-10 center in his era.

I'll leave the Sedin thing alone, other than to ask (again), what makes Lafontaine better?

Was Lafontaine a super-soft choker who couldn't score a goal if his life depended on him?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

McGee looks to be the last guy left available that could reasonably be argued to be the best player in the world at some point in time. He was also the centerpiece of a dynasty, none of the other available players can say that.

Very short career is the big knock against him, it was short even by turn of the century standards. Amongst the short career guys up in this round, I don't see any reason why Joe Primeau would rank ahead of him. Lafontaine had a great peak, probably similar to McGee in his spike year but was not the key player on a dynasty. Zetterberg was a key player on a strong team, but lacks McGee's peak.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

McGee looks to be the last guy left available that could reasonably be argued to be the best player in the world at some point in time. He was also the centerpiece of a dynasty, none of the other available players can say that.

Very short career is the big knock against him, it was short even by turn of the century standards. Amongst the short career guys up in this round, I don't see any reason why Joe Primeau would rank ahead of him. Lafontaine had a great peak, probably similar to McGee in his spike year but was not the key player on a dynasty. Zetterberg was a key player on a strong team, but lacks McGee's peak.

From the Russell Bowie profile:

Frank McGee vs. Russell Bowie (1903-1906)
McGee = 71 goals
Bowie = 106 goals
Bowie beat McGee by 33% over the entire course of McGee's career

That's a pretty huge difference. And Bowie's career lasted 3-4 times as long as McGee's.

The argument for McGee is how he performed in Cup challenges for the Ottawa dynasty, I guess.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

From the Russell Bowie profile:

Frank McGee vs. Russell Bowie (1903-1906)
McGee = 71 goals
Bowie = 106 goals
Bowie beat McGee by 33% over the entire course of McGee's career

That's a pretty huge difference. And Bowie's career lasted 3-4 times as long as McGee's.

The argument for McGee is how he performed in Cup challenges for the Ottawa dynasty, I guess.

On a game-by-game basis, I think Bowie and McGee were pretty close, at least statistically. This is what I posted in a previous thread:

In fairness to McGee, he lost a pro-rated 12 goals in 1904 after Ottawa withdrew from the league mid-season. He missed three games in 1906, which isn't insignificant since he was averaging 4 goals per game that season. (Bowie missed one game as well). On a per game basis, Bowie and McGee are pretty close during their contemporary years.

However, you must also consider McGee didn't have to play against Ottawa, who was the best team during his career. Harvey Pulford was seemingly the best defensive player during McGee's career, with Art Moore of good reputation as well. Goaltender Bouse Hutton (up to 1904) is in the HOF. Ottawa was definitely the best defensive team during McGee's career, while the Victorias were generally weak in that regard. They did not seemingly produce any defense players or goaltenders of historical note during Bowie's career. Grant and Drinkwater were finished by about 1900.

So overall, the 33% advantage may be statistically misleading, but is probably an accurate representation of relative dominance when those other factors are taking into account.

So yeah, I concluded Bowie was better as well but I could see somebody reasonably arguing for McGee. Crosby/Malkin type of thing.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Defense and playoffs. But I have them back-to back (8th & 9th last round) - Sundin has much better offensive value, Zetterberg defensive value. So playoffs basically tip the scales ever so slightly in Zetterberg's favor.

I understood that argument as it pertained to Mike Modano's rather full career, but is longevity not a factor that tips the scales ever so slightly back to Sundin when he is compared to a player with approximately 600 fewer games?

Playoffs
Sundin: 82 points in 91 games (0.90)
Zetterberg: 114 points in 123 games (0.93)

Best-on-Best International
Sundin: 39 points in 30 games (1.30)
Zetterberg: 10 points in 20 games (0.50)

World Championships
Sundin: 44 points in 35 games (1.26)
Zetterberg: 44 points in 52 games (0.85)


I'm not even sure that Zetterberg's edge in terms of playoff offense off-sets Sundin's edge in terms of International offense. Sundin crushed it in best-on-best hockey. It just seems like too much stock is being placed on non-Selke defense (from the off/on linemate of a three-Selke winner with backup from a seven-Norris defenseman) if it's going to overcome a career that is that much longer.

If the careers were equal sizes, I would agree that the defensive edge (both regular season and playoff) justifies it, but that's not the case.

 

[MadArcand]

The way I see it, the defensive gap is larger than the offensive gap - larger enough to negate Sundin's longevity edge. But I do see the case for Sundin being better as pretty much equally viable.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The way I see it, the defensive gap is larger than the offensive gap - larger enough to negate Sundin's longevity edge. But I do see the case for Sundin being better as pretty much equally viable.

It just seems like such a departure from where we were during the 2012 lockout when he was shutout in an HOH vote against lesser Swedish players (5 voters were from this project).

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1246751

I know I advocated for Henrik Zetterberg, 2013 Playoff All-Star last Summer, but I don't think I was that convincing. Was he being underrated there, has he added a lot in 91 games, or have we soured on Sundin as a group? I'm curious, because it's like so different...

 

[MadArcand]

I didn't participate in that project, and thus can't comment on it (or on other voters' perspective). Myself, I've never been a big fan of Sundin.

 

[Sturminator]

PCHA/Western Leagues Hoe-down!

Ok, I'm going to do my BIGASS WESTERN LEAGUE ALL-STARS COMPARISON!1! as quickly and in as orderly a fashion as possible, but you fine people will have to forgive me if it takes until Sunday to get it all done. I will include Duke Keats in the analysis, and I will also include Mickey MacKay because he belongs in the discussion, because his value is a reference point for placing the others, and because we should have clear documentation of his career in this project, even if it comes after the fact.

It is difficult to evaluate and compare these players statistically. The split league era was a wild time in the history of professional hockey - a period when rules were constantly shifting, players jumped contracts (Frank Nighbor, for example, jumped his contract with Vancouver after the 1915 Cup victory to go back to Ottawa, and was banned by the Patricks from ever playing in the PCHA again), one-year "superteams" were built (see: 1914-15 Vancouver Millionaires), and franchises were born, died, and were born again.

I think one could fairly say of the period that it was the adolescence of professional hockey in north america. Like any good adolescent, hockey in this epoch was often out of balance, and the players did not compete against one another on a level playing field. With this in mind, I will use statistics where I feel they are appropriate, but with a few exceptions (Morris and Foyston, for example, who were teammates and whose primes almost completely overlap), the numbers, insofar as we use them as comparative tools, will come with large caveats.

Ultimately, I think we must evaluate these players holistically. We have to go with our "feeling" to a certain extent, and we have to pay attention to how they are described in primary sources - to their "star power", if you will. I am normally a person who favors empirical methods of evaluation wherever possible, but I also try to recognize the limits of their value, and in this case I think the variables are too complex for raw statistical comparison to be in any way definitive. We must tread lightly through the swamp.

 

[MXD]

Me and Sturm disagreed last round regarding Keats and Fredrikson. This said, it was mostly about the effects of WWI, and not about a Keats vs. Fredrikson comparison. I agree with Sturm's post below.

It is actually a very close-run thing between Fredrickson and MacKay as to who was the second best PCHA forward after Taylor. If MacKay went in last round, then Fredrickson should go in immediately. Fredrickson over Keats shouldn't be controversial once the evidence is presented, and the rest of them just don't compare all that well to the Icelander.

I'm going to do a big study of all the PCHA guys here, and I'm even going to include MacKay because I have done the work on him and am somewhat disappointed that he went in without much discussion. It may have to wait until the weekend, but I'll get the information out there this round, and then we can sort them out after that. My impressions after churning through the data:

Fredrickson/MacKay
----------------------
Keats/Foyston
----------------------
Morris
----------------------
Dunderdale

 

[Sturminator]

Mickey MacKay

We'll start with MacKay, both because he's already in and because, if not for Fredrickson, he'd be clearly the best of the not-Taylor group of western league stars, in my opinion.

We start with MacKay's rookie season as a professional, 1914-15, in which he finished second in scoring in the PCHA, a single point behind Cyclone Taylor, and well ahead of the third place finisher. MacKay also performed very well in the Cup finals series against Ottawa , and the Millionaires rolled to a 3-0 sweep of the Sens, winning 26-8 in total goals.

The Spokesman-Review: 7.3.1915:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...qhVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qeADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6760,3613561

A northwestern ice hockey league, with Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver and Victoria making up the membership, is a certainty within two years, according to Lester Patrick, manager of the Victoria club and director of the Pacific Coast Hockey league.

...

"Mackay, especially, is the wonder of the hockey world. Barely 19 years of age, he is a star of stars. Frank Patrick started out when he was 19 years of age and I started out in my teens, but in all of our experience we have never seen a kid developing with everything as Mackay is doing. He has speed, is a grand stick handler, a great back checker and scorer, and he's got brains, something that the average hockey player does not acquire for years after being in the game."

"Mickey Mackay is the Tyrus Cobb of hockey. He is showing we old-timers today something that we never thought was possible in the game, and Mackay is but the forerunner of a crop of youngsters who will make the game faster than it has ever been."

So suffice it so say, MacKay started his career with a bang, and Lester Patrick saw him as one of the great assets of the Pacific Coast league. Just for a bit of flavor, here is an article which details just how wild the situation with contracts and competition between the NHA and PCHA was in 1915:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...7k0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=SYEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6104,3655033

At any rate, after a great start, the road started getting bumpy for MacKay.

1915-16: MacKay begins battling injury problems. Misses 3 out of 18 games in 1915-16 (the equivalent of 14 games in an 82 game season), and is third in team scoring with a weak 18 points, behind one of Vancouver's defensemen, Lloyd Cook. Not a strong season.

1916-17: Poor scoring season, but is listed as a 1st team all-star at center in the PCHA for this season. Most likely played as a rover and most likely played well, which would square the seeming incongruity between his poor scoring and 1st AST finish.

1917-18: Weak regular season, low-scoring and not a 1st team all-star. He did, however, have a great performance in the postseason that year, going 2-1-3 in two games of the PCHA finals and then 5-5-10 in five games of a tightly contested Cup finals against the Toronto Arenas, which Vancouver narrowly lost, 3-2 in game five of the finals.

1918-19: Looks like another good season at rover for MacKay. Didn't score a lot, but named 1st AST on the end of season team. Had his jaw shattered towards the end of the season by a cross-check from Cully Wilson, who was subsequently banned from the PCHA for life by the Patricks, and came back east to continue his career.

So much for the first part of MacKay's career. That injury, and a team situation which was changing around him, seems to have marked a turning point in his career as a professional hockey player. He would miss the entire 1919-20 PCHA season, and would come back largely a different player than he had been, in some ways better, and in some ways worse.

 

[ted2019]

How many of them get in and why isn't Jeremy Roenick up yet for contention?

My guess is that those 5 guys rank better in the ATD but I don't need to look that up do i?

I see Frederickson as a possible top 60 guy but the others will have a hard time matching up to the field in this round and probably the next one too.

Why should Roenick by up yet? He by His own admission admitted that He hung on to get to 500 Goals. Roenick was never voted to a post season all star team, nor did He ever win any awards. His last 4 years in the league were abysmal and He really should've hung Them up after 2005-06. after He scored 107 in 1993-94, He never once topped the 80 PT. barrier again. Frankly, Roenick doesn't deserve to be in the top 60, possibly.

 

[unknown33]

Roenick shouldn't be even close to making the Top 60 it or am I missing something?
Why should he even come up when LaFontaine and Sedin will be borderline making it?

 

[Hardyvan123]

If leading an NHL team in scoring in your 30s is pedestrian, why couldn't Larionov do it? No, not even the San Jose Sharks.

circumstances of the teams they played for obviously, those 2 Red wing tems he led in scoring were pretty horrible and there is hte year before when he was 10th and then the sharp decline afterwards as well.

The only definitive thing you could really argue is that Big Ned had more raw production offensively at those 2 ages but were they more valuable?

The only way one could even argue that is because Igor only played 33 NHL games in his age 34 season.

Big Ned's North american resume isn't really all that strong like I outlined earlier, even it's strong points, ie goals in the WHA had him 3, 12, 20 in goals and that was in the WHA not the NHL.

If you want me to compare how big Ned and Igor ranked among Canadian scorers I will be pleased to do so and show exactly how weak big Ned's resumes is in North America, heck it's even weak in the same ages compared to Sundin this round and Big Ned brought very little to the table besides scoring, I really have no idea on how he can be #1 this round unless one equates the competition in the Czech league as really high or internationally in the late 60's and early 70's which I don't think was the case.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Crosby outscores Malkin decisively when healthy.

Why anyone would compare McGee to Crosby and Malkin is beyond me, Hand and Kunachel also dominated but context should be important one would think.

McGee was a dominant player, even if outscored by Bowie. Compare that to someone like Sundin who wasn't even top-10 center in his era.

Well ,let's be fair to Mats a bit here since McGee is only being compared to Canadian guys (and an incredibly smaller pool of Canadian guys to boot).

Once again this is Sundin's scoring finishes among the common Canadian standard over time.

3,4,5,6,7,7,8,11, 12,15,15,15,16,19,20,,29 all in a 24-30 team NHL. sorry that's more impressive than McGee's offense.

Was Lafontaine a super-soft choker who couldn't score a goal if his life depended on him?

No Patty was a very good goal scorer who played 100 years alter, his competition was slightly better, if one doesn't want to account for it sure pump up Frank but he has no business on the top 60 list IMO.

I guess if Pat and Mats were each blind in one eye they would have done alot worse but that says more about the compete level of the NHL at various times than it does about Frank, Mats or Pat's skill levels.

 

[MadArcand]

Why anyone would compare McGee to Crosby and Malkin is beyond me, Hand and Kunachel also dominated but context should be important one would think.

You mean your universal 'context' that equates to 'more recent = better'?

Well ,let's be fair to Mats a bit here since McGee is only being compared to Canadian guys (and an incredibly smaller pool of Canadian guys to boot).

Once again this is Sundin's scoring finishes among the common Canadian standard over time.

3,4,5,6,7,7,8,11, 12,15,15,15,16,19,20,,29 all in a 24-30 team NHL. sorry that's more impressive than McGee's offense.

I don't see how. Not to mention we're talking about more than just offense here. Even if we use just NA-players, Sundin is clearly behind Lemieux, Messier, Sakic, Yzerman, Francis, Gilmour, Modano, Lindros, Thornton & Oates - ergo not top-10.

No Patty was a very good goal scorer who played 100 years alter, his competition was slightly better, if one doesn't want to account for it sure pump up Frank but he has no business on the top 60 list IMO.

Except that I was comparing Lafontaine and Sedin, what the hell does McGee have with that comparison?

 

[Hardyvan123]

McGee looks to be the last guy left available that could reasonably be argued to be the best player in the world at some point in time. He was also the centerpiece of a dynasty, none of the other available players can say that.

not sure about that, Zetts in 08 was probably hands down the best guy in the world regular season and playoffs combined and Sedin does have that Hart (not that I think he deserved it but he gets a lot of flack around the league and he is basically an extremely good playmaker in the Thorton, Oates mold

Very short career is the big knock against him, it was short even by turn of the century standards. Amongst the short career guys up in this round, I don't see any reason why Joe Primeau would rank ahead of him. Lafontaine had a great peak, probably similar to McGee in his spike year but was not the key player on a dynasty. Zetterberg was a key player on a strong team, but lacks McGee's peak.

McGee only has his peak because of the extremely small talent pool at the time he played, if one wants to disregard the context of hockey levels and competition completely then sure Frank has a place in the top 60 but if one accounts for context in any measure then no frank doesn't belong.

Maybe Sturm can add his thoughts on McGee when he has some time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You mean your universal 'context' that equates to 'more recent = better'?

skip the shooting the messenger rhetoric here and look at the facts, turn of the century early 1900's was an extremely limited hockey talent pool for basically a brand new sport.

I don't see how. Not to mention we're talking about more than just offense here. Even if we use just NA-players, Sundin is clearly behind Lemieux, Messier, Sakic, Yzerman, Francis, Gilmour, Modano, Lindros, Thornton & Oates - ergo not top-10.

Most of those guys have their entire careers and peaks outside of when Mats played though.

Here again are the centers during Mats time in the NHL

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Mats is 2nd in points behind Sakic

Except that I was comparing Lafontaine and Sedin, what the hell does McGee have with that comparison?

My bad Hank is an entirely different type of player than Pat was sure, we all know that.

 

[MadArcand]

skip the shooting the messenger rhotiric here and look at teh facts, turn of the century early 1900's was an extremely limited hockey talent pool for basically a brand new sport.

So? Quantity != quality.

Most of those guys have their entire careers and peaks outside of when Mats played though.

Here again are the centers during Mats time in the NHL

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Mats is 2nd in points behind Sakic

This is a very fallacious way of looking at it. And once again, there's far more that goes into ranking a center than just points.