Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

I recall the Czech league and Nedomansky were also a big deal to that poster once upon a time when it came to proving that Bobby Clarke benefited from a 'non-integrated' league, etc, etc, etc

Yes and I'll stand by those comments as well, big Ned was better offensively that Clarke in the 2 seasons in question and probably could have done quite well in the NHL (in the right situation).

fortunately TDMM pointed out his lackluster performances outside of Toronto in the WHA and it led me to look more closely at Big Ned and his overall North American resume which isn't that great on the whole.

you saw my post on Big Ned and Sundin age 30 and beyond, do you really think big Ned should go in before Sundin?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes and I'll stand by those comments as well, big Ned was better offensively that Clarke in the 2 seasons in question and probably could have done quite well in the NHL (in the right situation).

fortunately TDMM pointed out his lackluster performances outside of Toronto in the WHA and it led me to look more closely at Big Ned and his overall North American resume which isn't that great on the whole.

you saw my post on Big Ned and Sundin age 30 and beyond, do you really think big Ned should go in before Sundin?

Cherry picking the one forward with freakish longevity. I see. Sundin was better than a lot of NHLers already added from the age of 30 on. His issue is that he didn't have all that much of a peak.

I just don't see how Larionov's North American career was much better than Nedomansky's, if at all, considering the circumstances.

No matter how much you try to spin the facts, Nedomansky was better than most forwards of his age group. His time in North America should be seen as proof that he'd excel in the NHL if he had joined in his prime, IMO, nothing more, nothing less.

For the record, I will have Sundin in my top 4 too

 

[Hardyvan123]

Cherry picking the one forward with freakish longevity. I see. Sundin was better than a lot of NHLer already added from the age of 30 on. His issue is that he didn't have all that much of a peak.

but the point of the discussion is ranking guys ehre right?

sure the knock agasint Sundin is his lack of peak but as Lord has pointed out, high peaks aren't that high but his valley aren't low at all either.

isn't consistency also a metric we should judge and evaluate players by here?

Or Mats 6 different best on best tournaments?

I fail to see how Larionov's North American career was much better than Nedomansky's, if at all, considering the circumstances.

No matter how much you try to spin the facts, Nedomansky was better than most forwards of his age group

Actually he wasn't when we look closely at his age 30-35 scoring, more on that tomorrow.

I'll skip over the Igor comp as he is already in, and rightly so and focus on your 2nd comments tommorrow

For the record, I will have Sundin in my top 4 too

Me too, for the 3rd round in a row (or at least 2nd, I'm a bit drunk and can check back but it's not important anyways).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Or Mats 6 different best on best tournaments?

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 still don't feel that there was a satisfactory response to this one, in light of what is made of the NHL playoff gap. They seem like such obvious players to have a discussion about (both Swedish captains in the European NHL era), but the largest discussion my posts have produced were just the two words "playoffs" and "defense". I'd at least like some purple prose with my two words!

There was a 20-point voting gap, and I've only heard from two people (who had them back-to-back: one with Sundin in front, one with Zetterberg in front). The 20-point voting gap is still not accounted for in the discussion. Where are you people?!

So if you really like longevity, Sundin's your guy here. Over anyone. But if you think 700 games is plenty enough to judge a player on, then I don't see how Zetterberg isn't the best of this group.

I think there's a difference between believing that 700 games is enough to judge and believing that nothing beyond 700 games should carry additional value. Going by early voting rounds, I'm not sure that anyone was looking at 700 games and stopping. Vote 4 would have looked a lot different...

 

[quoipourquoi]

...and it doesn't look like Zetterberg is adding to his Best-on-Best International resume this year. Yeesh.

 

[VMBM]

I don't really see why Nedomansky should be so far behind Petrov - inded, why should he be behind at all?

Because he was one-dimensional and Petrov wasn't*? Because Petrov centered USSR's/CSKA's legendary top line for over a decade?

He shouldn't be far behind IMO, though, and personally I would have placed him above Larionov.

* as a playmaker and defensive player, you have to prefer Petrov

 

[BM67]

Peter had great success from day 1 in the NHL, big Ned in north america was meh (even at his age).

Meh for his age? The only player born within 2 years of Ned (1942-1946) that put up more points past age 33 was Phil Esposito.

Of players the same age or older via H-R he ranked well in points:

77-78 12th
78-79 2nd
79-80 2nd
80-81 3rd
81-82 1st
82-83 1st

Compared to those born 1942-1946:

77-78 22nd
78-79 2nd
79-80 2nd
80-81 4th
81-82 2nd
82-83 1st

The only player born 1946 or earlier that played in the NHL in 83-84 was Tony Esposito.

Not a legendary performance perhaps, but decidedly above meh.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because he was one-dimensional and Petrov wasn't*? Because Petrov centered USSR's/CSKA's legendary top line for over a decade?

He shouldn't be far behind IMO, though, and personally I would have placed him above Larionov.

* as a playmaker and defensive player, you have to prefer Petrov

I don't know about that, maybe from a skill set perspective, but Nedomansky's highs seem higher than Petrov's. Nedomansky was selected best forward at the 1974 World Championships; Petrov was never selected WC Best forward. (4-3 advantage in WC All-Stars for Petrov, though Nedomansky's WC career was cut short by his defection). Nedomansky was almost certainly the 2nd best forward in the 1972 Olympics behind arguably the best performance of Kharlamov's career; did Petrov have an Olympics that strong?

There were at least some North American scouts who thought Nedomansky was the best player in Europe before he came over. Maybe it's because he stood out more against weaker teammates than Petrov stood out against his more stacked team, but I think it's worth noting.

Basically, I think there are reasons to prefer Petrov (you listed them above). But there are also reasons to prefer Nedomansky, IMO.

We seem to agree both should have been over Larionov, but that bridge has passed.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Meh for his age? The only player born within 2 years of Ned (1942-1946) that put up more points past age 33 was Phil Esposito.

Of players the same age or older via H-R he ranked well in points:

77-78 12th
78-79 2nd
79-80 2nd
80-81 3rd
81-82 1st
82-83 1st

Compared to those born 1942-1946:

77-78 22nd
78-79 2nd
79-80 2nd
80-81 4th
81-82 2nd
82-83 1st

The only player born 1946 or earlier that played in the NHL in 83-84 was Tony Esposito.

Not a legendary performance perhaps, but decidedly above meh.

See this is looking at only 2 of his seasons right? the NHL in 79 and 80, which are 2 pretty good offensive seasons and I ahve already stated that but it's the whole North American resume that is really lacking.

I went to hockey reference and found that Andre Lacroix, who is 1 year younger, is smoking big Ned out of the water for all of their WHA time togehter and the 1st 4 years Ned is in North america.

Howe, Hull and the Big M (who was Ned's team mate) are all much older and have "more impressive" stats for their age.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1975_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1976_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1977_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1978_skaters.html

Here in his 1st season in the NHL we have many players older and jsut younger than Ned with much better seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1979_skaters.html

Here is the first of 2 seasons when one can finally and say that his performance for his age is noteworthy (scoring wise only), same with the following season then he falls off the cliff.

 

[MXD]

See this is looking at only 2 of his seasons right? the NHL in 79 and 80, which are 2 pretty good offensive seasons and I ahve already stated that but it's the whole North American resume that is really lacking.

I went to hockey reference and found that Andre Lacroix, who is 1 year younger, is smoking big Ned out of the water for all of their WHA time togehter and the 1st 4 years Ned is in North america.

Howe, Hull and the Big M (who was Ned's team mate) are all much older and have "more impressive" stats for their age.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1975_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1976_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1977_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1978_skaters.html

Here in his 1st season in the NHL we have many players older and jsut younger than Ned with much better seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1979_skaters.html

Here is the first of 2 seasons when one can finally and say that his performance for his age is noteworthy (scoring wise only), same with the following season then he falls off the cliff.

Adaptation.

Plus, I dont think its really apt to compare a Top-70 player who switched arenas to a Top-200or so player or all time who switched continent and political regime...

Had Nedomansky looked better than the older guys you named, we would either be overrating guys like Big M or underrating severely Ned (by not having voted him in already).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Adaptation.

Plus, I dont think its really apt to compare a Top-70 player who switched arenas to a Top-200or so player or all time who switched continent and political regime...

Had Nedomansky looked better than the older guys you named, we would either be overrating guys like Big M or underrating severely Ned (by not having voted him in already).

those 1st 3 seasons listed are in the WHA, not the 70's version of the NHL and the first season in the NHL (4th in north america) was well below average.

there seems to be a thing to portray his 2 big years in Detroit (still only offensively speaking and largely in a all Canadian league btw) as how he was overall which really wasn't the case.

His international days in the late 60's and early 70's with little to no hitting is hard to compare as is the level of competition as well outside of the Czech and Russian teams those WC and Olympics are just really really weak and much more so than say Sundin's 6 best on best tournaments

 

[MXD]

those 1st 3 seasons listed are in the WHA, not the 70's version of the NHL and the first season in the NHL (4th in north america) was well below average.

there seems to be a thing to portray his 2 big years in Detroit (still only offensively speaking and largely in a all Canadian league btw) as how he was overall which really wasn't the case.

His international days in the late 60's and early 70's with little to no hitting is hard to compare as is the level of competition as well outside of the Czech and Russian teams those WC and Olympics are just really really weak and much more so than say Sundin's 6 best on best tournaments

That is exactly why he isn't in yet.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Has Henrik Sedin eclipsed Pat LaFontaine?

7-year vsX scores
LaFontaine: 78.8
Sedin: 82.8


Points per game among contemporary centers (age +/-3 years)

Sedin
Spezza 1.00
Thornton 0.99
Datsyuk 0.98
Zetterberg 0.95
B. Richards 0.89
Savard 0.87
Sedin 0.84

Lafontaine
Lemieux 2.05
Yzerman 1.30
Hawerchuk 1.22
Oates 1.18
LaDontaine 1.17

^ to make this work fairly for LaFontaine, I used only these players' PPG scored during the time in which he played.


Awards voting:
LaFontaine

Year | Award | Finish | Ballot 1990 |Hart|5th|0-1-5
1990 |All Star|5th|0-5-3
1992 |Hart|t-13th|0-0-1
1992 |All Star|5th|0-2-5
1993 |Hart|3rd|1-12-11
1993 |All Star|2nd|0-20-11
1993 |Selke|t-14th|0-1-0

Sedin

Year | Award | Finish | Ballot | Comment 2004 |Selke|50+|0-0-1
2007 |Selke|t-34th|0-1-0-0-0
2010 |Hart|1st|46-34-27-19-4
2010 |All Star|1st|77-49-4
2011 |Hart|10th|0-1-3-8-11
2011 |All Star|1st|92-23-3
2011 |Selke|22nd|0-0-1-1-1
2011 |LW All Star|t-8th|0-1-0|confusion with Daniel?
2012 |Hart|9th|0-2-2-5-1
2012 |All Star|5th|0-1-13
2013 |Hart|14th|0-0-1-0-0
2013 |All Star|9th|0-1-4

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Has Henrik Sedin eclipsed Pat LaFontaine?

7-year vsX scores
LaFontaine: 78.8
Sedin: 82.8


Points per game among contemporary centers (age +/-3 years)

Sedin
Spezza 1.00
Thornton 0.99
Datsyuk 0.98
Zetterberg 0.95
B. Richards 0.89
Savard 0.87
Sedin 0.84

Lafontaine


Awards voting:
LaFontaine

Year | Award | Finish | Ballot 1990 |Hart|5th|0-1-5
1990 |All Star|5th|0-5-3
1992 |Hart|t-13th|0-0-1
1992 |All Star|5th|0-2-5
1993 |Hart|3rd|1-12-11
1993 |All Star|2nd|0-20-11
1993 |Selke|t-14th|0-1-0

Sedin

Year | Award | Finish | Ballot | Comment 2004 |Selke|50+|0-0-1
2007 |Selke|t-34th|0-1-0-0-0
2010 |Hart|1st|46-34-27-19-4
2010 |All Star|1st|77-49-4
2011 |Hart|10th|0-1-3-8-11
2011 |All Star|1st|92-23-3
2011 |Selke|22nd|0-0-1-1-1
2011 |LW All Star|t-8th|0-1-0|confusion with Daniel?
2012 |Hart|9th|0-2-2-5-1
2012 |All Star|5th|0-1-13
2013 |Hart|14th|0-0-1-0-0
2013 |All Star|9th|0-1-4

Lafontaine didn't get to play 99% of his hockey life with his equally talented twin brother.

 

[BM67]

See this is looking at only 2 of his seasons right? the NHL in 79 and 80, which are 2 pretty good offensive seasons and I ahve already stated that but it's the whole North American resume that is really lacking.

I went to hockey reference and found that Andre Lacroix, who is 1 year younger, is smoking big Ned out of the water for all of their WHA time togehter and the 1st 4 years Ned is in North america.

Howe, Hull and the Big M (who was Ned's team mate) are all much older and have "more impressive" stats for their age.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1975_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1976_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/WHA_1977_skaters.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1978_skaters.html

Here in his 1st season in the NHL we have many players older and jsut younger than Ned with much better seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1979_skaters.html

Here is the first of 2 seasons when one can finally and say that his performance for his age is noteworthy (scoring wise only), same with the following season then he falls off the cliff.

No, it was Nedomansky's entire 6 year NHL career.

In his first disastrous NHL season, he was outscored by 20 players, older than him, combined NHL/WHA. That dropped to 1 in his second NHL season.

Here's a table of the number of players that put up more points than Nedomansky that were older than him.

The number in brackets is the number of other older NHL players within 20 points of him while he was in the WHA. In 77-78 it is the number of older players that had more than his NHL only total of 28, but less than his combined total of 33.

Season|NHL|WHA
74-75|6(6)|5
75-76|1(3)|2
76-77|3(7)|1
77-78|8(1)|11
78-79|1|0
79-80|1|-
80-81|2|-
81-82|0|-
82-83|0|-

Compare that to Larionov who was out scored by 29 players older than him in both 89-90 and 90-91.

 

[Cruor]

Modano on #47 and Sundin on 53+...? Really, the gap due to Modano's later two way play can't be that big. If you put a gun to my head I'd still say Sundin was the better hockey player of the two. And for the guy who said Sudden was lacking in the leadership department, I dare say any Swede would disagree with you (can't speak for Leaf fans, but I guess there was a reason he was called Captain Clutch).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lafontaine didn't get to play 99% of his hockey life with his equally talented twin brother.

While that is true Hank is clearly the better brother as his scoring didn't tail off as much as one would think, given your suggestion here, in 10 and 12 when Daniel went down for the stretch.

Henrik has his flaws as an all time great but some really strong points that should give him serious consideration for the top 60 of all time, if not now then the next time we do this again.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No, it was Nedomansky's entire 6 year NHL career.

In his first disastrous NHL season, he was outscored by 20 players, older than him, combined NHL/WHA. That dropped to 1 in his second NHL season.

Here's a table of the number of players that put up more points than Nedomansky that were older than him.

The number in brackets is the number of other older NHL players within 20 points of him while he was in the WHA. In 77-78 it is the number of older players that had more than his NHL only total of 28, but less than his combined total of 33.

Season|NHL|WHA
74-75|6(6)|5
75-76|1(3)|2
76-77|3(7)|1
77-78|8(1)|11
78-79|1|0
79-80|1|-
80-81|2|-
81-82|0|-
82-83|0|-

Compare that to Larionov who was out scored by 29 players older than him in both 89-90 and 90-91.

okay but part of that is to do with the much smaller number of older players in the NHL in the early 80's though right?

If we look at Big Ned in the WHA and NHL combined age 30 and older it's a less complimentary picture on the "he scored well for his age" argument.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Modano on #47 and Sundin on 53+...? Really, the gap due to Modano's later two way play can't be that big. If you put a gun to my head I'd still say Sundin was the better hockey player of the two. And for the guy who said Sudden was lacking in the leadership department, I dare say any Swede would disagree with you (can't speak for Leaf fans, but I guess there was a reason he was called Captain Clutch).

I'm probably the guy here that thinks that Sundin has dropped farther than he should have but Modano in his peak was simply a better player than Sundin in his peak in terms of total hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Modano on #47 and Sundin on 53+...? Really, the gap due to Modano's later two way play can't be that big. If you put a gun to my head I'd still say Sundin was the better hockey player of the two. And for the guy who said Sudden was lacking in the leadership department, I dare say any Swede would disagree with you (can't speak for Leaf fans, but I guess there was a reason he was called Captain Clutch).

Do you think we are overrating the value of defensive play in forwards? Because the way I see it, Modano was a much better defensive player than Sundin, while putting up similar numbers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

okay but part of that is to do with the much smaller number of older players in the NHL in the early 80's though right?
.

Usually we consider a player outperforming his peers to be a positive.

 

[Cruor]

Do you think we are overrating the value of defensive play in forwards? Because the way I see it, Modano was a much better defensive player than Sundin, while putting up similar numbers.

Well personally I really like guys like LaFontaine and probably don't put such a premium on two-way play like many of you do. I mean the very idea of putting Zetterberg ahead of Sundin gives me rashes. With that said Sundin still has two things going for him, one is his team situation and second, his best-on-best play which was elite to say the least. Modano never impressed me the same way Sudden did.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well personally I really like guys like LaFontaine and probably don't put such a premium on two-way play like many of you do. I mean the very idea of putting Zetterberg ahead of Sundin gives me rashes. With that said Sundin still has two things going for him, one is his team situation and second, his best-on-best play which was elite to say the least. Modano never impressed me the same way Sudden did.

Sundin led his team in scoring 13 times. Modano led his team in scoring 12 times. When both were in their primes (late 90s, early 00s), Modano generally led his team in scoring by wider margins than Sundin led his. Anyway, enough about Modano; he's already on the list.

I will likely have Sundin ahead of Zetterberg myself. Sundin's probably going to be my 3rd or 4th (Nedomansky and Fredrickson look good for my top 2) and Zetterberg should be in my 5-8 range.

I'm planning to go through Duke Keat's career in more detail this weekend.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Usually we consider a player outperforming his peers to be a positive.

yes that's true but his performance was much better in 79 and 80 than it was in 78 and 77

Even his 75 and 76 years aren't as impressive (ie WHA) as one would hope for a top 60 guy IMO.

depends on how strong one thinks his play earlier in his career is and that level of competition as well.

 

[VMBM]

I don't know about that, maybe from a skill set perspective, but Nedomansky's highs seem higher than Petrov's. Nedomansky was selected best forward at the 1974 World Championships; Petrov was never selected WC Best forward. (4-3 advantage in WC All-Stars for Petrov, though Nedomansky's WC career was cut short by his defection). Nedomansky was almost certainly the 2nd best forward in the 1972 Olympics behind arguably the best performance of Kharlamov's career; did Petrov have an Olympics that strong?

Points-wise, probably not. The 1976 Olympics were arguably Petrov's best; he was 7th in scoring, and in the deciding game vs. Czechoslovakia, he scored a goal (which he also set up with K & M)* and assisted on the GWG, when he won the faceoff in the offensive zone and fed the puck to Kharlamov**.
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMss9voDv4&t=61m5s
**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMss9voDv4&t=94m11s

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not overly concerned about the Olympics pre-1998, though. Quality-wise, IMO they weren't really any better than the WCs, for example. I'm sure that the players themselves wanted to do well in them, since it WAS & IS a special event & held only every four years, but sometimes they seem a little overvalued. Also, Czechoslovakia finished only 3rd in 1972... and 5th in 1980, even though many Czechoslovak players were among the top scorers... how much glory there really was? (compare with Holger Maitinger & Ernst Höfner at the 1981 WC)

Anyway, in the early 1970s international tournaments, Nedomansky was arguably better than Petrov. Then again, he is 3 years older than Petrov, and Petrov's best years and many of his best tournaments were still ahead of him (1975 & 1979 WCs, for example).

In the mid-1960s, Nedo also had a reputation for being a 'choker' in big games; i.e. against USSR. But I guess the 1969 WC changed that, and he was always a key player from that point on.

Basically, I think there are reasons to prefer Petrov (you listed them above). But there are also reasons to prefer Nedomansky, IMO.

Nedomansky was a helluva goal-scorer - along with Firsov, probably the best in Europe in the late-1960s/early 1970s. But Petrov wasn't too much behind (e.g. over 50 goals a season in the Soviet league), and he seems to have been clearly more defensive-minded and arguably was able to use his teammates better (compare their assist numbers, for example).

Of Czechoslovak players, IMO Nedomansky's international record is on par with Martinec's - and clearly better than Novy's, whose international highs are fairly high (1976 CC, 1976 WC, 1977 WC & 1980 OG) but who doesn't have much to show beyond that (internationally).

But I certainly know a lot more about e.g. Petrov (and have seen him play a lot more) than about Nedomansky, so that is a problem here.