Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[MadArcand]

Voted. Sundin made my top-6!

 

[Sturminator]

Looks like our final rankings for this round are quite similar, TDMM. I've got Nedomansky 3rd behind Fredrickson and Sittler mainly because I am suspicious of his reputation for defensive indifference and a Golden Stick voting record which is considerably worse than his scoring exploits would suggest. Defense from the center position is quite important to me, and I view Big Ned's weakness here as a serious flaw. I think he should get in this round, but not in first place.

For what it's worth, I am all for opening the floodgates and pushing in a field of twenty for the final vote. That will let posters pump their personal favorites, and we may see some novel arguments made. We should try to soften the restrictions of the round 1/2 voting system so as not to rule out by default potentially viable candidates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Final Round of 20???

Not as suggested since fringers may benefit from an unearned bump of up to 14 spots. The purpose and advantage of finishing 57 vs 70 in the 1st round is negated. Such voting will further fragment votes amongst fringers as opposed to driving votes to players who could benefit from the attention and difference.

Only fair alternative is a three day runoff round from the bottom 12 of the 20 with the top four qualifying for the final round.

 

[MadArcand]

I wouldn't mind a larger final round. Maybe someone more interesting would come up.

 

[tarheelhockey]

One last post on the group of NHL-era players whose case relies heavily on their scoring peak.

3 best scoring seasons and accomplishments

Pat Lafontaine
1990 - 8th in points (74% of Gretzky), 5th in Hart voting
1993 - 2nd in points (93% of Lemieux, though Lemieux played 24 fewer games), 2nd All Star Team, 3rd in Hart voting
1996 - 22nd in points (57% of Lemieux)

Joe Primeau
1931 - 6th in points (81% of Morenz)
1932 - 2nd in points (94% of Busher Jackson), arguably could have been on the 2nd All Star Team under modern scoring?
1934 - 2nd in points (88% of Charlie Conacher)

Henrik Sedin
2010 - 1st in points (3% over Crosby), Won Hart Trophy, 1st All Star Team
2011 - 4th in points (90% of Daniel Sedin), 1st All Star Team
2012 - 8th in points (74% of Malkin)

Darryl Sittler
1976 - 9th in points (80% of Lafleur), 9th in Hart voting
1978 - 3rd in points (87% of Lafleur), 2nd All Star team, 3rd in Hart voting
1980 - 9th in points (71% of Dionne/Gretzky), 8th in Hart voting



Observations

IMO, Henrik Sedin clearly has the highest peak in this group, for the following reasons:

- I think we would all agree that Lafontaine wins the "eye test" at his best, but in terms of results he really only had a couple of isolated seasons as a standout. His monster 1993 season looks stronger than it really is; he was only close to Lemieux because Lemieux missed over a quarter of the season, and the #3 guy was Adam Oates who was only 6 points (4%) behind Lafontaine. And most importantly, that performance was never replicated.

Compare to Sedin, whose Hart/Ross/1AS winning 2010 season saw him beat out healthy, prime versions of Crosby and Ovechkin as well as Stamkos' breakout season. He followed that up with another 1AS season, as well as two more seasons leading the league in assists. And let's just say that 2010 wasn't quite like 1993 in terms of weird scoring results.

- Much like Primeau, Sedin's best seasons are clearly tied to the presence of custom-fit linemates. However, unlike Primeau, Sedin has clearly demonstrated the ability to outperform his regular linemates and to find success without them during periods of injury. In Primeau's 3 outstanding seasons on the Kid Line, he was bettered in per-game scoring by Charlie Conacher all three years. More importantly, Conacher continued to perform at a superstar level after the Kid Line was split up, whereas Primeau faded into obscurity.

Compare to Sedin, whose 2010 season saw him outscore Daniel by 27 points (32%), and then again by 14 points (21%). The interim season, in which Daniel won the Ross, had Henrik finishing 10 points (11%) behind him -- someone who followed the Canucks more closely can comment, but from the stat sheet it certainly appears that those 10 points had a lot to do with Daniel's much higher rate of shooting. In any case, Henrik has clearly been the stronger producer over the long haul.

- Sedin simply has Sittler beat in terms of the height of his scoring peak. Sittler's 1978 was great, but not overwhelmingly so and it was never replicated. However, Sittler's case relies less heavily on scoring peak than these other guys. He has a pretty clear edge over all three of them in terms of his longevity and all-round game, so I'd be inclined to rank him over Sedin as an overall player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

tarheel, why are you using seasons when Sittler was 9th in points, when he also had 2 seasons in 8th? I realize the difference between 8th and 9th is marginal, but I don't see why he's being talked about as a guy with a 3 year peak to begin with.

1973-74 NHL 84 (8)
1975-76 NHL 100 (9)
1976-77 NHL 90 (8)
1977-78 NHL 117 (3)
1979-80 NHL 97 (9)

Actually expanding behind HR's top 10s into top 20s, Sittler has a pretty impressive streak of consistent performance. Add 18th in 1975, 12th in 1979, 15th in 1981.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

One last post on the group of NHL-era players whose case relies heavily on their scoring peak.

3 best scoring seasons and accomplishments

Pat Lafontaine
1990 - 8th in points (74% of Gretzky), 5th in Hart voting
1993 - 2nd in points (93% of Lemieux, though Lemieux played 24 fewer games), 2nd All Star Team, 3rd in Hart voting
1996 - 22nd in points (57% of Lemieux)

Joe Primeau
1931 - 6th in points (81% of Morenz)
1932 - 2nd in points (94% of Busher Jackson), arguably could have been on the 2nd All Star Team under modern scoring?
1934 - 2nd in points (88% of Charlie Conacher)

Henrik Sedin
2010 - 1st in points (3% over Crosby), Won Hart Trophy, 1st All Star Team
2011 - 4th in points (90% of Daniel Sedin), 1st All Star Team
2012 - 8th in points (74% of Malkin)

Darryl Sittler
1976 - 9th in points (80% of Lafleur), 9th in Hart voting
1978 - 3rd in points (87% of Lafleur), 2nd All Star team, 3rd in Hart voting
1980 - 9th in points (71% of Dionne/Gretzky), 8th in Hart voting



Observations

IMO, Henrik Sedin clearly has the highest peak in this group, for the following reasons:

- I think we would all agree that Lafontaine wins the "eye test" at his best, but in terms of results he really only had a couple of isolated seasons as a standout. His monster 1993 season looks stronger than it really is; he was only close to Lemieux because Lemieux missed over a quarter of the season, and the #3 guy was Adam Oates who was only 6 points (4%) behind Lafontaine. And most importantly, that performance was never replicated.

Compare to Sedin, whose Hart/Ross/1AS winning 2010 season saw him beat out healthy, prime versions of Crosby and Ovechkin as well as Stamkos' breakout season. He followed that up with another 1AS season, as well as two more seasons leading the league in assists. And let's just say that 2010 wasn't quite like 1993 in terms of weird scoring results.

- Much like Primeau, Sedin's best seasons are clearly tied to the presence of custom-fit linemates. However, unlike Primeau, Sedin has clearly demonstrated the ability to outperform his regular linemates and to find success without them during periods of injury. In Primeau's 3 outstanding seasons on the Kid Line, he was bettered in per-game scoring by Charlie Conacher all three years. More importantly, Conacher continued to perform at a superstar level after the Kid Line was split up, whereas Primeau faded into obscurity.

Compare to Sedin, whose 2010 season saw him outscore Daniel by 27 points (32%), and then again by 14 points (21%). The interim season, in which Daniel won the Ross, had Henrik finishing 10 points (11%) behind him -- someone who followed the Canucks more closely can comment, but from the stat sheet it certainly appears that those 10 points had a lot to do with Daniel's much higher rate of shooting. In any case, Henrik has clearly been the stronger producer over the long haul.

- Sedin simply has Sittler beat in terms of the height of his scoring peak. Sittler's 1978 was great, but not overwhelmingly so and it was never replicated. However, Sittler's case relies less heavily on scoring peak than these other guys. He has a pretty clear edge over all three of them in terms of his longevity and all-round game, so I'd be inclined to rank him over Sedin as an overall player.

i'l'l take that one on. because of their idiosyncratic cycle game, and the fact the daniel is the shooter (or was before his duncan keith-flying elbow-concussion, anyway), in a normal situation where they are equally good, daniel will usually get slightly more points, because he touches the puck last before it goes into the net or creates a rebound much more often than henrik does. i wouldn't be surprised if henrik has led all forwards in tertiary assists every year since the lockout. so that explains daniel's lead in certain years.

henrik's lead in other years is some combination of him played more games than daniel (2010, e.g.), or because he's the better player which he always has been.

i have a big post on henrik that i've been dying to write -- to work through the truths, half-truths, and that's-past-my-bedtime -- but i feel like it makes more sense to wait until the next round, as there seems to be little chance for any henrik discussion to affect the voting this round (and rightfully so, i might add).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Vote 14

Voted.

 

[ted2019]

Food for thought. Does anyone here take into consideration the advances in food & supplements and workouts and in general ( for the most part) a better overall lifestyle for the modern players( Sundin, Sedin, etc..) over the " older crowd ( Foyston, Frederickson, Nedomansky, etc...) ? It's easier for a player like Sundin to play better into His mid 30"s and beyond, then it was for a player like Nedomansky, who every few years actually got worse because ( gasp) He got older? I'm a workout nut and I lift 4 days a week ( After having stage 3 Lymphoma and really heavy Chemo for 7 Months) and I can tell You from 1st hand knowledge that I'm basically in the same shape now, except for a few minor areas, then I was when I was 25-28 years old. Also, don't forget about the advances in modern medicine. medicine is about 10000X better then it was in the 1950's, so imagine how much better it is now compared to World War I ?

 

[tarheelhockey]

tarheel, why are you using seasons when Sittler was 9th in points, when he also had 2 seasons in 8th?

When I compiled the post, I just started with his 100- and 97-point seasons on the assumption that they'd be better than the much lower finishes, and worked out his placements as a second step. Clearly I underestimated the effects of scoring variation during that set of seasons.

Kind of bizarre that he got a worse finish by scoring 16 more points, in consecutive seasons. I'd expect that over a longer period of separation, but not back to back. In fact that 1974 scoring chart as a whole is pretty unique.

I realize the difference between 8th and 9th is marginal, but I don't see why he's being talked about as a guy with a 3 year peak to begin with.

Only because he actually does have such a high peak, unlike Lemaire and Sundin in this round, so there was at least a starting point of comparison to the other three. As you say, his consistency at a higher level is precisely the reason he should be elevated beyond the level of Sedin, Primeau or Lafontaine.

 

[Sturminator]

Food for thought. Does anyone here take into consideration the advances in food & supplements and workouts and in general ( for the most part) a better overall lifestyle for the modern players( Sundin, Sedin, etc..) over the " older crowd ( Foyston, Frederickson, Nedomansky, etc...) ?

I think most reasonable people do, yes. Of course modern players have huge advantages that old-timers didn't enjoy, most importantly better medical care when they get hurt. We can't judge length of career in the same way across generations. To do so would do terrible violence to old-time players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Food for thought. Does anyone here take into consideration the advances in food & supplements and workouts and in general ( for the most part) a better overall lifestyle for the modern players( Sundin, Sedin, etc..) over the " older crowd ( Foyston, Frederickson, Nedomansky, etc...) ? It's easier for a player like Sundin to play better into His mid 30"s and beyond, then it was for a player like Nedomansky, who every few years actually got worse because ( gasp) He got older? I'm a workout nut and I lift 4 days a week ( After having stage 3 Lymphoma and really heavy Chemo for 7 Months) and I can tell You from 1st hand knowledge that I'm basically in the same shape now, except for a few minor areas, then I was when I was 25-28 years old.

Yes, it's why I think a player's longevity should be compared to his peers, not other generations, especially newer ones.

It's also why 7 years is the standard used in the VsX tables that are posted - in the old days, 7 years was a very respectable length for a player's prime.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Food for thought. Does anyone here take into consideration the advances in food & supplements and workouts and in general ( for the most part) a better overall lifestyle for the modern players( Sundin, Sedin, etc..) over the " older crowd ( Foyston, Frederickson, Nedomansky, etc...) ? It's easier for a player like Sundin to play better into His mid 30"s and beyond, then it was for a player like Nedomansky, who every few years actually got worse because ( gasp) He got older? I'm a workout nut and I lift 4 days a week ( After having stage 3 Lymphoma and really heavy Chemo for 7 Months) and I can tell You from 1st hand knowledge that I'm basically in the same shape now, except for a few minor areas, then I was when I was 25-28 years old. Also, don't forget about the advances in modern medicine. medicine is about 10000X better then it was in the 1950's, so imagine how much better it is now compared to World War I ?

I do but it's a bit of a mixed bag.


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

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.

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.

In fact for some guys, like Lindros his injuries are made to be his fault and there is little analysis of the "eras" maybe having something to do with it, at least this seems to be the general case from comments made in the current project and other times in this section.

 

[MXD]

Food for thought. Does anyone here take into consideration the advances in food & supplements and workouts and in general ( for the most part) a better overall lifestyle for the modern players( Sundin, Sedin, etc..) over the " older crowd ( Foyston, Frederickson, Nedomansky, etc...) ? It's easier for a player like Sundin to play better into His mid 30"s and beyond, then it was for a player like Nedomansky, who every few years actually got worse because ( gasp) He got older? I'm a workout nut and I lift 4 days a week ( After having stage 3 Lymphoma and really heavy Chemo for 7 Months) and I can tell You from 1st hand knowledge that I'm basically in the same shape now, except for a few minor areas, then I was when I was 25-28 years old. Also, don't forget about the advances in modern medicine. medicine is about 10000X better then it was in the 1950's, so imagine how much better it is now compared to World War I ?

I hope everybody does so, and there's no "middle ground" here.

Actually, comparing players of the same era regarding longevity probably prevents all problems. A 13 year old career isn't impressive nowaways, but it certainly was some 70 years ago.

As for today's injuries -- I clearly remember Jean Beliveau saying he sustained what is known today as a concussion.

Nowadays, the player wouldn't have played. Beliveau played what he described as his worst seasons.

Now we'd clearly be wrong to lay whatever blame on Beliveau for having sub-par years/inconsistency if we don'T do the same for the modern player who didn't play.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Food for thought. Does anyone here take into consideration the advances in food & supplements and workouts and in general ( for the most part) a better overall lifestyle for the modern players( Sundin, Sedin, etc..) over the " older crowd ( Foyston, Frederickson, Nedomansky, etc...) ? It's easier for a player like Sundin to play better into His mid 30"s and beyond, then it was for a player like Nedomansky, who every few years actually got worse because ( gasp) He got older? I'm a workout nut and I lift 4 days a week ( After having stage 3 Lymphoma and really heavy Chemo for 7 Months) and I can tell You from 1st hand knowledge that I'm basically in the same shape now, except for a few minor areas, then I was when I was 25-28 years old. Also, don't forget about the advances in modern medicine. medicine is about 10000X better then it was in the 1950's, so imagine how much better it is now compared to World War I ?

When Sundin is praised for his consistency and his longevity, it is not because people compare him to players from the 1950s or World War 1; Sundin holds these advantages over his contemporaries. 15 70-point seasons is nothing to sneeze at. Only two players in the Dead Puck Era had a minimum of 70 points in all eight seasons: Jaromir Jagr and Mats Sundin. Joe Sakic and Mike Modano were the next closest with 6/8. It wasn't an era where star players stayed healthy and productive. Look at some of the biggest names of the era and the toll it took on their bodies: Bure, Forsberg, Kariya, Lindros, Selanne. Hell, Jagr was hitting his mark in spite of his health. The fact that Sundin was largely invincible is a major plus, because he offered Toronto reliability in an often unreliable era. Death, taxes, and 70-GP and 70-points.

Because of his health, Sidney Crosby has already played as many sub-70-point seasons as Sundin ever did. Zetterberg has doubled-up on that number. So have the aforementioned Centers Lindros and Forsberg. And Datsyuk. Adam Oates matched it before he even played his first 70-point season.

VsX7 does him a disservice because it takes away a rather noticeable advantage that kicks in when everyone starts to hit bumps in the road while Sundin keeps going strong despite starting in the league as a teenager. Best example is the offensive comparison between Sundin and Fedorov (yes, Fedorov's defense is better; that's why he was added to the list 24 spots ago...). Not a whole lot separating Sundin and Fedorov's top-seven seasons offensively. Then Sundin rattles off eight more 70-point seasons and a point-per-game lockout season while Fedorov doesn't breach 70 points again.

So unless we're comparing him to an ironman of the 1950s or World War 1, Sundin's consistency and longevity should be given appropriate weight.

If your best forward is Sundin/Zetterberg, you're probably not winning the cup.

And I disagree with the idea that a team cannot win with Sundin as their best forward. I mean, really, what kind of statement is that? We've seen a team with Jamie Langenbrunner as its best forward win a Stanley Cup, and we've seen a team with Mario Lemieux as its best forward miss the playoffs. I'm not sure about there being such a strong correlation between #1 forward and playoff success to throw that one out there as if defense and goaltending don't enter the equation (which it certainly did in 1999 when Curtis Joseph had a rare bad playoff series in the Conference Finals). There are way too many factors to make a statement about how a 1st ballot HOF forward - alone - is too deficient for a team to win.

Maybe the Toronto Maple Leafs didn't win with Sundin as their best forward, but Sweden did. And I don't know why best-on-best games (30 of them in six tournaments; not at all a small sample size) seem to mean so little in the European NHL era that they don't warrant a discussion, but teams were capable of winning with Sundin as their best forward. But running into Belfour, Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy for 31 of his first 59 NHL playoff games probably wasn't the best way to rack up the gaudy numbers he had in his international games... which, again are kinda ridiculous (1.30 points-per-game). He's not Gretzky or Lemieux internationally, but that's a damn high number that would have gotten more attention had he been stuck behind the iron curtain.

 

[MXD]

And I disagree with the idea that a team cannot win with Sundin as their best forward. I mean, really, what kind of statement is that? We've seen a team with Jamie Langenbrunner as its best forward win a Stanley Cup, and we've seen a team with Mario Lemieux as its best forward miss the playoffs. I'm not sure about there being such a strong correlation between #1 forward and playoff success to throw that one out there as if defense and goaltending don't enter the equation (which it certainly did in 1999 when Curtis Joseph had a rare bad playoff series in the Conference Finals). There are way too many factors to make a statement about how a 1st ballot HOF forward - alone - is too deficient for a team to win.

Maybe the Toronto Maple Leafs didn't win with Sundin as their best forward, but Sweden did. And I don't know why best-on-best games (30 of them in six tournaments; not at all a small sample size) seem to mean so little in the European NHL era that they don't warrant a discussion, but teams were capable of winning with Sundin as their best forward. But running into Belfour, Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy for 31 of his first 59 NHL playoff games probably wasn't the best way to rack up the gaudy numbers he had in his international games... which, again are kinda ridiculous (1.30 points-per-game). He's not Gretzky or Lemieux internationally, but that's a damn high number that would have gotten more attention had he been stuck behind the iron curtain.

And this is probably the best somewhat out-of-the-box argument in favor of Sundin. A few caveats though :

- I emphasis the fact that 70ies said "probably wouldn't win the cup". We've certainly seen teams do so with lesser forwards; the Habs best forwards for their last two cups were Naslund and Damphousse (though a serious argument could be made for Guy Carbonneau). Still, those teams had Roy, so I think it goes with the "probably" element of his point.

- Had Sundin been behind the Iron Curtain? Well, his international resume would certainly have gotten more weight in his overall resume. For many reasons, one of them being that the WC would have been much closer to best-on-best things. Besides, 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. I think he cannot really have it both ways.

 

[thom]

Not taking sides but if we were to take international stats in helping decide greatness -Larry Robinson had a paltry 1 assists in 14 games in 1976 and 1981 Canada Cup-Obviously he is one of the top 10 defencemen of all time in most lists.So 1 assist in 76 -81 canada cup is not good.Even in 1984 he finaly got a goal but he was a minus 3.

 

[Hardyvan123]

quoipourquoi makes some really good points on Sundin and it's really a shame that he has fallen this low and that somehow people think they are treating him fairly in that he makes their top 6 this round against some really dubious competition here.

No doubt some people will still have him out their their top 4 and the push for guys missing years in WW1 and WW2 in this project has been met by relevant silence on the missed lockout year in 05 that affect Zetts and Sundin and I'm hoping people are also taking that lost year for them into consideration and the lack of comments on it is just an oversight.

I'm also not sure if WW1 is the same as WW2 and the lockout in that NHL, or any hockey players getting special treatment, like in WW2 and how many young men died and possibly freed up the competition level for those post WW1 guys.

It might be nothing but it was something I was thinking about today back about that time period when life was still really tough for most Canadians and playing a game wasn't done by many people at all really.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not taking sides but if we were to take international stats in helping decide greatness -Larry Robinson had a paltry 1 assists in 14 games in 1976 and 1981 Canada Cup-Obviously he is one of the top 10 defencemen of all time in most lists.So 1 assist in 76 -81 canada cup is not good.Even in 1984 he finaly got a goal but he was a minus 3.

International play still is important for players that it applies too but context is important and for forwards scoring is much more important than for Dmen, who might have a different role, like Robinson.

 

[MXD]

Not taking sides but if we were to take international stats in helping decide greatness -Larry Robinson had a paltry 1 assists in 14 games in 1976 and 1981 Canada Cup-Obviously he is one of the top 10 defencemen of all time in most lists.So 1 assist in 76 -81 canada cup is not good.Even in 1984 he finaly got a goal but he was a minus 3.

I think it's a sample size question. Robinson played 1384 regular season games, 227 playoffs games and 31 international games -- 25 of whom were best-on-best.

There is certainly enough material in 1600+ games to not focus too much on 31 games.

Besides, Robinson had a very, very north american style.

 

[MXD]

I'm also not sure if WW1 is the same as WW2 and the lockout in that NHL, or any hockey players getting special treatment, like in WW2 and how many young men died and possibly freed up the competition level for those post WW1 guys.

That's a... pretty novel perspective.

 

[thom]

Thanks for reply-Im a Larry Robinson fan but I wanted to show that stats on a player could be used in a negative way.But yes his long and productive time in Nhl proves his worth

 

[edinson]

No doubt some people will still have him out their their top 4 and the push for guys missing years in WW1 and WW2 in this project has been met by relevant silence on the missed lockout year in 05 that affect Zetts and Sundin and I'm hoping people are also taking that lost year for them into consideration and the lack of comments on it is just an oversight.

Zetterberg should be given some credit for the lockout seasons but Sundin chose not to play during 04-05, why would you give him credit for that? I think that's quite different from the WWs.

 

[MXD]

Voted.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Zetterberg should be given some credit for the lockout seasons but Sundin chose not to play during 04-05, why would you give him credit for that? I think that's quite different from the WWs.

The NHL was locked out by the owners and whether he played or not in another league isn't the point the year before and after the lockout he was still an extremely good player, to not give him credit would be inconsistent.

For the record Sundin was 31st and 36 in overall scoring in 04 and 06 (15th and 19th among Canadians)

And if one wants to be so critical of Sundin for not playing anywhere in the lockout year one would hope that an equally critical and stringent look at all players and their careers would be put under the same type of microscope and treatment right?