Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[MXD]

this was quoted in MDX's last post on colville



Is there any basis to the part in bold or is that another problem of quotes from those days hardly being an accurate measure of things in alot of cases?

I have no doubt that Neil was a fine hockey player but real doubts if he is a top 60 center of all time.

There is little to no evidence that his intangibles were "the difference " in actually winning anything more than would be expected, at Least there is a case (although not a really strong one) for Guy Carbonneau this round.

Speaking of guy doesn't anyone seriously have him in their top 8 this round and if so is he even a serious consideration for any top 4 spot?

we had another case of a guy with a "really strong AST voting record in the time just before this, where when one looked his resume wasn't nearly as impressive as his AST voting record showed.

Otherwise, I think that, in this round, Guy is either first, second (because that's how I see Keats resume vs. everbody else) or not in at all.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

sure but his 10 season was a huge outlier to his earlier career, 32 more points than his next best previous 2 highs.

Joe also benefited from an extra amount of assists being given out to Maple Leaf players as well.

both guys probably won't make my top 3, Joe definitely not.

no one's asking you to put henrik your top 3. i'm just asking that you stop repeating the wrong cliche about the zone starts advantage. they had a detrimental, not beneficial, effect on his scoring.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That is a quote from Frank Boucher BTW. I mean, whether it's totally accurate or not is irrelevant (and I think anybody here understood that the facts behind the quote are possibly not totally accurate).

It means what it means -- that Neil Colville was, at worst, a very good penalty killer.

Yes I realize that it was a quote from Frank Boucher, just wanted to confirm that the impression he gave was misleading to say the least one would think.

A good penalty killer is one thing but the guy Boucher was describing would make Bobby Clarke look like a poor one.

 

[tarheelhockey]

While Sedin isn't going to win any Selkes, the difference between him and go defensively probably isn't that huge is it?

I'll defer to a Western Conference fan on that one. He doesn't have a strong defensive reputation, but that means next to nothing with the way reputations go these days.

 

[Hardyvan123]

no one's asking you to put henrik your top 3. i'm just asking that you stop repeating the wrong cliche about the zone starts advantage. they had a detrimental, not beneficial, effect on his scoring.

Surely you don't really mean this do you?

Why not come out and say that Hank's scoring would have been higher if he didn't have 65% plus offensive zone starts and had less than 50% or something?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'll defer to a Western Conference fan on that one. He doesn't have a strong defensive reputation, but that means next to nothing with the way reputations go these days.

he was above average for an offensive 1c up to 2010, and has regressed steadily since then. to be honest, the last couple of years he's been pretty bad. not liability bad, but not what you want from your number one center.

that said, he's been very good on the PK this year, mostly due to him and daniel being able to play keepaway through the neutral zone when they gain possession.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I doubt I'll have Primeau in my top 4 this round, though he might sneak into the bottom of my top 8.

A couple of things

1) I think that if a player back then (particularly around the Great Depression) left hockey for a better business opportunity, it shouldn't be necessarily held against him IF he was still a star-calibre player when he left (see Syl Apps), but it seems like Primeau was no longer a star-calibre player when he left.

2) Primeau was a strong defensive player. Secondary sources like Joe Pelletier rave about his defensive play and penalty killing.

The innovator of sports science, Lloyd Percival named Primeau as one of the noteworth "stick checkers" of his era. Interestingly, Bill Thoms, who bridged the gap between Primeau and Syl Apps as Toronto's #1 center was also named:

Some people claim that the style of hockey played today makes stick checking of the old type, once used so sucessfully by the such "greats" as Frank Nighbor, Bill Thoms, Joe Primeau, and Frank Boucher, an ineffective skill. However any...

-Lloyd Percival, The Hockey Handbook, 1961, pg 178 (unfortunately google books doesn't have the rest of the quote)

I don't think Primeau was one of the truly elite defensive centers of his era - he was no Pit Lepine or Hooley Smith. Perhaps no Frank Boucher. But he was a strong one.

3) Primeau should get SOME credit for his role in creating the modern prototype for centers - the defensive conscience and playmaker of the line - after the advent of the forward pass.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Surely you don't really mean this do you?

Why not come out and say that Hank's scoring would have been higher if he didn't have 65% plus offensive zone starts and had less than 50% or something?

i do mean that. and no, obviously i don't mean that he would score more points with 45% zone starts obviously, but i mean that AV jacking his starts up to 70% and then 80% did more harm than good. he was best at a reasonable number, sub-60% number.

hardy, i know you watch canucks games. or at least you sure post about them enough in the canucks forum.

but here's that post again:

alain vigneault's strategy, which began in the 2011 season, made henrik a less, not more, effective player, both overall and offensively. there are many reasons for this, but one big reason they kept getting shut down in the playoffs by teams with elite number 1 D pairs is because 2011 and later, you always knew when they were coming on the ice and so you always knew when to put keith-seabrook, suter-weber, chara-seidenberg, and mitchell-doughty on the ice. genius won two presidents trophies and then rewarded his team by coaching them out of home ice advantage both years and wasted what should have been henrik's playoff prime.

you saw that situationally they were always making the same plays in the same sets, and you saw that cycle game become less and less effective. you saw opposing coaches counter AV with the shutdown line and best d-pair every time. you saw their transition game almost completely disappear.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes I realize that it was a quote from Frank Boucher, just wanted to confirm that the impression he gave was misleading to say the least one would think.

A good penalty killer is one thing but the guy Boucher was describing would make Bobby Clarke look like a poor one.

I've seen another source claim that the Rangers' innovative attacking penalty kill in 1940 scored twice as many goals as it allowed. It could be a legend that has been passed on, but it's possible that it was just something that other teams had never seen before and had no idea how to handle for the first season that it was implemented. At the time, it was common practice to play 5 forwards on the power play, so in theory, I can see how they could exploit forwards trying to play D if they were aggressive enough.

This was a part of the case for Art Coulter (the only defenseman on the unit) during the defensemen project, so no, I don't think Colville should get all the credit for it.

The Devils in 2012 were a plus on the penalty kill around the halfway point of the season (and actually had more SHGs than PPGs fairly far into the season), so it isn't entirely crazy to think that a dominant PK that was playing an aggressive style that nobody had a plan to counter yet could put up some incredible numbers over a small sample size.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why the Kid Line Was Split

That's true, again Primeau had a game similar to a Ron Francis or Jean Ratelle, no big holes in his game (other than maybe goal-scoring).

His demotions seemed to have more to do with inability to carry a top line offensively.

Obvious admission of speculation and that previous posts about Joe Primeau by you reflect that you were not dealing from knowledge base:

From a 1955 Dink Carroll column as explained by Dick Irvin, then coach of the Leafs:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=x4ItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6610,2685939

Very basic hockey strategy is to play a defensive line against an offensive line. Jack Adams played his offensive line - Aurie/Barry/Lewis against the Kid Line. Aurie and Lewis were complete players while Jackson and Conacher were not noted backcheckers. The Leafs' solution was to split the Kid Line, inserting a secondary center and moving Joe Primeau to a secondary line.

As posted upthread this had positive results. Secondary scoring increased to compensate for the drop in first line scoring while neutralizing the oppositions ability to play the Leafs top line to top line.

So your claim that Primeau lacked the ability to carry a top line offensively is simply wrong.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Obvious admission of speculation and that previous posts about Joe Primeau by you reflect that you were not dealing from knowledge base:

From a 1955 Dink Carroll column as explained by Dick Irvin, then coach of the Leafs:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=x4ItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6610,2685939

Very basic hockey strategy is to play a defensive line against an offensive line. Jack Adams played his offensive line - Aurie/Barry/Lewis against the Kid Line. Aurie and Lewis were complete players while Jackson and Conacher were not noted backcheckers. The Leafs' solution was to split the Kid Line, inserting a secondary center and moving Joe Primeau to a secondary line.

As posted upthread this had positive results. Secondary scoring increased to compensate for the drop in first line scoring while neutralizing the oppositions ability to play the Leafs top line to top line.

So your claim that Primeau lacked the ability to carry a top line offensively is simply wrong.

Nice find - and it's honestly pretty damning about Primeau's status as a two-way player (The Kid Line had to be broken up because they didn't backcheck). Though I guess that just one member of the line backchecking might not have been enough.

I don't know, Primeau clearly seemed like he was on the decline before he left hockey:

In 1934-35 (his second to last season), Primeau finished way behind his linemates in scoring: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1935.html

In 1935-36, he finished 8th on the team in scoring after being moved to the second line: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1936.html. He then retired.

I really don't see a reason to assume that Primeau could have been an impact player for longer than he actually was.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Obvious admission of speculation and that previous posts about Joe Primeau by you reflect that you were not dealing from knowledge base:

Let me be clear about something, C58. I don't appreciate the tone you've taken with me in discussing this topic. I don't know what you're trying to achieve with these insinuations that I'm not being forthcoming with the group, but I assure you that it's going to stop with this post -- one way or another.

So your claim that Primeau lacked the ability to carry a top line offensively is simply wrong.

Except that the article demonstrates that Irvin saw him as the guy to carry the second line offensively while his former linemate Conacher continued to carry the top line.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Broken Thumb

Nice find - and it's honestly pretty damning about Primeau's status as a two-way player (The Kid Line had to be broken up because they didn't backcheck). Though I guess that just one member of the line backchecking might not have been enough.

I don't know, Primeau clearly seemed like he was on the decline before he left hockey:

In 1934-35 (his second to last season), Primeau finished way behind his linemates in scoring: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1935.html

In 1935-36, he finished 8th on the team in scoring after being moved to the second line: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1936.html. He then retired.

I really don't see a reason to assume that Primeau could have been an impact player for longer than he actually was.

Joe Primeau suffered a badly broken thumb during an in season exhibition game - Kiwanis fundraiser, during the 1934-35 season. Healthy for the 1935-36 playoffs he finished third in team playoff scoring.

Injury rehab was not what it is today nor were medical procedures in the thirties so the return to full form took longer.Playing thru the rehab phase was common but the results would be diminished.

Problem with wingers that do not backcheck is that the center cannot do all of the various things - forecheck, backcheck, gap control. That are required from a defensive center. A playmaking center like Primeau would focus on the gap control and backchecking which would be the most efficient approach.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Except that the article demonstrates that Irvin saw him as the guy to carry the second line offensively while his former linemate Conacher continued to carry the top line.

No, the article demonstrates that Irvin went to a 1A and 1B approach in terms of his lines. This should be recognized as a plus for Primeau. Basically keep the two non backchecking wingers together.Then move them while their value was still high.

This is what Dick Irvin did,without the success that he enjoyed in the 1951 playoffs splitting the Richard/Lach combo, creating a 1A and 1B line situation and upsetting the superior Red Wings in the playoffs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, the article demonstrates that Irvin went to a 1A and 1B approach in terms of his lines. This should be recognized as a plus for Primeau.

Is it really a 1A/1B when 1A is more than twice as productive than 1B? That's more like a normal 1/2 split.

Basically keep the two non backchecking wingers together.

I'll have to double check my research on this, but I'm 90% sure that Jackson was actually sent to center the third line. Conacher was with Thoms and Buzz Boll -- both of whom had career years.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Let's do the actual calculations.

Jacques Lemaire's 90+ seasons(97,95,92) were recorded during seasons with 6.55, 6.85, 6.59 TG/G. Sergei Fedorov 107 pt 1995-96 was the result of a 6.29 TG/G season. So the difference in league scoring was app 4.5%. Adjusted for missed games and scoring to the 1995-96 season, Lemaire still maintains the 90+ point seasons.

DPE. Well after the 1995-96 season the TG/G dropped to 5.83 during 1996-97. Yet Fedorov's points dropped to 63. Well below the DPE impact. And it never came back, even adjusted, under Scotty Bowman.So ........

You also mentioned Steve Yzerman in your original post, but left him out here...how do his post 96' numbers look?

 

[Hardyvan123]

i do mean that. and no, obviously i don't mean that he would score more points with 45% zone starts obviously, but i mean that AV jacking his starts up to 70% and then 80% did more harm than good. he was best at a reasonable number, sub-60% number.

hardy, i know you watch canucks games. or at least you sure post about them enough in the canucks forum.

but here's that post again:



you saw that situationally they were always making the same plays in the same sets, and you saw that cycle game become less and less effective. you saw opposing coaches counter AV with the shutdown line and best d-pair every time. you saw their transition game almost completely disappear.

stop and think about ti though in half of their games the Home team gets the match ups they want anyways.

Also it is more taxing starting in the defensive zone than the offensive zone.

Sometimes even if the defensive team wins the face off their only goal is to clear the zone and to get a line change going.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I've seen another source claim that the Rangers' innovative attacking penalty kill in 1940 scored twice as many goals as it allowed. It could be a legend that has been passed on, but it's possible that it was just something that other teams had never seen before and had no idea how to handle for the first season that it was implemented. At the time, it was common practice to play 5 forwards on the power play, so in theory, I can see how they could exploit forwards trying to play D if they were aggressive enough.

This was a part of the case for Art Coulter (the only defenseman on the unit) during the defensemen project, so no, I don't think Colville should get all the credit for it.

The Devils in 2012 were a plus on the penalty kill around the halfway point of the season (and actually had more SHGs than PPGs fairly far into the season), so it isn't entirely crazy to think that a dominant PK that was playing an aggressive style that nobody had a plan to counter yet could put up some incredible numbers over a small sample size.

that being said I think we should put everything into context unless there is some kind of verification for Boucher's statement.

We can say that Colville was a good to very good PK guy but was he better than than Carbo or Brind'Amour in that reguard?

Heck even Roenick had 28 career SH goals too and was generally a 200 foot player as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Steve Yzerman

You also mentioned Steve Yzerman in your original post, but left him out here...how do his post 96' numbers look?

Knew I forgot a detail. Steve Yzerman, 1995-96 scored 95 points, followed by 85, then three seasons between 69 and 79, then elder statesman years:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/y/yzermst01.html

 

[Hardyvan123]

Really if we look at Primeau closley is his resume any better than Stamkos?

His NHL career started late, he was deemed simply not good enough until he finally broke through and had a run of 7 NHL seasons were he ranked top 10 in assists 5 times with a 1,1,1,7 and 8 and points 3 times with a 2,2,6th and was in an extremely advantageous position to score points as the 2 wingers he had were considered better than he was.

Stamkos has a 1,1,2,2 in goals, and a 2,2,5,5 in points along with 17 games this season at an extremely high level of play with a 17-14-9-23 line and has already passed Joe on the top 60 center list one would think.

 

[tarheelhockey]

^ I guess it depends on how one weighs defense and playoffs. Stamkos has virtually nothing to show in either category.

 

[MXD]

Really if we look at Primeau closley is his resume any better than Stamkos?

His NHL career started late, he was deemed simply not good enough until he finally broke through and had a run of 7 NHL seasons were he ranked top 10 in assists 5 times with a 1,1,1,7 and 8 and points 3 times with a 2,2,6th and was in an extremely advantageous position to score points as the 2 wingers he had were considered better than he was.

Stamkos has a 1,1,2,2 in goals, and a 2,2,5,5 in points along with 17 games this season at an extremely high level of play with a 17-14-9-23 line and has already passed Joe on the top 60 center list one would think.

That part is a bit overly simplistic.

The Leafs weren't exactly running 4 lines. Hell, they were probably even not running 3 lines by the time Primeau came in (somebody can confirm this statement?).

Thus IT was not exactly easy to come by, and bottom lines didn't exactly have any kindof freedom (Murray Murdoch's quote to that effect is totally awesome).

Rule changes opened the way for playmakers, which Primeau was. And he took advantage of it.

Toronto no1 center (Andy Blair) finished 2nd for assists, and 3rd for points. The Leafs had absolutely no reason to change that. Primeau got more IT in 29-30 though, and the rest is history.

 

[MXD]

that being said I think we should put everything into context unless there is some kind of verification for Boucher's statement.

We can say that Colville was a good to very good PK guy but was he better than than Carbo or Brind'Amour in that reguard?

Heck even Roenick had 28 career SH goals too and was generally a 200 foot player as well.

Carbo? Probably not. Being a lesser player than Carbonneau in a defensive side of the game isn't relevant at this point, for the very good reason that there is exactly 18 players that are worse than Carbonneau in every defensive aspect of the game up for voting in this round.

Brind'Amour? As a whole, his teams were average-to-slightly-below-average on the penalty killing. (I really don't feel like tabulating everything, but his teams were more often below average than above-average).

I quoted what Frank Boucher said. You may, or not, take his word litterally, and I think his quote should be considered an approximation at the very best. Still, giving me the onus to prove that what he said was right, while totally disregarding that you're the one actually opposing the quote, just don't cut it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Leafs weren't exactly running 4 lines. Hell, they were probably even not running 3 lines by the time Primeau came in (somebody can confirm this statement?).

Again I won't be able to say for sure until I check notes, but I believe that's correct. They went to 3 lines in Primeau's last season.

It's true that it was harder for a young player to break into a two-line system. The flip side of that point is that the Leafs' second-line center spot was basically an open audition for Primeau's age 22-24 seasons. As detailed upthread, the Leafs didn't even have a proper 2nd-liner in 1928 until they brought in Jimmy Herbert via trade. The following season, hockey-reference has Gerry Lowrey, Bill Carson, Carl Voss, Alex Grey and Primeau all taking turns in that position, and I'd be surprised if Eric Pettinger didn't get a shot even though he's listed at LW (granted, HR isn't always accurate about positions -- but that gives a sense of just how desperate the Leafs were to find a guy for that 2nd line).

Even when he finally arrived as a full-time roster player, Primeau was given ample opportunity on the first line. He simply didn't do anything with it until the Kid Line came together.

The point being, he was never shut out of the job by veteran competition. If anything, just the opposite -- he had remarkable opportunities that might not have existed on some other teams. He just didn't make the cut.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opposition

Is it really a 1A/1B when 1A is more than twice as productive than 1B? That's more like a normal 1/2 split.



I'll have to double check my research on this, but I'm 90% sure that Jackson was actually sent to center the third line. Conacher was with Thoms and Buzz Boll -- both of whom had career years.

Based on the bolded above plus a review of the 1934-35 and 1935-36 Leafs regular seasons two things are rather clear.

The Leafs lacked third line depth at RW - Doraty and Finnigan were minimalist scorers so Conacher would be extra shifted at RW. Probably Jackson a bit at LW. Leafs had center depth.

This would effectively create a 1A/1B/1C line situation with plenty of situational movement throughout the lines based on the opposition.

The points would have to be redistributed between the lines accordingly.

Still splitting the Kid Line changed the scoring dynamic of the team. Less dependent on Jackson and Conacher.