Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

Comparing raw statistics over a long time frame that involves both higher and lower scoring years will always favor the players who peaked when scoring was higher. Of these 4, Roenick in particular had some top 20 finishes in Phoenix when scoring was lower that will not be given full credit by looking at the raw stats. It's a big reason his VsX score (which compares him to his peers) is so much higher than Brind'amour or Nieuwendyk.

I also don't like the binary either/or, either you won or you didn't. Does anyone have any doubt that Roenick has a significantly better playoff resume than Turgeon, even if he didn't win the Cup?

________________

Here's another category. Here are their All-Star records (posted earlier in the threads):

Jeremy Roenck: 4th (1992), 4th (2000), 5th (1991), 5th (2002), 5th (1994)*
Joe Nieuwendyk: 5th (1998), 6th (1995)*
Pierre Turgeon: 6th (1990)*
Rod Brind'amour: NO VOTES AS CENTER. As a LW = 3rd (1998)

*small number of votes

Roenick's 1992 behind Messier, Lemieux, and Gretzky is one of the more impressive 4th place finishes you'll see.

It's possible that Turgeon, as someone the media didn't like, would be underrated by the voting records.

The awards record of Joe Nieuwendyk - a man loved by the media - supports what comparing his offensive stats compared to his peers say - he just wasn't that impressive a regular season performer.

this is the thing when one looks at the 2 metrics presented and the VsX one as well, it looks more an more that they are tiered this way for me

Roenick

Turgeon
Brind'Amour/Nieuwendyk

 

[tarheelhockey]

this is the thing when one looks at the 2 metrics presented and the VsX one as well, it looks more an more that they are tiered this way for me

Roenick

Turgeon
Brind'Amour/Nieuwendyk

I'm coming to that conclusion as well. Roenick was probably the best of the 3 in terms of having a high peak, a long and consistent career, and a generally well rounded game. He had flaws but they aren't out of line with the flaws of other candidates here.

The question IMO is whether the best player in this cluster is better than the best player in other clusters (ie, our early era guys, our Europeans, our active players).

 

[MXD]

I'm coming to that conclusion as well. Roenick was probably the best of the 3 in terms of having a high peak, a long and consistent career, and a generally well rounded game. He had flaws but they aren't out of line with the flaws of other candidates here.

The question IMO is whether the best player in this cluster is better than the best player in other clusters (ie, our early era guys, our Europeans, our active players).

I'm coming at the same conclusion and have the same doubts as to whether he's better than the first, or even the second, player in other clusters.

Speaking of clusters...

It's purely theoretical, but I wonder where to fit Federko. The best "grouping" would be with guys that are already in (Hawerchuk, Savard, Sittler, amongst others) or guys that aren't available for voting and are not Top-80 centers of all-time or aren't considered centers (Bobby Smith is the easy comparable here). He REALLY doesn't compare well at all with anybody in this round. And he really, but reallly doesn't fit in my last cluster

Guy Carbonneau is a cluster in himself.

ANCIENTS
Duke Keats
Frank Foyston
Bernie Morris
Tommy Dunderdale
Frank McGee
______

SHORT CAREER
Pat Lafontaine
Joe Primeau
Henrik Sedin
Steven Stamkos

______

NINETIES
Jeremy Roenick
Pierre Turgeon
Rod Brind'Amour
Joe Nieuwendyk

______

EUROPEANS
Milan Novy
Vyacheslav Starshinov

______

THE "don't know how to name that group -- the easy comparables with a guy already in who wasn't all offence, but who really do not compare that well one to another"
Neil Colville
Jacques Lemaire

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not to mention -- one of the reasons why he's a legend is the 1993 SCF (and he got no votes).

Gretzky shut to 3 points in 4 games (Carbo wasn't up against Gretz in the first game). Gretzky had 40 points in 24 playoffs games that year.

I get it Carbs was great defensively but 2 words for 93

Patrick Roy

Carbs really has no businesses in a top 60 centers of all time, heck I'm not even sure he is a top 60 center since expansion as he was a specialist his entire career.

 

[MXD]

Most definitely. And I know you know this, but just so it's out there - Conn Smythe winner Patrick Roy backed up Carbs, so it certainly wasn't all him. But he did get a lot of credit.

I get it Carbs was great defensively but 2 words for 93

Patrick Roy

Carbo probably DOESN'T get enough credit for 1993. And he does get credit.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Roenick

Turgeon
Brind'Amour/Nieuwendyk

Passes my smell test, however little that means to anyone. Gotta admit that I'm liking Lemaire more than all of them, though, honestly. Lafontaine is the hard one to insert in there somewhere, imo. Maybe in that Roenick to Turgeon gap, I don't know, maybe just above Roenick. Possibly (probably?) the best player individually between them, but just not a lot of "value" to show for it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Charlie Conacher - 1936 Playoffs

So you're penalizing Boucher's playoff performance in a year when his team didn't even make the playoffs.

Ok, let's go with that... Primeau still scored less than half as many goals in more games. And the two seasons he did score goals, they were against the same team, by design, in losses. Whether he compares to Boucher or not, it's a pretty straightforward fact that the guy was not a goal scorer at all.



And I posted direct interviews from 2 opposing coaches explaining their game plans at the time the series were being played. Which do you think is more likely to be accurate?



It's flat-out incorrect that Adams did nothing to diminish the Leafs' offense. That's completely clear, even moreso than what has been posted in this thread so far (read the game summaries, they're explicit about how much the Wings out the clamps on Conacher).

You are right about the Wings taking advantage of the Leafs' defense. The Calgary Herald (hat tip to overpass for thinking of that source) is even more explicit than the Gazette in ripping the Leafs for poor defensive coverage against the Wings.

Is it Primeau's "fault"? Not any more so than any other player whose team is being out coached in the playoffs. The Wings knew his limitations and forced him to play to them. Same thing has happened many other times to playmakers like Thornton, Sedin, possibly Boucher as discussed upthread.

Nice thesis and narrative but not supported by fact.

Mid 1930s centers with few exceptions were playmakers not scorers. Toronto's offense was a bit of an exception in the 1935-36 season with centers scoring 37 goals. Rangers with the group mention attributing all of Keelings to center managed 30. So Primeau was no different from the other leading centers, exception being Marty Barry.

Jack Adams' brilliance shutting down Charlie Conacher. Well in the 1936 playoffs Conacher played 9 games with 3G + 2A but 3G + 1A came in a famous Eddie Shore meltdown game:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=k38tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6782,3366301

In the other 8 games including 4 against Detroit, Conacher scored 0G+1A. So the clamps were applied by coaches other than Adams and other LW besides Lewis.

So in the 1936 playoffs, Joe Primeau's play responded to team needs and game situations.

Goaltending and defense - both aging were beyond his control.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I thought vadim already wrote a bunch about Roenick's playoffs.

IMO, Nieuwendyk gets way too much mileage from the "3 Cups with 3 different teams" thing - he won a Smythe with Dallas (though Modano or Belfour just as easily could have won), but was more of a strong support player in Calgary and NJ. He was a strong playoff performer, definitely, but not strong enough to overcome his weakness as a regular season player IMO, at least to have a shot at our list.

here that is:

nieuwendyk vs. turgeon vs roenick vs. brind'amour:

- offensively: turgeon is easily the best, which has been detailed above by seventieslord. he's followed by roenick, who is somewhat close in his peak (and even then, only if you really overvalue goals) but turgeon pulls well ahead over prime and career. offensively, nieuwendyk and brind'amour are elite second liners or 1a centers at their peaks, but provided high-level second line center production for a long time with nieuwendyk putting up 25-30 goals in his 30s in the DPE and brind'amour having his post-35 resurgence.

- defensively: brind'amour is easily the best, and even if i don't think those were particularly well-deserved selkes he was still elite defensively later on and very good for most of his career. roenick and nieuwendyk were fine two-way centers, though defensively below brind'amour; nieuwedyk is extremely overrated in this regard. turgeon was no better than average defensively.

- playoffs: i have roenick and brind'amour at the top, nieuwendyk not too far behind, turgeon behind them. i think roenick is very underrated in this regard, as he burst onto the scene with an excellent playoffs in his rookie year, then was the best forward on a cup finalist, and has scored some memorable clutch goals over his career. when watching those four in playoff games, roenick is the guy i thought was the most consistently dangerous and game-altering; he and nieuwendyk both played playoff series against the canucks and was never scared of nieuwendyk except when macinnis was teeing off one-timers from suter on the PP. brind'amour is the only guy who could conceivably be argued to be the best player on a team that got to the finals, but i think that was just the circumstances of having a deep but top-light team; brind'amour certainly didn't have chelios and belfour behind him in '06 (and conn smythe or not, i have a lot of trouble thinking of nieuwendyk as any higher than the third best player on that dallas team, behind modano and belfour, and maybe even fifth behind probably hatcher and maybe also zubov). rod the bod did his most memorable playoff work relatively recently, while i was eight years old when roenick tore up the stars and blues, and ten when he went to the finals. i think that has made a big difference in their respective playoff legacies. nieuwendyk was excellent in '99, a key cog on a historically good PP but a supporting player at ES in '89 (being only the third best center on that team, not to mention invisible in the finals), and there for the ride in '03.

- intangibles: brind'amour and nieuwendyk are noted for their leadership, roenick brought infectious energy and confidence (he had a galvanizing "jump on my back" superstar presence that none of these other guys had), turgeon has few marks in his favour here. and if the court of public opinion means anything, only one of these four guys has had anything bad said about him by his peers, but there are numerous negative quotes assailing his character.

- overall: i think roenick was the best and most consistently high-level all-round player. i can't in good conscience put turgeon below brind'amour because a consistently offensively high-level but one-dimensional first liner should be more valuable than a world-beating second liner unless he's at a jacques lemaire level, which brind'amour wasn't. nieuwendyk is a poor man's brind'amour so he's last.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Carbo probably DOESN'T get enough credit for 1993. And he does get credit.

Sorry but some are also giving him way too much credit as well IMO, he was 11 in scoring on that Habs team and 3 goals have him 9th.

Mike Keane was near as good a defensive player as Carbo (for a winger) and provided much more overall in that playoff year, and regular season.

It's really hard, unless Carbs is family or something, to objectively have him as even a top 5 player on that 93 SC winning team.

 

[MXD]

Sorry but some are also giving him way too much credit as well IMO, he was 11 in scoring on that Habs team and 3 goals have him 9th.

Mike Keane was near as good a defensive player as Carbo (for a winger) and provided much more overall in that playoff year, and regular season.

It's really hard, unless Carbs is family or something, to objectively have him as even a top 5 player on that 93 SC winning team.

During the finals?

At worst Top-2 skater.

Thanks for evidencing my statement that he doesn't get enough credit, by the way.

 

[Hardyvan123]

During the finals?

At worst Top-2 skater.

Thanks for evidencing my statement that he doesn't get enough credit, by the way.

Really are we going to over credit a guy for one single series?

Even so how is a line of 5-0-1-1 plus 1 the 2nd best skater in that series?

I thought maybe that you were putting Carbs in a tier by himself but am afraid that you actually might have him #1 this round?

By the same token if he was actually the 2nd best skater in the finals then the team carried him the first 3 rounds then right?

 

[MXD]

Really are we going to over credit a guy for one single series?

Even so how is a line of 5-0-1-1 plus 1 the 2nd best skater in that series?

I thought maybe that you were putting Carbs in a tier by himself but am afraid that you actually might have him #1 this round?

By the same token if he was actually the 2nd best skater in the finals then the team carried him the first 3 rounds then right?

Thanks again Hardy for evidencing my statement.

 

[thom]

Compare Bob Gainey stats with Guy Charboneau-Guy stats are much better with exception of 1 playoff year.

 

[tony d]

Guy was pretty good back in the day, one of the best defensive forwards of his time for sure.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think Hardy has a point, though, that Carbonneau has by far the weakest offensive resume that we've considered in the project. So he would have to be really really really good defensively to justify going into the top-60. Like the Rod Langway of forwards, capable of winning games for his team without contributing points.

I remember some really good numbers being tabulated to demonstrate Clarke's defensive impact. Do we have anything like that for Carbonneau? Like maybe an on/off metric or something?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Thanks again Hardy for evidencing my statement.

Sure Carbs played better than his stat line but one of the 2 best players in the series after Roy for the Habs...uh don't think so.

Like I stated before there are way too many good centers out there to have a specialist in the top 60 IMO.

 

[MXD]

Sure Carbs played better than his stat line but one of the 2 best players in the series after Roy for the Habs...uh don't think so.

Like I stated before there are way too many good centers out there to have a specialist in the top 60 IMO.

For the third time...

Thanks for evidencing my statement.

 

[Hardyvan123]

For the third time...

Thanks for evidencing my statement.

If your statement is that "Carbs doesn't get enough credit" that's certainly not true, he was a better playoff performer than regular season and he got a lot of Sleke recognition.

The problem is that plenty of players also had great defensive or 2 way value that was much greater than Carbs value overall.

I guess one could include him on a hypothetical team of 60 centers, to get a variety of roles and match ups but this project is for the top 60 centers of all time, surely his lack of offensive excludes him from serious consideration right?

Does anyone really have him in their top 8 this round and if so why?

 

[MXD]

If your statement is that "Carbs doesn't get enough credit" that's certainly not true, he was a better playoff performer than regular season and he got a lot of Sleke recognition.

The problem is that plenty of players also had great defensive or 2 way value that was much greater than Carbs value overall.

I guess one could include him on a hypothetical team of 60 centers, to get a variety of roles and match ups but this project is for the top 60 centers of all time, surely his lack of offensive excludes him from serious consideration right?

Does anyone really have him in their top 8 this round and if so why?

Go read the initial statement. It should then be pretty clear what my purpose was - bridging the gap in the Selke voting.

As for judging Carbo's usefulness in the 93 SCF, well, I really trust my judgment over yours. I also hope everybody does the same, for reasons that should be very obvious at this point.

And your last paragraph is... Misplaced. Being really polite here. No reason to put such onus on anybody for a specific player.

EDIT : Reasons for bolded ---> At this point, everybody probably knows what I am. I think I'm well-placed to comment on whom was the best skater for the Habs in that specific SCF. When Vadim says something about the Sedin, well.... I read what he writes, because he probably saw 150 more Sedin games than I did. I guess I could say the same with TDDM vs. Niedermayer. Though I admit that if he starts praising Scott Gomez as a candidate for this project, I'd probably put him very fast on my ignore list.

 

[MXD]

Most definitely. And I know you know this, but just so it's out there - Conn Smythe winner Patrick Roy backed up Carbs, so it certainly wasn't all him. But he did get a lot of credit.

Sure... I mean, that would have been stating the obvious .

Just trying to bridge a gap and to point out that Carbo put a career-defining performance,and probably his career-definig performance, during the year where he had no Selke consideration.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So, could one show objectively that Carbonneau's defense was so effective that it bridges the offensive gap between him and Lemaire, Brind'Amour, Nieuwendyk, etc?

 

[MXD]

So, could one show objectively that Carbonneau's defense was so effective that it bridges the offensive gap between him and Lemaire, Brind'Amour, Nieuwendyk, etc?

Another way to see this would be : is the gap between Bernie Federko (easy example here) and an average offensive center big enough to justify ranking Federko ahead of the best defensive center of all time.

And repeat for every candidate who is mainly about offense.

Harder to figure out for a few players available though.

 

[tarheelhockey]

the best defensive center of all time.

Clarke? Nighbor?

Edit: But I see your point about Carbonneau compared to the remaining offense-only centers.

I'm asking more specifically about how one could conclude that he is a better asset than an offensive producer who also has a strong defensive game.

 

[MXD]

Clarke? Nighbor?

Edit: But I see your point about Carbonneau compared to the remaining offense-only centers.

I'm asking more specifically about how one could conclude that he is a better asset than an offensive producer who also has a strong defensive game.

To me, they're not better. Probably personal preference (meaning - I'm not stating this as a fact). But either way, its a small, small gap at worst, and they're defensively interchangeable in the best case. Clarke and Neighbor are Top-10 in this list anyways.

As for your 2nd paragraph... Probably a case of personal appreciation.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To me, they're not better. Probably personal preference (meaning - I'm not stating this as a fact). But either way, its a small, small gap at worst, and they're defensively interchangeable in the best case.

How can you substantiate that they're that close? What measure of ability are you using?

Clarke and Neighbor are Top-10 in this list anyways.

Because they were elite offensively on top of their defense.

As for your 2nd paragraph... Probably a case of personal appreciation.

But we should be able to break it down to measurables, right?

Nieuwendyk, Lemaire and Brind'Amour were approximately twice as productive offensively than Carbonneau. Was he literally twice as good defensively as them?