Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Iain Fyffe]

I think edler referred to the Cup won in 89.

"Coattail cups" was the phrase. Plural. And finishing third on the team in playoff goals in 1989 also rather rebuts the idea that he was just along for the ride on that team.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Even so Joe tied for the team lead in goals in 89 with 51 and joe mullen and was thrisd in goals in the playoffs with 10.

Yes Otto had a great playoffs but Joe was still a legit top 6 guy that year and Gilmour was very good as well.

Joe didn't make my top 60 but he was a very good to good all around player for a very long time and scored 564 goals good fro 22nd all time, in some easier to score years yes but also in some hard clutch and grab years as well.

A pretty good resume overall, lacking in peak value though to be sure.

 

[MXD]

"Coattail cups" was the phrase. Plural. And finishing third on the team in playoff goals in 1989 also rather rebuts the idea that he was just along for the ride on that team.

I know that's what he wrote -- I just tried to interpret what edler said in a way that's actually defensible.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

So, he was a 50 goal scorer 2nd line center. With another 10 in the playoffs.

and 1 in the finals. while he was a key cog on that amazing PP, he was replaced by otto on that unit in the finals. i can't be sure, i know gilmour/mullen would be your first line and they were magnificent, and nieuwendyk/loob would be your nominal second line, but i think otto/peplinski took on a bigger than normal 3rd line role at ES as both nieuwendyk and loob laid big ones in the finals. but maybe it just seemed that way because otto was always on the ice to take big faceoffs.


but, in response to edler's (probably rhetorical) question above, i'm not sure why nieuwendyk's available now either. peak, prime, or career, i don't know that i wouldn't rather have, say, vincent damphousse.

 

[MXD]

but, in response to edler's (probably rhetorical) question above, i'm not sure why nieuwendyk's available now either. peak, prime, or career, i don't know that i wouldn't rather have, say, vincent damphousse.

Deemed a winger.

 

[MXD]

HT18 -- I don't wanna pressure you; do you think the results can be disclosed tonight?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Deemed a winger.

oh, i didn't know that. but still, were he eligible would damphousse have made the final round?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Even so Joe tied for the team lead in goals in 89 with 51 and joe mullen and was thrisd in goals in the playoffs with 10.

Yes Otto had a great playoffs but Joe was still a legit top 6 guy that year and Gilmour was very good as well.

Joe didn't make my top 60 but he was a very good to good all around player for a very long time and scored 564 goals good fro 22nd all time, in some easier to score years yes but also in some hard clutch and grab years as well.

A pretty good resume overall, lacking in peak value though to be sure.

Yeah, this is pretty much my take on Nieuwendyk as well. Key cog on a lot of successful teams.

I'm really not sure why he takes so much abuse in this section. He's absolutely worthy of discussion amongst the group currently being debated.

Him not being able to lead Calgary anywhere in the playoffs as their #1 C is a knock on him, but at this point most players up for discussion have imperfect resumes. In 30 playoff games with Calgary post-'89 Cup, he had 17 goals and 35 points. I'm not sure how much blame you can lay at his feet for their playoff failures, at minimum he met offensive production expectations. The playoff goaltending provided by Mike Vernon, Jeff Reese, and Trevor Kidd during that time frame was absolutely hideous, and likely the main culprit.

 

[MXD]

oh, i didn't know that. but still, were he eligible would damphousse have made the final round?

I wouldn't have ranked him in my Top-8

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yeah, this is pretty much my take on Nieuwendyk as well. Key cog on a lot of successful teams.

I'm really not sure why he takes so much abuse in this section. He's absolutely worthy of discussion amongst the group currently being debated.

Him not being able to lead Calgary anywhere in the playoffs as their #1 C is a knock on him, but at this point most players up for discussion have imperfect resumes. In 30 playoff games with Calgary post-'89 Cup, he had 17 goals and 35 points. I'm not sure how much blame you can lay at his feet for their playoff failures, at minimum he met offensive production expectations. The playoff goaltending provided by Mike Vernon, Jeff Reese, and Trevor Kidd during that time frame was absolutely hideous, and likely the main culprit.

i think "key cog" is used too liberally here. key cog in dallas, definitely (at least in '99; though not in '00). in new jersey? absolutely not. calgary? not when they were successful. he was a very good secondary player in '89, not a "key cog" in the way i'd define it. behind macinnis, vernon, mullen, gilmour, and otto at least. arguments for mccrimmon and patterson (very underrated, patterson), in the ballpark of those guys, plus macoun and ramage. no more key than, say, nathan horton in '11. no shame in that, and definitely some big moments, but hardly legendary in any all-time sense.

 

[seventieslord]

It's not something simple as the 84-game schedule versus 80 is it?

that looks like it's the cause of some of this phenomena, but not all of it. good call, though.

So...

Do we all agree that Morris, Dunderdale, Nieuwndyk and Federko are not top8 this round?

Sorry for changing topics -- while the discussion on the merits of Carbo and BrindAmour and some number crunching on those two were mandatory, I don't think we should make the current round a referendum on those two players...

I had Morris top-8. He's definitely one of the top 2-3 offensive players in this round. Despite not bringing anything else to the table. Considering how the voting went in other rounds, that should definitely make Morris top-8 here.

Because he wasn't good enough[/U]. He was a perfect secondary center though.

That's the thing, that's why he has 3 cups for 3 teams. because if Joe Nieuwendyk is your 2nd line center... you've got a great team!

Doesn't make Nieuwendyk great though.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Him not being able to lead Calgary anywhere in the playoffs as their #1 C is a knock on him, but at this point most players up for discussion have imperfect resumes. In 30 playoff games with Calgary post-'89 Cup, he had 17 goals and 35 points. I'm not sure how much blame you can lay at his feet for their playoff failures, at minimum he met offensive production expectations. The playoff goaltending provided by Mike Vernon, Jeff Reese, and Trevor Kidd during that time frame was absolutely hideous, and likely the main culprit.

How does one decide who does and does not credit for a team winning/losing in a particular set of games. Nieuwendyk gets no credit for 1989 because of his teammates, but get blame post-1989 despite his teammates.

In 1993 they lost in the first round despite scoring 28 times in 6 games. Vernon and Reese combined for an .814 save percentage. A rather stark illustration of placing the blame of team failures on one player, just because he was on the team and they didn't win. Even the goaltenders likely weren't entirely at fault, although in this case I wouldn't argue against it.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

i think "key cog" is used too liberally here. key cog in dallas, definitely (at least in '99; though not in '00). in new jersey? absolutely not. calgary? not when they were successful. he was a very good secondary player in '89, not a "key cog" in the way i'd define it. behind macinnis, vernon, mullen, gilmour, and otto at least. arguments for mccrimmon and patterson (very underrated, patterson), in the ballpark of those guys, plus macoun and ramage. no more key than, say, nathan horton in '11. no shame in that, and definitely some big moments, but hardly legendary in any all-time sense.

OK, so he was a 2nd-tier player on a stacked champion in his second season. From the early 90's onwards, he was definitely one of the key cogs on his teams, which often finished at the top of the NHL standings. You can never accuse Nieuwendyk of racking up points on crappy teams where he got fed all the premium offensive minutes, or was asked only to go out a score.

I don't think he HAS to be in the top 60, but he should be in the conversation. I don't see what would make his career clearly worse than the other modern well-rounded players like Carbonneau and Brind'Amour, maybe throw Roenick in that category too.

 

[Hardyvan123]

How does one decide who does and does not credit for a team winning/losing in a particular set of games. Nieuwendyk gets no credit for 1989 because of his teammates, but get blame post-1989 despite his teammates.

In 1993 they lost in the first round despite scoring 28 times in 6 games. Vernon and Reese combined for an .814 save percentage. A rather stark illustration of placing the blame of team failures on one player, just because he was on the team and they didn't win. Even the goaltenders likely weren't entirely at fault, although in this case I wouldn't argue against it.

Ask 20 guys in this project and you get 20 different answers but the basic one is that it mostly depends on any observers opinion on any said player and not so much about the actual circumstances, we are all human here after all.

Turgeon seems like a certain type of guy to some here, ditto Guy and then big Joe as well.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How does one decide who does and does not credit for a team winning/losing in a particular set of games. Nieuwendyk gets no credit for 1989 because of his teammates, but get blame post-1989 despite his teammates.

In 1993 they lost in the first round despite scoring 28 times in 6 games. Vernon and Reese combined for an .814 save percentage. A rather stark illustration of placing the blame of team failures on one player, just because he was on the team and they didn't win. Even the goaltenders likely weren't entirely at fault, although in this case I wouldn't argue against it.

It's quite strange, a lot of people in here go to great lengths to downplay his contributions on great teams. We all have favorites and guys we're not so found of for whatever reason (I could certainly be accused of trying to downplay Sundin in previous threads) but Nieuwendyk in particular has always seemed to get a rough ride from the majority. The opinion of this player amongst the "hockey establishment" was certainly a lot higher than it has been on this board. 2nd ballot HOFer, and there were complaints about him not being 1st ballot in the media. But there was a lot of grumbling on this board for the fact that he was even elected at all.

I'm definitely more on the establishment side of things when it comes to Nieuwendyk. Maybe the fact that my local team played his Stars in the playoffs every year in the late 90's/early 00's gave me an appreciation for what a thorn in the side of opponents Nieuwendyk was, and how many subtle things he did well that never show up on a stats sheet or highlight reel. And of course, maybe I'm overrating him because of this. But the guys who selected him to two Canadian Olympic teams (one when he was definitely past his prime) and put him in the HOF would seem to reinforce my viewpoint.

Like I said, very debatable as to whether or not he is worthy of the Top 60 Centers of all time, but I'm surprised people have gone out of their way to question why he even came up for voting at the tail end of the project in an expanded ballot of candidates.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Due to a low voter turnout, the voting period will be extended until 1pm EST tomorrow March 5th.

 

[sr edler]

Suggesting a Conn Smythe winner rode the coattails of others to a Stanley Cup is an interesting theory.

Yeah, I exaggerated a bit, he only rode one coattail in New Jersey. He wasn't the best forward in Dallas though and he wasn't the best forward in Calgary, so the point kind of stands. He was very good in 89 & 99, but also a face in the crowd on teams stacked with HOFers.

 

[MXD]

Due to a low voter turnout, the voting period will be extended until 1pm EST tomorrow March 5th.

... Voters

 

[sr edler]

But the guys who selected him to two Canadian Olympic teams (one when he was definitely past his prime) and put him in the HOF would seem to reinforce my viewpoint.

He was probably chosen for those teams due to his allroundness more than his firepower. On that same note you can't really convince me Nash & Marleau are better than St. Louis & Giroux because of national team selections. Nieuwendyk feels a bit like a Marleau but on more fortunate teams.

And even when Gilmour, Mullen, Loob and half the team from 89 had left Calgary Nieuwendyk still wasn't the scary guy on that team, at least offensively. That was Theo Fleury.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He was probably chosen for those teams due to his allroundness more than his firepower.

sure but the fact that he was chosen twice should count for something right?

On that same note you can't really convince me Nash & Marleau are better than St. Louis & Giroux because of national team selections.

No probably not but the people picking the team thought they were a better fit.

Nieuwendyk feels a bit like a Marleau but on more fortunate teams.

I agree, people get feelings and perceptions on certain guys and tend to look for reasons to downgrade them, or upgrade them , depending on how they feel about them.

This came up specifically with someone regarding Marlea and I wonder if this season pushed him into the top 80 wingers of all time conversation? No doubt an early exit in the playoffs will keep the perception alive.

And even when Gilmour, Mullen, Loob and half the team from 89 had left Calgary Nieuwendyk still wasn't the scary guy on that team, at least offensively. That was Theo Fleury.

Most players this round have this "fault", or some glaring weakness and in Joe's case it was the lack of a wow factor

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so clearly i haven't been a big supporter of nieuwendyk in this thread. and to a degree i think some of you are right that some of the negativity regarding him is how overrated he has been.

but seventies is right here:

That's the thing, that's why he has 3 cups for 3 teams. because if Joe Nieuwendyk is your 2nd line center... you've got a great team!

Doesn't make Nieuwendyk great though.

i feel the same way about rod brind'amour (though i have him a bit ahead of nieuwendyk), vincent damphousse, and also non-contemporaries of him like butch goring. bobby smith wasn't a second line center, but he's another guy i'd throw into this tier of player, though i'd probably have smith ahead of all of RBA, damphousse, nieuwendyk, and goring. it just surprises me that in the entire history of hockey, there aren't 80 centers better than the 15th-20th best centers of the 80s/90s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Plenty

so clearly i haven't been a big supporter of nieuwendyk in this thread. and to a degree i think some of you are right that some of the negativity regarding him is how overrated he has been.

but seventies is right here:



i feel the same way about rod brind'amour (though i have him a bit ahead of nieuwendyk), vincent damphousse, and also non-contemporaries of him like butch goring. bobby smith wasn't a second line center, but he's another guy i'd throw into this tier of player, though i'd probably have smith ahead of all of RBA, damphousse, nieuwendyk, and goring. it just surprises me that in the entire history of hockey, there aren't 80 centers better than the 15th-20th best centers of the 80s/90s.

Plenty of them. Still if you go back to the start of the two + line era thru the 1970s they rarely received offensive opportunities like the the 15th-20th best center of the last 20-30 seasons did or does. Post consolidation thru O6, 15th to 20th best center was a weak second line center, third line or in the minors. Guyle Fielder, Art Jones, etc types.

 

[thom]

I agree with everything you said 1958-Can I ask when Dick Irvin was said to be the 1st coach to use regular line changes-what effect does have on players stats-pro or con

 

[Kyle McMahon]

He was probably chosen for those teams due to his allroundness more than his firepower. On that same note you can't really convince me Nash & Marleau are better than St. Louis & Giroux because of national team selections. Nieuwendyk feels a bit like a Marleau but on more fortunate teams.

And even when Gilmour, Mullen, Loob and half the team from 89 had left Calgary Nieuwendyk still wasn't the scary guy on that team, at least offensively. That was Theo Fleury.

Undoubtedly. I don't think this is a knock on him. The team needed some well-rounded players on lower lines after loading up top lines with firepower, and Nieuwendyk was deemed a good fit here amongst a great list of candidates.

i feel the same way about rod brind'amour (though i have him a bit ahead of nieuwendyk), vincent damphousse, and also non-contemporaries of him like butch goring. bobby smith wasn't a second line center, but he's another guy i'd throw into this tier of player, though i'd probably have smith ahead of all of RBA, damphousse, nieuwendyk, and goring. it just surprises me that in the entire history of hockey, there aren't 80 centers better than the 15th-20th best centers of the 80s/90s.

Nieuwendyk is being debated amongst that group of of 15th-20th best centers though. If they're all up for discussion, he should be as well. If it was being suggested that Nieuwendyk, Brind'Amour, Carbonneau, etc. should be replaced as candidates by unavailable players from other eras, that's a separate argument.

For what it's worth, if I were a voter in this project I'd probably choose Keats, Lemaire, and McGee as the final three spots on the list as opposed to any of the 80's/90's group.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hard to Say

I agree with everything you said 1958-Can I ask when Dick Irvin was said to be the 1st coach to use regular line changes-what effect does have on players stats-pro or con

Hard to say precisely as it was the era where roster sizes went from 8/12 to 15, various rule changes including the forward pass were made so tying one element to a specific increase or decrease in scoring is difficult.