Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

Based on the most recent study I did of PCHA offensive dominance, Bernie Morris is about 82% as good as Cyclone Taylor offensively:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=31600448&postcount=912

Using "best 700 games", Sakic is at 1.397 adjusted PPG, meaning Turgeon is 84% the producer Sakic is, by this measure.

Dang. I was hoping one would kinda rise above the other, but this has them within the margin of error. Turgeon is a little closer to a player who's a little better, but still...

This probably means they should be ranked extremely close to eachother, like 1-2 spots apart.

That's a very interesting way to look at it but I think something needs to be factored in for the amount of competition in the PCHA compared to the NHL circa Turgeon (or Roenick who has better intangibles IMO).

I mean just the amount of variance with the number of teams makes the 2 different groups extremely different, never mind the fact that there were competing leagues at the time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

since we are only picking 3 guys this round there are alot of automatic outs and these are the guys I'm seriously considering bolded.

Rod Brind'Amour
Guy Carbonneau
Neil Colville
Tommy Dunderdale
Bernie Federko
Frank Foyston
Duke Keats
Pat Lafontaine
Jacques Lemaire
Joe Nieuwendyk
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Joe Primeau
Jeremy Roenick
Henrik Sedin
Vyacheslav Starshinov
Steven Stamkos
Pierre Turgeon

for the other guys, while some have pretty good, even impressive careers they were either too short, or have distinctly lesser competition/top dog ratio status (ie. is being really good in their leagues enough compared to the guys who excelled in the best league in the world).

Once again primary consideration are as follows

-peak, prime, career (largest parts for consideration)
-playoffs
-intangibles, ie leadership, defensive play ect..
-context and setting of leagues/teams/line mates ect..

 

[seventieslord]

Nobody answered; Morris is listed in the sticky as C/RW most of those years... Great.

I don't care about small differences in AS voting, but the fact is that Turgeon got 9 voting points once, a single vote (which I never count for any player) twice and that's it. That's horrendously bad for a guy who put up points and did nothing of note in the playoffs

start Henrik Sedin's career in 1987 and play out his career - does he get 9 voting points once?

- not in 88, 89, 90, 91 or 92 - he had not become a good player yet
- not in 93... 73 adjusted points were very small potatoes
- not in 94... three adjusted points fewer than Turgeon, who missed 15 games and didn't sniff the all-star teams
- not in 1995... his stats again equate to a Pierre Turgeon without goals and no more intangibles
- not in 1996... his stats equate to a lesser Turgeon with way fewer goals
- in 1997, very good chance he takes 2nd all-star team from Gretzky, who was just compiling at this point
- in 1998, he would have had some votes, but would certainly not take the 2nd all-star team from Gretzky with the second half wayne had
- in 1999, it's hard to fathom him getting a top-3 vote with Forsberg, Sakic and a career year from Yashin (all three had 18+ more adjusted points than him)
- in 2000, a weak year for centers, 85 adjusted points would not get him many votes. (that's not many less than Turgeon had in just 52 games)
- in 2001, well, that's this season and Henrik's not having a season that would earn all-star votes at any time.

now, if Turgeon didn't miss 15 games in 1994 and had 114 points, would he have had some all-star votes? almost certainly.

if he didn't miss 22 games in 1998 and had 93 points, 1st among centers (on a very successful team), would he have had some all-star votes? definitely.

If he didn't miss 30 games in 2000 and had 104 points (first in the NHL, on a very successful and defensive oriented team - 1st overall, 3rd last in total GF/GA), would he have had some all-star votes? Yes, he'd have been on the first team! I normally wouldn't say this with certainty, because I'm sure the voters would love to pick anyone else, but with the next best centers in 8th-10th in scoring, over 20 points behind him, he'd have taken it.

So yeah, if the difference between one player's all-star votes and another's is that one's career started 12 years earlier and he missed 67 very poorly timed games, I'm going to question how important all-star teams are at this point.

Turgeon was a much better producer than Sedin over their respective best 700 games, and that's a ton to judge them on without worrying about individual seasons. The gap widens if you consider goals (i.e. that one couldn't score any) and linemates.

You are free to say that Turgeon's recognition isn't congruent with his production, and it's not. And you can say that's a downside... and it is. There are legitimate reasons for it, but a few poorly timed injuries are also to blame. Now, as far as a comparion with Sedin goes, if you could legitimately say "well Sedin got more recogniton as an all-star because in addition to his points, he had XXXXXX which Turgeon didn't have", then that would be fair, too. But that's not a legitimate argument. You and I both know these guys are points and nothing else, and should be judged solely on that. Sedin does not have that "something" that Turgeon lacked, preventing him from getting shafted in all-star votes like Turgeon did. It's not much more than he had his best seasons at the right times, and Turgeon had his best seasons at the wrong times.

Put aside the situational factors that are symptomatic of so much more than their levels of play, and just look at their levels of play.

 

[MadArcand]

Turgeon and Stamkos? First guys that didn't even crack my top-80. Though Turgeon might have. Stamkos however...

McGee first, then fairly open field, with Nieuwendyk, Roenick, Stamkos, Turgeon and Sedin being fairly obvious ignores.

 

[seventieslord]

That's a very interesting way to look at it but I think something needs to be factored in for the amount of competition in the PCHA compared to the NHL circa Turgeon (or Roenick who has better intangibles IMO).

I mean just the amount of variance with the number of teams makes the 2 different groups extremely different, never mind the fact that there were competing leagues at the time.

well of course you would say something like that... but we are talking about percentages here, which are not dependent on talent pool size like rankings. We've already decided as a group that Sakic and Taylor are about equal as players, so this is a useful way to check if we've gotten to the bottom of the list the right way. The fact that Morris and Turgeon are both in the same boat (one dimensional players who are relatively as close to their generational leaders and likely to not make the cut and finish within a few spots of eachother) means we probably did this right.

If Turgeon was 10+% better than Morris in this quick check, it might have meant we added too many old guys and not enough modern guys up till now. If Morris was 10+% better, it may have meant we did the opposite. although it did little to separate these two, the positive is it demonstrates they're in the same ballpark.

however, using Morris' all-star teams as a basis for claiming him superior is rather unfair. These are PCHA teams (meaning they are from a "half league") and they may or may not have been at RW. If we just go season by season, looking at both the NHA/NHL and the PCHA, and just consider Morris a center each of those years, in how many of them can we say he was a top-2 center/rover overall? Taylor was better every year without exception, right? Then Lalonde was nearly always better (he had a bit of hit and miss)... same with early Nighbor, who would typically be better - then there's Foyston who didn't score as well but had more star power, and Fredrickson, who we've voted in, and Keats, who we all seem pretty sure we're going to rate ahead of Morris, meaning he was at least usually better... and when you start to add it all up, what do Morris' all-star teams really mean in relation to a player like Turgeon? Not a hell of a lot.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. The way I see it, if we consider Morris a C/Rover every season and do the same for all other known C/Rovers, and "rank" him in the pecking order every year, what's the highest he ever ranks? I'm thinking 3rd, in his spike year, 1917. He could arguably be the best in the PCHA, but Malone and Nighbor both dominated the NHA to a greater degree and are typically known as better players. That's before giving Foyston the star power benefit-of-the-doubt, which would make Morris 4th if you go with that.

So it's not like Morris was perceived any higher, relatively speaking, than Turgeon was. Claiming as much is very irresponsible use of all-star teams.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Isolated spots on PCHA all-star teams are near worthless in my eyes. There's multiple problems with them.

First is the inconsistency between sources. Referee Ion named teams, but it's recently come to light that these may be different that the teams western newspapers listed. Some secondary sources therefore credit different guys with the same all-star spot.

Some sources also indicate substitute players being named to AST in their own category, but it has been mentioned that the "sub" category may literally mean the substitute players, not guys not quite good enough to be 1st team all stars. So the secondary sources may again term a player an all-star when in reality he was just the best bench warmer.

Obviously the third issue is that the league contained as few as three teams at one point. Being the 2nd team all-star in a league with 3 regular players at your position is rather dubious. Especially when only half the best players may have been in your league.

Guys who consistently appeared on the 1st all-star teams year after year like Fredrickson can gain some benefit of the doubt. Scattered 2nd team placements really only tell us that a player was a productive starter though, at least until some inconsistencies can be rectified.

 

[Sturminator]

Isolated spots on PCHA all-star teams are near worthless in my eyes. There's multiple problems with them.

First is the inconsistency between sources. Referee Ion named teams, but it's recently come to light that these may be different that the teams western newspapers listed. Some secondary sources therefore credit different guys with the same all-star spot.

Some sources also indicate substitute players being named to AST in their own category, but it has been mentioned that the "sub" category may literally mean the substitute players, not guys not quite good enough to be 1st team all stars. So the secondary sources may again term a player an all-star when in reality he was just the best bench warmer.

Obviously the third issue is that the league contained as few as three teams at one point. Being the 2nd team all-star in a league with 3 regular players at your position is rather dubious. Especially when only half the best players may have been in your league.

Guys who consistently appeared on the 1st all-star teams year after year like Fredrickson can gain some benefit of the doubt. Scattered 2nd team placements really only tell us that a player was a productive starter though, at least until some inconsistencies can be rectified.

All true, which is one of the reasons we need to be very careful with the "raw data" from these leagues, and pay close attention to how the players are described by their contemporaries - their "star power", so to speak. This is what separates guys like Fredrickson from guys like Morris, though their scoring results aren't ultimately far apart.

As much as I respect Bernie Morris' career, I don't think he should make the final cut here.

*note: I don't think anyone has mentioned PCHA 2nd team all-star nods here. There is a general consensus that these are virtually worthless.*

 

[Kyle McMahon]

All true, which is one of the reasons we need to be very careful with the "raw data" from these leagues, and pay close attention to how the players are described by their contemporaries - their "star power", so to speak. This is what separates guys like Fredrickson from guys like Morris, though their scoring results aren't ultimately far apart.

As much as I respect Bernie Morris' career, I don't think he should make the final cut here.

*note: I don't think anyone has mentioned PCHA 2nd team all-star nods here. There is a general consensus that these are virtually worthless.*

Yeah out of the remaining PCHA guys, I don't think Morris or Dunderdale really have a case to be ahead of Keats or Foyston, and presentations in the last round make Keats the pretty clear choice out of the four, at least to me.

I'm looking forward to the different debates that so many players will bring...and glad I don't have to actually vote myself, haha.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

. Sedin does not have that "something" that Turgeon lacked.

I think that Turgeon was more lacking than Sedin at everything that can't be captured by numbers, not that Sedin has all that much there himself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

One Too Many

Yes, federko is out of his league here. Doesn't even compare to Turgeon, who apparently just one person is considering voting for...

And that would be one too many.

Pierre Turgeon could generate points on weak or downside teams. Exception would be the 1992-93 Islanders. But then points were easy to generate during the 1992-93 season.

With the Islanders in 1992-93 Pierre Turgeon was part of a weak three center rotation. Benoit Hogue was the second center. Turgeon had full offensive opportunities and responded with a career year.

1995-96 with the Canadiens he was part of a much stronger three center rotation with Vincent Damphousse and a young Saku Koivu. Offensive opportunities were split and Pierre Turgeon was marginally better, 2 points better than Vincent Damphousse who handled the heavy lifting defensively.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1996.html

Shortly thereafter Turgeon was traded with few tears shed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In Other Words

Actually no, it is not at all clear how one should adjust for different icetime/line rotation situations, as TOI does not track directly to scoring opportunities. Our knowledge of the specifics of line combinations and icetime for every team throughout hockey history is also quite limited. As far as game situations go, if you want to sift through the boxscores of every game in hockey history to figure out who scored what against whom and in which game situation, be my guest.

VsX is useful as a starting point for discussion of offensive value, not as the end-all and be-all of any analysis. Your objection amounts to the following:

1) It doesn't integrate every possible relevant data point.
2) All of the data is available (false).
3) Therefore, it is worthless.

VsX is an algorithm. Of course it doesn't perfectly handle every nuance of every goal scored, nor does anyone believe that it does. If you have a better system in mind, by all means, enlighten us.

In other words you now readily admit that insufficient data was considered and not enough work was done before the algorithm was presented but the situation is not the fault of the developers of the algorithm but the readers of the data are to blame.

I never claimed that all of the data is available. My claim is that all of the available data is not being considered or used to insure accuracy. The number of players a team used at a position is available. The size of game day skater rosters for each season with in season adjustments - before and after a specific date is known. The TG/G and scoring range is readily available for multiple seasons across eras to the start of the NHL. Trivial work but not used.

The raw data is a sufficient starting point. Just like hockey does not need another faceoff spot for the opening faceoff, the stat community does not need another starting point to move along.

In fact hiding behind a starting point position means others are required to do the necessary lackey work to dismiss something that is not acceptable in the first place.

Sadly it took the application/use of the VsX during most of the project to realize the weaknesses of the algorithm. The project became a VsX laboratory experiment unwittingly.

Did it taint the project? No.

Did it facilitate understanding? No.

What did it do? Well it focused on a few analytical weaknesses that are present. The inability or unwillingness to look at the impact of factors like roster size - including in season variations, before/after December 1, home/away, etc, player rotations thru a position, impact on scoring of rule changes - a goal was/is always a goal throughout the history of hockey but an assist was not always an assist. This impacts relative scoring since rebound or continuation or second(briefly third) assists varied over the history of hockey.

Will continue this in the next few days in an appropriate thread if necessary.

 

[tarheelhockey]

We have a lot of players to discuss in a limited timeframe... let's table the *general* VsX discussion and focus on player analysis for now. Discussion of how VsX may misrepresent a particular player's performance is fine, of course, but we don't want to get siderailed into a general stats argument at this point in the thread.

 

[MXD]

Of Neil Colville and examples of limits of VsX

Here's a somewhat extreme case of the limits of VsX

Neil Colville played 12 seasons in the NHL.

Amongst those seasons :

- He played very, very few games in 2 of these (1 and 4 games). One of these seasons was a Cup of coffee season, at 21 years old, the other was in 44-45, when he came back from the War (or, should I say, from Ottawa. Can't tell which is worse!)

- He played four seasons at defense. He was clearly not getting any VsX "points" at D.

- So... do the math. 6 seasons only. That is further compounded by the fact that Colvile lost 2.9 seasons because of the war. (But nevertheless playing for the Ottawa RCAF/Commandos).

VsX is useful as it set a barrier at seven seasons. But in some cases, it might be misleading, and that's exactly what it is in the case of Colville.

 

[ted2019]

Rod Brind'Amour
Guy Carbonneau
Neil Colville
Tommy Dunderdale
Bernie Federko
Frank Foyston
Duke Keats
Pat Lafontaine
Jacques Lemaire
Joe Nieuwendyk
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Joe Primeau
Jeremy Roenick
Henrik Sedin
Vyacheslav Starshinov
Steven Stamkos
Pierre Turgeon

Lemaire is My only lock. Everyone else will get a fair look at.

 

[MXD]

Request for.... hummm.... older people

Any of you (C1958, possibly Killion...?) can help a bit on the general caliber of the QSHL throughout its existence?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Turgeon and Stamkos? First guys that didn't even crack my top-80. Though Turgeon might have. Stamkos however...

McGee first, then fairly open field, with Nieuwendyk, Roenick, Stamkos, Turgeon and Sedin being fairly obvious ignores.

I don't have Stamkos in my top 60 either, you might have made it not for the injury this year but seriously his peak is already alot higher than McGee when one takes into account the quality of leagues they played in don't you think?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Specifically

Any of you (C1958, possibly Killion...?) can help a bit on the general caliber of the QSHL throughout its existence?

More specifically the Beliveau era, the pro QHL era - post Beliveau?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't have Stamkos in my top 60 either, you might have made it not for the injury this year but seriously his peak is already alot higher than McGee when one takes into account the quality of leagues they played in don't you think?

I agree with you. I think Stamkos is closer to Crosby than McGee was to Bowie. On the other hand, McGee's career was a much closer to a normal career length back when players got poor medical treatment and were mostly amateurs. Though it was short even for that era.

 

[seventieslord]

Actually no, there are not. The work on this has already been done, and was part of the vetting of the system last year. The reader can judge for himself how well the system tracks to the expansion of talent in the NHL over time (since expansion, at least).

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=60959637&postcount=48

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=61159825&postcount=50

My old table - number of players meeting certain percentages of VsX threshold broken into blocks of time:

Years|>150%|>125%|>110%|>105%|>100%|>95%|>90%|>85%|>80%|>75%|>70%|>65%|>60%|>55%|>50%
2000-01 -- 2011-12 |0|0|0|1|1|3|6|9|14|21|30|42|56|74|98
1990-91 -- 1999-00 |0|0|1|1|1|4|5|9|13|18|25|34|44|59|77
1980-81 -- 1989-90 |1|1|1|1|1|4|4|6|9|12|19|26|37|51|68
1967-68 -- 1979-80 |0|0|1|2|2|3|5|7|9|14|19|25|34|44|58

You can't expect any system to be smooth from year-to-year because league scoring and individual player performance are not. You can expect a system to be smooth over time and track with our basic intuitions about the expansion of the talent pool, which VsX does.

Yes, we should expect it to be smooth from year to year. League scoring is fairly smooth from year to year, certainly a lot smoother than the benchmarks being used.

Using decade wide blocks obscures the wild year-to-year swings.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and ended the post there. Yes, VsX measures offensive production in full seasons, not on a per-game basis, which obviously punishes those players who cannot stay healthy. How appropriate one considers this method depends on how much one values health, I suppose. I value it pretty highly, and think poor health is ultimately the reason why Pierre Turgeon will not make this list. Had be been able to stay healthy and done anything in the playoffs, he'd already be in; he certainly didn't lack the talent.

Heck, forget the playoffs, where he was actually a quite strong producer. 30 more games in 2000 and he has a scoring title along with a better vsX score and another vaunted top-10 in scoring and a first all-star team.

Also, what u really should have said was that vsx is a composite of per-game product and the ability to stay healthy for specific defined 80 game segments. turgeon was not a very injury prone player... his few injuries were just horribly timed.

should 30 missed games be the difference between being possibly top-50 all-time and not having a realistic chance at top-60? that's the big question, and a lot of you are uncomfortable answering it.

*note: I don't think anyone has mentioned PCHA 2nd team all-star nods here. There is a general consensus that these are virtually worthless.*

They're really case by case.

With three teams and three starters per position, you could easily end up with any of the three point totals for them:

35
32
15

35
17
15

25
24
23

in all three of those cases, the all-star teams would mean very different things.

I think that Turgeon was more lacking than Sedin at everything that can't be captured by numbers, not that Sedin has all that much there himself.

nah, there was no difference. One was just more "celebrated" for it.

So VsX is reduced to being a lazy stat. Save the effort. Might as well rely on raw stats with adjustments.

It's quite possible that you're absolutely correct here.

And that would be one too many.

Pierre Turgeon could generate points on weak or downside teams. Exception would be the 1992-93 Islanders. But then points were easy to generate during the 1992-93 season.

That is incorrect. Turgeon was the best forward on a president's trophy winning team. And by that I do not mean a run and gun, high powered team. The Blues were just 10% better than average offensively, but were 27% better than average defensively, indicating the defensive focus. And he was contributing to 42% of their goals when in the lineup.

With the Islanders in 1992-93 Pierre Turgeon was part of a weak three center rotation. Benoit Hogue was the second center. Turgeon had full offensive opportunities and responded with a career year.

1995-96 with the Canadiens he was part of a much stronger three center rotation with Vincent Damphousse and a young Saku Koivu. Offensive opportunities were split and Pierre Turgeon was marginally better, 2 points better than Vincent Damphousse who handled the heavy lifting defensively.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1996.html

Shortly thereafter Turgeon was traded with few tears shed.

The 1995 and 1996 seasons (the Montreal stretch) are certainly two of the weakest he had in the 1989-2002 stretch. And still, he scored 143 points in 129 games those two seasons. I'm not sure this is a bad thing...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why Starshinov should miss the cut

The case for Starshinov relies on two things - his domestic goal scoring stats (best of his era) and his All-Star nods (1st Team Soviet AS Center consistently in the 60s). However, read this post comparing him to Firsov.

What sticks out are their respective records in international tournaments:

Firsov - 67GP-66G-51A-117PTS (1.75PPG)
Starshinov - 86GP-70G-31A-101PTS (1.17PPG)

Now remember that the difference in assists would probably actually be greater than shown above, because the WCs only recorded primary assists at the time. (While the Soviet league didn't record assists at all until the 1970s)

What can we gather from this?

1) While Starshinov was a strong goal scorer, he was an extremely weak playmaker, and his domestic record is almost certainly inflated by the fact that the Soviet league did not record assists at all for most of his career, just goals.

2) In the higher level of competition of the international game, Starshinov fell way behind his peer Firsov (who was a superstar), but also didn't distinguish himself from lesser players.

Why could this be? Starshinov's profile reads like a slow skating, Phil Esposito type, who scored a lot of goals in front of the net, yet he was only 5'9 183 pounds (average size for back then). My theory is that in the faster skating international game against larger defensemen, his style wasn't as effective as it was against weaker domestic competition. It was common in the "primitive" era of European hockey (late 40s through early 60s) for lines to be constructive around "feeding" a superstar, who was generally much better than his linemates, rather than playing a more team game - see Vladimir Zabrodsky, Vselolvod Bobrov, Sven Tumba, and perhaps Starshinov's line was a relic of this style of play.

Anyway, Starshinov's international awards recognition is quite poor. He was considered the best forward in the World Championships in 1965, and never again. Other forwards selected once in the 1960s - Nisse Nilsson, Vlastimil Bubnik, Miroslav Vlach, Eduard Ivanov, Konstantin Loktev, Ulf Sterner. (Tumba was named best forward twice overall and Firsov was 3 times).

Starshinov was more consistent than most of those names, and his domestic goal scoring record really is good, so I think that if we were doing a top 80, he'd deserve strong consideration. But I can't see him being given a serious look for top 60, and there's no way he should go over Milan Novy (who I will post a bit more about later). For now, suffice to say that Novy stood out more in international competition in the 1970s (when it was a lot stronger) than Starshinov stood out in the 60s international competition.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

30 more games in 2000 and he has a scoring title along with a better vsX score and another vaunted top-10 in scoring and a first all-star team.

This again? I realize you think Turgeon is underrated by the general public (and while I think you take it to the extreme, I actually agree), but stuff like this is out of control. Turgeon was effectively tied for 3rd in points-per-game in 2000 with Bure, and behind Jagr (the actual Art Ross winner) and Sakic. And everyone who finished ahead of Turgeon in PPG played more games!!!!!

Pretending that Turgeon was healthy all year without extending the courtesy to other players is as bad a cherrypick as hardyvan's "Total points scored over the course of the career of the player I want to make look good" stat.

Edit: Thinking about it more, is your point that in comparing Turgeon to Sedin, everything went right for Sedin in 2010? Ovechkin was on pace to run away with the Hart and Art Ross until his second suspension of the season (he did win the Lindsay), and Sedin's brother got injured, which gave him extra "valuable to his team" cred.

 

[MadArcand]

I agree with you. I think Stamkos is closer to Crosby than McGee was to Bowie. On the other hand, McGee's career was a much closer to a normal career length back when players got poor medical treatment and were mostly amateurs. Though it was short even for that era.

Maybe if you focus purely on offense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Maybe if you focus purely on offense.

Perhaps an advocate for McGee could discuss what he provides other than offense

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Milan Novy should at least be considered for the list

From 1965-66 onwards, Czechoslovakia was competitive with the USSR in international tournaments featuring the best players from both countries. See this thread if you want more details. This culminated in Czechsolovakia winning the World Championships in 1972, 1976, 1977, and finishing 2nd to Canada in the 1976 Canada Cup. Around 1979, the Soviets reasserted domination over Europe. IMO, the best Czechoslovakian centers from this time period deserve to be recognized.

Domestic Scoring finishes: 1st (1976), 1st (1977), 1st (1978), 1st (1981), 1st (1982), 2nd (1974), 2nd (1975), 2nd (1980), 3rd (1973), 3rd (1979)

Note that Novy was playing for the Czechoslovak equivalent of the Red Army Team, but that's still a dominant scoring record for the Golden Age of Czechoslovak hockey

Domestic Awards

• Golden Stick (MVP) voting: 1st (1977), 1st (1981), 1st (1982), 2nd (1980), 3rd (1976), 4th (1978), 4th (1975), 8th (1973)

The quality of the Czechoslovak league declined in the early 80s, but Novy's record in the late 70s was second only to RW Vladimir Martinec among forwards.

• All-Star Center (1975, 1976, 1977)
  Note that All-Star Teams were discontinued after 1977
• Tip Magazine Best Forward (1977, 1978, 1981, 1982)
  Note that the Tip Magazine Awards began in 1977

24 year old Milan Novy picked up where the defecting Nedomansky left off, dominating the All-Star center nod (over pretty decent competition, including Ivan Hlinka). He was named either All-Star center or Best Forward (the awards only overlapped for one year when Novy won both) every year from 1975-1982, except for 1979 (Marian Stastny won best forward) and 1980 (Peter Stastny won best forward in his last season before defecting).

Novy won 6 domestic championships: 1974 (Jihlava); 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980 (Kladno)

International Awards

• Led the 1980 Olympics in Scoring
• All-Star Forward at the 1976 Canada Cup (the only Czechoslovak All-Star)
• Team MVP at the 1976 Canada Cup
• World Championship All-Star Forward (1976)

Novy wasn't consistently recognized in the World Championships, but competition in the mid-late 70s was brutal, with Maltsev and Petrov more or less dominating the center position, and fellow Czechoslovak Vladimir Martinec generally being considered the offensive leader of the team against the Soviets.

Novy had some really strong highs though - his one All Star nod in the WCs happened when Czechoslovakia recaptured Gold in 1976. But perhaps his best international performances were outside the WCs - he led the 1980 Olympics in overall scoring (for a fairly depleted Czechoslovak team). And he was the 1976 best Czechoslovakian player in the 1976 Canada Cup, and one of the heros of Czechoslovakia's shocking victory over Canada in Game 1 of the finals.

Nový was named to the 1976 Canada Cup all-star team, tied for the most goals, and was the top scorer and MVP on his team. He scored the only goal in a 1–0 Czechoslovak victory over Canada, in a game Bobby Orr said was the best he ever played in. [5] He also played in the 1981 Canada Cup.

______________________________


IMO, the only reason to rank Novy under Nedomansky is because Nedomansky had a pretty good North American career after the age of 30, while Novy tried the NHL at the age of 31, scored in his first game, but quickly got homesick and performed fairly poorly over the full season, before leaving for Europe again.

I don't know if there's room for Novy in the top 60, but he's definitely the next non-NHL European to be added to the list if it would go that far.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If anyone wants more about Novy, here's a long ATD-style profile about him, containing quotes and a statistical comparison to Nedomansky and Martinec:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=44982271&postcount=140

And here's the post summarizing the international and domestic accomplishments of Novy, Nedomansky, and Hlinka for the sake of comparison: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showt...highlight=novy+nedomansky+hlinka#post70490757. Hlinka looks to be way behind the other two.