Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Kyle McMahon]

I kind of figured this would be the response but the bottom line is saying that both guys dominated their leagues and then saying either domination was on par to what Stamkos has done in his NHL career so far is equally ridiculous for both guys.

So this is what it's come down to, defending Frank McGee in a comparison to Tony ****ing Hand? If McGee dominating the best league in the world equates to Hand dominating a league where former ECHL players who were not even good enough for the AHL have topped 200 points in a 40-game season (outscoring Hand himself in the process at various times), then there's probably nothing I could say to change your mind. Obviously no degree of domination from McGee would have be enough, and he is simply excluded on account of when he was born.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It depends what you mean by “sustainedâ€, because he’s got a better 400 and 700 game record than Sedin and Lafontaine, who you’re referring to. Among those three, Sedin has the absolute best season with 1.45 adjusted PPG, and Lafontaine has the best “best 2†with 1.43 and 1.42, but looking at three seasons or beyond, Turgeon was the one who sustained his production over the largest number of games.

Sustained simply means some period of time long enough to infer a player was elite offensively and would be considered such around the league, to the point that a reasonable person may prefer said player to Turgeon in an offensive role.

400 game or 700 game cutoffs are arbitrary and disadvantage a player like Joe Primeau who would not even make the first cutoff due to short schedules of his era. Further, perhaps Turgeon has the best 400 and 700 game samples, but maybe other players are superior if the benchmarks are adjusted to 350, 600, or 750 games.

And what are the best 400 games? If we're going to cherry-pick non-consecutive partial seasons with high PPG averages, why not just pick the best 400 games out of his career, period? A couple here...skip those two...another one here, etc.

It's just way too easy to pick cutoffs and select thresholds that make a specific player look better (or worse) than he was. That may not be the intention, but it could still end up being the result.

 

[Sturminator]

I’m not sure if you’ve read closely enough if you think I’m playing the “what if†card. I’ve always been a strong advocate of doing the only logical thing when a player has an excellent 30, 40, 50, 60 game season –

- DON’T just project it out to a full season and credit them as though they did that for 80 games
- DON’T just pretend they scored that many points in 80 games and treat the season accordingly
- DO call it exactly what it is: 30, 40, 50, 60 games of hockey played at a certain level, deserving of no more or less credit than that

Note that in the previous thread in post 71, I assessed Sedin, Turgeon, Sundin, Lafontaine and Zetterberg by the same standards: best 700 games, and best 400 games.

The problem I see with this methodology is that it ignores the fact that players are considerably less valuable to their teams when they cannot stay on the ice. 80 games of point-per-game play is much more valuable than 2 x 40 games of the same, with another 2 x 40 in the press box with your leg in a cast.

Hockey is a team sport, and to have a star player constantly in and out of the lineup with injuries has a seriously negative impact on a team. Pierre Turgeon is the poster child for exactly this effect. Had he played his 700 best games consecutively, in one iron-man streak and then just retired, he'd have made our top-50, in all likelihood, warts and all. But he didn't. He couldn't stay on the ice, and his constant absences forced his teams to scramble to replace his production, with predictable consequences.

What Turgeon was able to do when healthy, and his actual value to his teams are two different things. Your method of analysis compares the careers of players as nothing more than the sum of their respective parts. Pierre Turgeon's career, however, was considerably less great than the sum of its parts, and therein lies the rub.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Injuries

^^^Injuries and health issues are a part of the game. In some instances - Mario Lemieux, Jean Beliveau, they do not detract from a players legacy. Even enjoying injury free or perfect health they would be considered for top 3 all time at their position even though their careers were impacted by these obstacles. To a lesser degree Peter Forsberg and Eric Lindros join this group

Then you have the Saku Koivu, Barry Pederson types whose initial performance and skills showed great promise that was curtailed leaving unanswered questions.

Finally you have the Pierre Turgeon types, healthy, in shape they take time off. In terms of the net effect the result is the same.

A PPG player who shows up to play every night who is not a liability defensively is worth more than a PPG player who coasts thru a number of games or game situations. Might as well be injured in terms of the net result.

The only difference is that when such a player is injured he is replaced in the line-up. The team realizes they can do without since a viable replacement is either on hand or obtainable.

This was Turgeon's situation. Nice point totals but easily replaced numbers.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So this is what it's come down to, defending Frank McGee in a comparison to Tony ****ing Hand? If McGee dominating the best league in the world equates to Hand dominating a league where former ECHL players who were not even good enough for the AHL have topped 200 points in a 40-game season (outscoring Hand himself in the process at various times), then there's probably nothing I could say to change your mind. Obviously no degree of domination from McGee would have be enough, and he is simply excluded on account of when he was born.

Couple of problems here

1) I knew it would be a bad example with Hand becasue we all know and can see his level of competition and we can never see McGee's but the difference probably isn't all really that great.

2) McGee played in the best league in the world in his time? Hockey was extremely fragmented and his playoff legacy , which makes up a huge part of his small number of hockey games comes against an amateur team from the OHA, a team from the Klondike (that played exactly what kind of competition) before traveling 4000km to play a well rested silver 7?

3) Players shifted teams, sports, leagues ect almost like spouses on an afternoon soap opera, simply put comparing an extremely mature and organized time ie Stamkos, with McGee's time just can't do proper service to both parties involved IMO.

McGee's legacy is too short for the need to do so as well IMO.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

3) Players shifted teams, sports, leagues ect almost like spouses on an afternoon soap opera...

This was touched on in that in the Bain bio that I linked:

Interest and competition grew and players started to migrate to wherever they deemed the best possibility of a championship. Marshall and Wood quit the Shamrocks and joined the Winnipeg Victorias for the 1901 season.

Almost this entire era, btw, was governed by a rule that made it possible for a team in the same league as the defending champion to win the league championship and "inherit" the cup "without a challenge" (the "Challenge Cup era" of champions).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Couple of problems here

1) I knew it would be a bad example with Hand becasue we all know and can see his level of competition and we can never see McGee's but the difference probably isn't all really that great.

You admit it's a bad example, yet still try to defend it.

2) McGee played in the best league in the world in his time? Hockey was extremely fragmented and his playoff legacy , which makes up a huge part of his small number of hockey games comes against an amateur team from the OHA, a team from the Klondike (that played exactly what kind of competition) before traveling 4000km to play a well rested silver 7?

If you dispute he played in the best league in the world, provide an alternative. Comparing the ECAHA of the early 1900's to the British Super League of the late 20th century is entirely irrelevant unless you have uncovered some extraordinary evidence that would suggest the league may have iced players that are worthy of discussion in this project.

3) Players shifted teams, sports, leagues ect almost like spouses on an afternoon soap opera, simply put comparing an extremely mature and organized time ie Stamkos, with McGee's time just can't do proper service to both parties involved IMO.

McGee's legacy is too short for the need to do so as well IMO.

Hand switched teams repeatedly in a league that folded and re-organized several times during his career, but apparently you have been able to sift through it and determine he is comparable to McGee. Perhaps McGee should be afforded the same attention to detail in a comparison to Stamkos.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

2) McGee played in the best league in the world in his time? Hockey was extremely fragmented and his playoff legacy , which makes up a huge part of his small number of hockey games comes against an amateur team from the OHA, a team from the Klondike (that played exactly what kind of competition) before traveling 4000km to play a well rested silver 7?

What league was stronger? I get talent was fragmented, but you're rightfully criticizing the strength of some of the other leagues.

The FAHL had the Wanderers and there were some good Winnipeg teams, but I'd think the CAHL was the strongest league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Milan Novy

My problem with him is - and has always been - that his international record does not nearly match his domestic domination. While I concur that his international highs were very high (e.g. 1976 Canada Cup), his international career was still fairly short (7-8 years while many of his contemporaries had 10-12). Also, his only All-Star nod at the World Championships (1976) was in a tournament where Vladimir Petrov didn't play and Alexander Maltsev was injured halfway through (having said that, Czechoslovakia was fairly dominant in that WC, so he might have been the All-Star center anyway).

Internationally, I think there are at least four '60s/'70s/'80s Czech forwards who had a better career:

Vladimir Martinec
Vaclav Nedomansky
Ivan Hlinka
Jiri Holik

(In Hlinka's and Holik's case, it's mostly about longevity and consistency.). I think Jiri Lala is pretty close too.

I've sometimes wondered, if his domestic play 'hurt' his international play; hasn't it been said that "he never missed a game" (in the Czechoslovak league) or something? And yet he only played few games in the 1978 and 1979 WCs, for example, when he should've been in his prime.

Having said all this, I've got no problem, if he gets on the list.

On the surface, Novy's highs internationally look more impressive than Hlinka's. I'll just repost this from the preliminary thread:

Ivan Hlinka

• Domestic scoring finishes: 1st (1975), 2nd (1972), 2nd (1978), 3rd (1974), 3rd (1976), 4th (1977), 7th (1973), 8th (1971), 9th (1981)
  
• Domestic Awards
  • Golden Hockey Stick (MVP) voting: 1st (1978), 2nd (1977), 4th (1974), 4th (1976), 7th (1979), 7th (1981), 8th (1971), 8th (1975), 9th (1972)
  • No All-Star Center nods
• International Stats and Awards
  • World Championships All-Star Forward (1978)

Milan Novy

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

They were each an AS at the WCs once, but Novy adds impressive performances at the 1976 Canada Cup and 1980 Olympics

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just trying to organize my thoughts with so many different players on the board... below I've made an attempt to summarize the pro/con arguments for each of them.

Rod Brind'Amour
Pro: Consistent, though relatively modest, offensive producer; premier defensive center for a large portion of his career; outstanding faceoff guy; big-game goal scorer; captained the 2006 Cup team.
Con: One of the weakest offensive candidates available; not a #1 center for much of his career; other than Selkes, didn't receive much individual recognition in the "overall player" awards.

Guy Carbonneau
Pro: All-time elite defensive center, definitely the best in this round; critical defensive performance on Gretzky in the '93 Finals; won 3 Cups; captained the 1993 Cup team.
Con: Probably the weakest offensive producer in this round; could be wrong but I don't think he was ever a #1 center; only individual recognition was Selke votes.

Neil Colville
Pro: One of the better (maybe 4th behind Cowley/Apps/Schmidt?) offensive centers of the period immediately before WWII; top leaguewide scorer during a Cup run in 1940; well rounded offensively, and had a good defensive game; versatile enough that he switched back to D after the war; captained the Rangers for 4 years before retiring to become head coach.
Con: Underwhelmed in 1942 and then missed the next 3 years to war service; wasn't the same player when he came back. So really only about a 5-year window as an elite center.

Tommy Dunderdale
Pro: Top goal scorer in PCHA history; judging by AS awards, he was certainly the best PCHA center from 1912-1915; reputed for his speed and stickhandling; apparently played decently on defense; exceptional longevity for the time; outscored Frank Foyston head to head in some seasons (but not all of them).
Con: Does being the best, but not utterly dominant center in the PCHA for a few years make him a top-60 center? Took a ton of PIMs; probably not higher than the 5th-best center in his prime, had the leagues been unified.

Bernie Federko
Pro: Extremely consistent, reliable playmaker; unselfish, underrated, a player who made his linemates better; arguably a top-5 center for a brief period around 1980; certainly didn't get a lot of team help; led the NHL in playoff points in 1986 (without making the Finals!)
Con: No individual recognition; never in the top-3 centers leaguewide; he had a Sundin-type peak; it's hard to point at any one thing as an all-time-relevant "accomplishment", other than Blues franchise records.

Frank Foyston
Pro: During the period 1917-1919, Foyston had at least something of an argument for best center in the world; extremely versatile, winning AS nods at all three forward positions plus rover; noted for his speed, stickhandling, and general playmaking skill; a big-game player who won Cups with 3 different teams and missed a potential 4th due to the 1919 flu cancellation.
Con: A less generous view of his prime could have him at least as low as 8th in the time period behind Taylor, Nighbor, Lalonde, Malone, Fredrickson, MacKay and Keats. If you see him that way, does the 8th best center of the 1910s belong on the top-60 list?

Pat Lafontaine
Pro: Probably the best "eye test" player available; his peak was extremely high, probably good enough to be a legit Hart-winner during much of hockey history. He showed pretty well in his limited playoff action.
Con: Extremely short peak and overall career; major injury issues; no team success of note.

Jacques Lemaire
Pro: Versatile and intelligent; contributed to a modern dynasty; arguably underrated offensively
Con: No individual recognition; benefited statistically from playing with LaFleur; was perhaps the 5th or 6th best player on those Cup-winning teams.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Pro: After a strong offensive showing as a young player, he developed into a highly respected and intelligent two-way center, faceoff ace and clutch goal scorer. Universally respected for his leadership and general good grace.
Con: Perhaps the ultimate "Hall of Very Good" player; a handful of top-10 goal scoring finishes are his only statistical accomplishments; never distinguished himself individually (on the all-time level) outside of a 1999 Conn Smythe; arguably benefited from luck in landing on the stacked teams at the right time.

Joe Primeau
Pro: Playmaker and defensive conscience on the most successful line of the early 1930s; played a quiet all-round game comparable perhaps to a Ron Francis.
Con: His scoring success is directly correlated to being on the Kid Line, and was never replicated away from them; extremely short 4-year peak with little play and no noteworthy accomplishments outside that period.

Henrik Sedin
Pro: Peaked as a Hart/Ross-winner, captain of a finalist. The most prolific post-lockout player remaining. Consistent top-5 assist man, with 3 consecutive #1 finishes. Maybe tougher than his reputation.
Con: Benefited from an extreme case of linemate customization; not a strong defensive player; at best he may have been a top-3 center very briefly; very weak profile until age 25; still too young to have full "career value".

Vyacheslav Starshinov
Pro: Prolific goal scorer, both domestically and internationally, during the 1960s; played a highly physical two-way game; consistent star player in the Soviet league.
Con: Not a strong playmaker, and his point finishes are inflated by the fact that the Soviets didn't count assists; 1960s Soviet and international competition wasn't quite as competitive as later decades; for a smallish player, he was relatively slow and played a physical style that probably wouldn't have worked at a higher level.

Steven Stamkos:
Pro: Easily the best goal scorer and arguably the best peak-value player available.
Con: Extremely small career sample due to his age. Not notable for his defense, leadership, versatility, team success, or really anything other than goal scoring.

Pierre Turgeon
Pro: Arguably the best overall offensive resume available. Long, consistently productive career that included important roles on some good teams.
Con: Relatively low peak, finishing top-5 in points only on one occasion and never in goals or assists. Not much in the way of individual recognition or team success. Team-hopped, probably due to at least the perception that he wasn't a "leadership core" type of player.


Maybe someone could finish this list... I have to go and I'm still missing the following:
Duke Keats
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Jeremy Roenick

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

What league was stronger? I get talent was fragmented, but you're rightfully criticizing the strength of some of the other leagues.

The FAHL had the Wanderers and there were some good Winnipeg teams, but I'd think the CAHL was the strongest league.

It's not quite that easy. I mean, we're talking 2 vs 4 vs 5 team leagues here. The "strength" of these leagues can basically be judged by the teams that went undefeated in those years. Ottawa ran the '1900/01 CAHL table. The Wanderers ran the first FAHL table in '04. The Winnipeg Victorias ran the two team MHA table in '01, but it should be noted that the games between them and HC were close.

I think it's interesting, btw, that Ottawa apparently didn't even challenge for the Cup in a couple of the early 1900s (being too beat up to travel during the winter and make the challenge, apparently), but we're so quick to make a lot out of the "domination" that eastern/central Canadian hockey teams enjoyed when facing the teams that DID meet the challenge to travel and face them for the Cup. Obviously travel was much more monumental a factor than today (and much is still made about West-East travel in today's relative comfort).

And remember that either way, we didn't get a "professionals only" league until the amalgamated CAHL/FAHL further "evolved" (through losing the Montreal amateur teams) into the ECHA and then quickly into the CHA, and then merged with the NHA. Before that final merger, I don't think there's anything definitive that we can really say about the strength of any of the "leagues" beyond what we know about the champions.

 

[MXD]

Tarheel, on Colville, 2 points

Colville appears to have outscored Schmidt out of the NHL during the war. Brings a caveat on his underwhelming season.

Also appears to have gotten the lesser wingers in NYR. If Steve Thomas and Gary Roberts can be considered bad support, than Mac Colville and Alex Schibixky is terrible support. If one gave any credence to the Sundin had no support argument, that person must give A LOT of credence to this regarding Colville.

Also, Colville/Watson/Smith was very strong depth.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just trying to organize my thoughts with so many different players on the board... below I've made an attempt to summarize the pro/con arguments for each of them.

Rod Brind'Amour
Pro: Consistent, though relatively modest, offensive producer; premier defensive center for a large portion of his career; outstanding faceoff guy; big-game goal scorer; captained the 2006 Cup team.
Con: One of the weakest offensive candidates available; not a #1 center for much of his career; other than Selkes, didn't receive much individual recognition in the "overall player" awards.

Agree.

Guy Carbonneau
Pro: All-time elite defensive center, definitely the best in this round; critical defensive performance on Gretzky in the '93 Finals; won 3 Cups; captained the 1993 Cup team.
Con: Probably the weakest offensive producer in this round; could be wrong but I don't think he was ever a #1 center; only individual recognition was Selke votes.

You're being generous when you say "probably the weakest offensive producer," he is definitely the weakest offensive producer, AINEC

Neil Colville
Pro: One of the better (maybe 4th behind Cowley/Apps/Schmidt?) offensive centers of the period immediately before WWII; top leaguewide scorer during a Cup run in 1940; well rounded offensively, and had a good defensive game; versatile enough that he switched back to D after the war; captained the Rangers for 4 years before retiring to become head coach.
Con: Underwhelmed in 1942 and then missed the next 3 years to war service; wasn't the same player when he came back. So really only about a 5-year window as an elite center.

In terms of offense, I don't think Colville distinguished himself from teammates like Phil Watson and Clint Smith. His overall awards record is what distinguishes him - one of the better All-Star records this round.

Tommy Dunderdale
Pro: Top goal scorer in PCHA history; judging by AS awards, he was certainly the best PCHA center from 1912-1915; reputed for his speed and stickhandling; apparently played decently on defense; exceptional longevity for the time; outscored Frank Foyston head to head in some seasons (but not all of them).
Con: Does being the best, but not utterly dominant center in the PCHA for a few years make him a top-60 center? Took a ton of PIMs; probably not higher than the 5th-best center in his prime, had the leagues been unified.

Other Con: Weak playmaker; if you adjust assists to anything close to a modern level, his overall scoring doesn't impress as much. Possible Con: Passed over by the HHOF committee many times until finally inducted in the 1970s.

Bernie Federko
Pro: Extremely consistent, reliable playmaker; unselfish, underrated, a player who made his linemates better; arguably a top-5 center for a brief period around 1980; certainly didn't get a lot of team help; led the NHL in playoff points in 1986 (without making the Finals!)
Con: No individual recognition; never in the top-3 centers leaguewide; he had a Sundin-type peak; it's hard to point at any one thing as an all-time-relevant "accomplishment", other than Blues franchise records.

If you trust methods that compare him the non-Gretzky scoring leaders (basically VsX), Federko's peak was a step below Sundin's.

Frank Foyston
Pro: During the period 1917-1919, Foyston had at least something of an argument for best center in the world; extremely versatile, winning AS nods at all three forward positions plus rover; noted for his speed, stickhandling, and general playmaking skill; a big-game player who won Cups with 3 different teams and missed a potential 4th due to the 1919 flu cancellation.
Con: A less generous view of his prime could have him at least as low as 8th in the time period behind Taylor, Nighbor, Lalonde, Malone, Fredrickson, MacKay and Keats. If you see him that way, does the 8th best center of the 1910s belong on the top-60 list?

Keep in mind that even though this is called the "best centers of all-time," it is really the best centers/rovers, so in the time of the rovers, we are basically taking in players who played 2 different positions. I expect very few wingers from this generation to be added, since the best players (especially in the PCHA) tended to gravitate towards center and rover. On that note, can someone name more than a handful of wingers from this generation who have a shot at our list? Definitely Cy Denneny. Didier Pitre, sure. Then who? Maybe Jack Walker, possibly Gordon Roberts or Jack Darragh, but they aren't really guarantees.

Pat Lafontaine
Pro: Probably the best "eye test" player available; his peak was extremely high, probably good enough to be a legit Hart-winner during much of hockey history. He showed pretty well in his limited playoff action.
Con: Extremely short peak and overall career; major injury issues; no team success of note.

Agree. Add as a Pro: probably the best per-game goal scorer this round (I said probably because I'm not really interested in a comparison with Novy or Dunderdale at this point).

Jacques Lemaire
Pro: Versatile and intelligent; contributed to a modern dynasty; arguably underrated offensively
Con: No individual recognition; benefited statistically from playing with LaFleur; was perhaps the 5th or 6th best player on those Cup-winning teams.

If you're saying Brind'amour received "little" recognition outside of Selke votes, I wouldn't say Lemaire received "no" recognition. He received quite a bit more All-Star consideration than Brind'amour did, though he didn't receive all that much himself.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Pro: After a strong offensive showing as a young player, he developed into a highly respected and intelligent two-way center, faceoff ace and clutch goal scorer. Universally respected for his leadership and general good grace.
Con: Perhaps the ultimate "Hall of Very Good" player; a handful of top-10 goal scoring finishes are his only statistical accomplishments; never distinguished himself individually (on the all-time level) outside of a 1999 Conn Smythe; arguably benefited from luck in landing on the stacked teams at the right time.

I think Nieuwendyk's two-way ability is somewhat overrated - I don't think he ever took on the toughest defensive assignments on his teams.

Joe Primeau
Pro: Playmaker and defensive conscience on the most successful line of the early 1930s; played a quiet all-round game comparable perhaps to a Ron Francis.
Con: His scoring success is directly correlated to being on the Kid Line, and was never replicated away from them; extremely short 4-year peak with little play and no noteworthy accomplishments outside that period.

Man, if Primeau's prime was twice as long, I'd definitely vote for him. But it's so short.

Henrik Sedin
Pro: Peaked as a Hart/Ross-winner, captain of a finalist. The most prolific post-lockout player remaining. Consistent top-5 assist man, with 3 consecutive #1 finishes. Maybe tougher than his reputation.
Con: Benefited from an extreme case of linemate customization; not a strong defensive player; at best he may have been a top-3 center very briefly; very weak profile until age 25; still too young to have full "career value".

I think Henrik has put together respectable career value. He's on his 13th NHL season and lost one due to the 2005 lockout. To the extent that he doesn't have a lot of career value, it's because he was a late bloomer.

Vyacheslav Starshinov
Pro: Prolific goal scorer, both domestically and internationally, during the 1960s; played a highly physical two-way game; consistent star player in the Soviet league.
Con: Not a strong playmaker, and his point finishes are inflated by the fact that the Soviets didn't count assists; 1960s Soviet and international competition wasn't quite as competitive as later decades; for a smallish player, he was relatively slow and played a physical style that probably wouldn't have worked at a higher level.

I'm not sure how much of a two-way game he played; I know there is the one quote from his own mouth about how centers should play two-way games, but meh. And again, another con - he was pretty good in the weaker 60s international competition but didn't really distinguish himself from guys who have no chance at making our list.

Steven Stamkos:
Pro: Easily the best goal scorer and arguably the best peak-value player available.
Con: Extremely small career sample due to his age. Not notable for his defense, leadership, versatility, team success, or really anything other than goal scoring.

I would say "almost certainly" the best peak (regular season) value of any player available. Really can see only McGee as having an argument there, and that would requires someone to have a really high opinion of the quality of pre-WWI hockey.

Pierre Turgeon
Pro: Arguably the best overall offensive resume available. Long, consistently productive career that included important roles on some good teams.
Con: Relatively low peak, finishing top-5 in points only on one occasion and never in goals or assists. Not much in the way of individual recognition or team success. Team-hopped, probably due to at least the perception that he wasn't a "leadership core" type of player.

I think this is reasonable. Back to nitpicking your wording, he received significantly less All-Star support than Jacques Lemaire.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Lemaire

Just trying to organize my thoughts with so many different players on the board... below I've made an attempt to summarize the pro/con arguments for each of them.

Rod Brind'Amour
Pro: Consistent, though relatively modest, offensive producer; premier defensive center for a large portion of his career; outstanding faceoff guy; big-game goal scorer; captained the 2006 Cup team.
Con: One of the weakest offensive candidates available; not a #1 center for much of his career; other than Selkes, didn't receive much individual recognition in the "overall player" awards.

Guy Carbonneau
Pro: All-time elite defensive center, definitely the best in this round; critical defensive performance on Gretzky in the '93 Finals; won 3 Cups; captained the 1993 Cup team.
Con: Probably the weakest offensive producer in this round; could be wrong but I don't think he was ever a #1 center; only individual recognition was Selke votes.

Neil Colville
Pro: One of the better (maybe 4th behind Cowley/Apps/Schmidt?) offensive centers of the period immediately before WWII; top leaguewide scorer during a Cup run in 1940; well rounded offensively, and had a good defensive game; versatile enough that he switched back to D after the war; captained the Rangers for 4 years before retiring to become head coach.
Con: Underwhelmed in 1942 and then missed the next 3 years to war service; wasn't the same player when he came back. So really only about a 5-year window as an elite center.

Tommy Dunderdale
Pro: Top goal scorer in PCHA history; judging by AS awards, he was certainly the best PCHA center from 1912-1915; reputed for his speed and stickhandling; apparently played decently on defense; exceptional longevity for the time; outscored Frank Foyston head to head in some seasons (but not all of them).
Con: Does being the best, but not utterly dominant center in the PCHA for a few years make him a top-60 center? Took a ton of PIMs; probably not higher than the 5th-best center in his prime, had the leagues been unified.

Bernie Federko
Pro: Extremely consistent, reliable playmaker; unselfish, underrated, a player who made his linemates better; arguably a top-5 center for a brief period around 1980; certainly didn't get a lot of team help; led the NHL in playoff points in 1986 (without making the Finals!)
Con: No individual recognition; never in the top-3 centers leaguewide; he had a Sundin-type peak; it's hard to point at any one thing as an all-time-relevant "accomplishment", other than Blues franchise records.

Frank Foyston
Pro: During the period 1917-1919, Foyston had at least something of an argument for best center in the world; extremely versatile, winning AS nods at all three forward positions plus rover; noted for his speed, stickhandling, and general playmaking skill; a big-game player who won Cups with 3 different teams and missed a potential 4th due to the 1919 flu cancellation.
Con: A less generous view of his prime could have him at least as low as 8th in the time period behind Taylor, Nighbor, Lalonde, Malone, Fredrickson, MacKay and Keats. If you see him that way, does the 8th best center of the 1910s belong on the top-60 list?

Pat Lafontaine
Pro: Probably the best "eye test" player available; his peak was extremely high, probably good enough to be a legit Hart-winner during much of hockey history. He showed pretty well in his limited playoff action.
Con: Extremely short peak and overall career; major injury issues; no team success of note.

Jacques Lemaire
Pro: Versatile and intelligent; contributed to a modern dynasty; arguably underrated offensively
Con: No individual recognition; benefited statistically from playing with LaFleur; was perhaps the 5th or 6th best player on those Cup-winning teams.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Pro: After a strong offensive showing as a young player, he developed into a highly respected and intelligent two-way center, faceoff ace and clutch goal scorer. Universally respected for his leadership and general good grace.
Con: Perhaps the ultimate "Hall of Very Good" player; a handful of top-10 goal scoring finishes are his only statistical accomplishments; never distinguished himself individually (on the all-time level) outside of a 1999 Conn Smythe; arguably benefited from luck in landing on the stacked teams at the right time.

Joe Primeau
Pro: Playmaker and defensive conscience on the most successful line of the early 1930s; played a quiet all-round game comparable perhaps to a Ron Francis.
Con: His scoring success is directly correlated to being on the Kid Line, and was never replicated away from them; extremely short 4-year peak with little play and no noteworthy accomplishments outside that period.

Henrik Sedin
Pro: Peaked as a Hart/Ross-winner, captain of a finalist. The most prolific post-lockout player remaining. Consistent top-5 assist man, with 3 consecutive #1 finishes. Maybe tougher than his reputation.
Con: Benefited from an extreme case of linemate customization; not a strong defensive player; at best he may have been a top-3 center very briefly; very weak profile until age 25; still too young to have full "career value".

Vyacheslav Starshinov
Pro: Prolific goal scorer, both domestically and internationally, during the 1960s; played a highly physical two-way game; consistent star player in the Soviet league.
Con: Not a strong playmaker, and his point finishes are inflated by the fact that the Soviets didn't count assists; 1960s Soviet and international competition wasn't quite as competitive as later decades; for a smallish player, he was relatively slow and played a physical style that probably wouldn't have worked at a higher level.

Steven Stamkos:
Pro: Easily the best goal scorer and arguably the best peak-value player available.
Con: Extremely small career sample due to his age. Not notable for his defense, leadership, versatility, team success, or really anything other than goal scoring.

Pierre Turgeon
Pro: Arguably the best overall offensive resume available. Long, consistently productive career that included important roles on some good teams.
Con: Relatively low peak, finishing top-5 in points only on one occasion and never in goals or assists. Not much in the way of individual recognition or team success. Team-hopped, probably due to at least the perception that he wasn't a "leadership core" type of player.


Maybe someone could finish this list... I have to go and I'm still missing the following:
Duke Keats
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Jeremy Roenick

Jacques Lemaire. Will posters please stop posting the nonsense about him benefitting offensively from Lafleur. His two best offensive seasons were without Lafleur - 1972-73 and 1974-75 with Yvan Cournoyer. Starting with the 1975-76 season, Jacques Lemaire's playing time with Guy Lafleur increased. Towards full time after Pete Mahovlich was traded, Pierre Larouche was blended into the team and Yvan Cournoyer was inactive more and more due to the back problems that forced an early retirement.

If we compare Lemaire's regular season numbers:

Last four seasons with Guy Lafleur playing time 262 games = 279 points.

Previous four seasons without Lafleur playing time 300 games = 335 points.

So how did playing with Guy Lafleur help Jacques Lemaire? It did not.
With Lafleur ~ 1.06 PPG without Lafleur ~ 1.12PPG. Main reasons playing with Lafleur and Shutt, Lemaire had greater defensive responsibilities and his lethal slapshot was neutralized since he was the first back forward.

Hopefully after this post the nonsense about Lafleur helping Lemaire offensively stops. Fact is that the opposite is true. Lafleur's four best offensive seasons happened when Jacques Lemaire was part of the linemate mix.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Maybe someone could finish this list... I have to go and I'm still missing the following:
Duke Keats
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Jeremy Roenick

Here's what I can come up with for the three early guys. Feel free to add if I'm missing anything. I want to have more of a conversation with VMBM about Novy before doing him.

Duke Keats

Pros: From his rookie year at age 21 to his age 32 season, he was likely a top 10 offensive player in the world in every season he played. Relatively strong backchecker over the course of his career. Noted as a very smart player, a very physical player, and excellent stickhander, a leader, and an "on ice general." Possibly the best player in the world in 1921-22, but it's hard to tell. Had a lot of star power; it was not unusual to see him compared to the best players in the world at the time (in particular Fredrickson but also Morenz on at least one occasion).

Cons: Spent much of his prime dominating weaker leagues (likely for $$$), so while it's likely that he was always as good as he was in the NHA as a young player and NHL as an old player, it's not a guarantee. (Though note that the 1923-24 and 1924-25 WCHL were likely a little stronger than the NHL, as the league had absorbed the PCHA). Was compared to Fredrickson in the press, but it seems Fredrickson usually came out a bit ahead (During Fredrickson's prime, which was shorter than Keats'). Always a slow skater, he was a downright slug by the time he hit the NHL in his 30s (but was still a top 10 scorer). Bad temper, prone to taking bad penalties. No Stanley Cups, though he did lead the Edmonton Eskimos to the finals once, only to be obliterated by the Ottawa dynasty.

Frank McGee

Pros: There are contemporary quotes referring to him as the best player in the world while he played - of the players who played in that decade, I have only seen such quotes about Bowie, Hod Stuart, Tommy Phillips, and Frank McGee. During his brief career, he was seen as the best player on the Silver Seven dynasty. Easily scored the most goals in Cup challenges of the era. Seems to have been more of an all-around player than Bowie. On a per-game basis over his career, he wasn't that far behind Bowie as a goal scorer.

Cons: The big one - only played 4 years, and really only played full seasons for 3 of them. On a total (not per-game) basis, he was 33% behind Bowie in total goals scored over the entire course of McGee's career. Many of his Cup challenge goals were from running up the score against weak challengers, including college teams. If you only look at legitimate challengers, McGee's numbers in the remaining Cup challengers are still strong, but not otherworldly. He was a small man, even for his era.

Bernie Morris

Pros: Likely, the third best scorer in PCHA history, a little behind Fredrickson and a little ahead of Foyston and Dunderdale (Keats is a WCHL player, not a PCHA one). He was outstanding in the Stanley Cup finals in 1917 for the Cup winning Seattle Metropolitans, perhaps the Conn Smythe winner that year if one had been awarded (they Retro Conn Smythe project starts in 1918)

Cons: Morris doesn't seem to have brought anything other than scoring. Despite lesser stats, Morris's teammate Foyston (a stronger all-round player) seems to have gotten more praise in the press. I've never seen anything comparing Morris to the best players in the world. Unlike his available contemporaries, Morris is not a member of the HHOF, though it seems like accusations of draft dodging (of which he was not convicted) MAY have been a factor initially.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

It's not quite that easy. I mean, we're talking 2 vs 4 vs 5 team leagues here. The "strength" of these leagues can basically be judged by the teams that went undefeated in those years. Ottawa ran the '1900/01 CAHL table. The Wanderers ran the first FAHL table in '04. The Winnipeg Victorias ran the two team MHA table in '01, but it should be noted that the games between them and HC were close.

I think it's interesting, btw, that Ottawa apparently didn't even challenge for the Cup in a couple of the early 1900s (being too beat up to travel during the winter and make the challenge, apparently), but we're so quick to make a lot out of the "domination" that eastern/central Canadian hockey teams enjoyed when facing the teams that DID meet the challenge to travel and face them for the Cup. Obviously travel was much more monumental a factor than today (and much is still made about West-East travel in today's relative comfort).

And remember that either way, we didn't get a "professionals only" league until the amalgamated CAHL/FAHL further "evolved" (through losing the Montreal amateur teams) into the ECHA and then quickly into the CHA, and then merged with the NHA. Before that final merger, I don't think there's anything definitive that we can really say about the strength of any of the "leagues" beyond what we know about the champions.

Going undefeated doesn't mean much if it was in a league against inferior competition to what Ottawa faced in their leagues. It doesn't really matter how well Queen's University or Dawson City did against the teams in their league if they got trounced by Ottawa in a manner the teams playing Ottawa in league play didn't. I think the best way to look at is how teams fared in Cup challenges. That's why I mention the Wanderers and the Winnipeg teams.

Ottawa fielded challenges every year McGee was playing so I'm not sure what you mean. They had six challenges losing the final one to the Wanderers.

Being professional isn't really relevant. The WPHL was the first professional league and they weren't on par with the best Canadian teams. The Ontario Professional Hockey League was formed in 1908 and they lost all four of their challenges.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Joe Primeau

Just trying to organize my thoughts with so many different players on the board... below I've made an attempt to summarize the pro/con arguments for each of them.

Rod Brind'Amour
Pro: Consistent, though relatively modest, offensive producer; premier defensive center for a large portion of his career; outstanding faceoff guy; big-game goal scorer; captained the 2006 Cup team.
Con: One of the weakest offensive candidates available; not a #1 center for much of his career; other than Selkes, didn't receive much individual recognition in the "overall player" awards.

Guy Carbonneau
Pro: All-time elite defensive center, definitely the best in this round; critical defensive performance on Gretzky in the '93 Finals; won 3 Cups; captained the 1993 Cup team.
Con: Probably the weakest offensive producer in this round; could be wrong but I don't think he was ever a #1 center; only individual recognition was Selke votes.

Neil Colville
Pro: One of the better (maybe 4th behind Cowley/Apps/Schmidt?) offensive centers of the period immediately before WWII; top leaguewide scorer during a Cup run in 1940; well rounded offensively, and had a good defensive game; versatile enough that he switched back to D after the war; captained the Rangers for 4 years before retiring to become head coach.
Con: Underwhelmed in 1942 and then missed the next 3 years to war service; wasn't the same player when he came back. So really only about a 5-year window as an elite center.

Tommy Dunderdale
Pro: Top goal scorer in PCHA history; judging by AS awards, he was certainly the best PCHA center from 1912-1915; reputed for his speed and stickhandling; apparently played decently on defense; exceptional longevity for the time; outscored Frank Foyston head to head in some seasons (but not all of them).
Con: Does being the best, but not utterly dominant center in the PCHA for a few years make him a top-60 center? Took a ton of PIMs; probably not higher than the 5th-best center in his prime, had the leagues been unified.

Bernie Federko
Pro: Extremely consistent, reliable playmaker; unselfish, underrated, a player who made his linemates better; arguably a top-5 center for a brief period around 1980; certainly didn't get a lot of team help; led the NHL in playoff points in 1986 (without making the Finals!)
Con: No individual recognition; never in the top-3 centers leaguewide; he had a Sundin-type peak; it's hard to point at any one thing as an all-time-relevant "accomplishment", other than Blues franchise records.

Frank Foyston
Pro: During the period 1917-1919, Foyston had at least something of an argument for best center in the world; extremely versatile, winning AS nods at all three forward positions plus rover; noted for his speed, stickhandling, and general playmaking skill; a big-game player who won Cups with 3 different teams and missed a potential 4th due to the 1919 flu cancellation.
Con: A less generous view of his prime could have him at least as low as 8th in the time period behind Taylor, Nighbor, Lalonde, Malone, Fredrickson, MacKay and Keats. If you see him that way, does the 8th best center of the 1910s belong on the top-60 list?

Pat Lafontaine
Pro: Probably the best "eye test" player available; his peak was extremely high, probably good enough to be a legit Hart-winner during much of hockey history. He showed pretty well in his limited playoff action.
Con: Extremely short peak and overall career; major injury issues; no team success of note.

Jacques Lemaire
Pro: Versatile and intelligent; contributed to a modern dynasty; arguably underrated offensively
Con: No individual recognition; benefited statistically from playing with LaFleur; was perhaps the 5th or 6th best player on those Cup-winning teams.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Pro: After a strong offensive showing as a young player, he developed into a highly respected and intelligent two-way center, faceoff ace and clutch goal scorer. Universally respected for his leadership and general good grace.
Con: Perhaps the ultimate "Hall of Very Good" player; a handful of top-10 goal scoring finishes are his only statistical accomplishments; never distinguished himself individually (on the all-time level) outside of a 1999 Conn Smythe; arguably benefited from luck in landing on the stacked teams at the right time.

Joe Primeau
Pro: Playmaker and defensive conscience on the most successful line of the early 1930s; played a quiet all-round game comparable perhaps to a Ron Francis.
Con: His scoring success is directly correlated to being on the Kid Line, and was never replicated away from them; extremely short 4-year peak with little play and no noteworthy accomplishments outside that period.

Henrik Sedin
Pro: Peaked as a Hart/Ross-winner, captain of a finalist. The most prolific post-lockout player remaining. Consistent top-5 assist man, with 3 consecutive #1 finishes. Maybe tougher than his reputation.
Con: Benefited from an extreme case of linemate customization; not a strong defensive player; at best he may have been a top-3 center very briefly; very weak profile until age 25; still too young to have full "career value".

Vyacheslav Starshinov
Pro: Prolific goal scorer, both domestically and internationally, during the 1960s; played a highly physical two-way game; consistent star player in the Soviet league.
Con: Not a strong playmaker, and his point finishes are inflated by the fact that the Soviets didn't count assists; 1960s Soviet and international competition wasn't quite as competitive as later decades; for a smallish player, he was relatively slow and played a physical style that probably wouldn't have worked at a higher level.

Steven Stamkos:
Pro: Easily the best goal scorer and arguably the best peak-value player available.
Con: Extremely small career sample due to his age. Not notable for his defense, leadership, versatility, team success, or really anything other than goal scoring.

Pierre Turgeon
Pro: Arguably the best overall offensive resume available. Long, consistently productive career that included important roles on some good teams.
Con: Relatively low peak, finishing top-5 in points only on one occasion and never in goals or assists. Not much in the way of individual recognition or team success. Team-hopped, probably due to at least the perception that he wasn't a "leadership core" type of player.


Maybe someone could finish this list... I have to go and I'm still missing the following:
Duke Keats
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Jeremy Roenick

And the success of the Kid Line was due to Joe Primeau as recgnized by Conn Smythe. Further evidenced that without Primeau and with other centers Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson never replicated their Kid Line success. Joe Primeau simply retired and was never asked to spend serious playing time with other wingers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

whoa, were you guys seriously posting during the canada/us game?

i'd like to hear the rationale for stamkos' peak vs henrik's. i can see it being arguable, but not almost certain.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

whoa, were you guys seriously posting during the canada/us game?

i'd like to hear the rationale for stamkos' peak vs henrik's. i can see it being arguable, but not almost certain.

Commericials.

As for Stamkos vs Sedin, I think Henrik arguably has the best 2 season peak (it's close), but Stamkos easily has the best 4 season peak. Does that make sense?

 

[Sturminator]

Colville appears to have outscored Schmidt out of the NHL during the war. Brings a caveat on his underwhelming season.

Also appears to have gotten the lesser wingers in NYR. If Steve Thomas and Gary Roberts can be considered bad support, than Mac Colville and Alex Schibixky is terrible support. If one gave any credence to the Sundin had no support argument, that person must give A LOT of credence to this regarding Colville.

Also, Colville/Watson/Smith was very strong depth.

This is true, and Colville also creams Phil Watson, his own teammate, in all-star voting at center during the years when they were both at their respective peaks (shortly before the war). There is sadly still not a whole lot known about Colville's intangibles during the time he played forward, but he was clearly doing something well, because he got an awful lot of all-star support, and was an all-star as a defenseman (and again 6th in voting on D, iirc) after the war, which must be factored into our analysis here as we're viewing the whole careers of these players, not just the time they spent at center.

 

[tarheelhockey]

And the success of the Kid Line was due to Joe Primeau as recgnized by Conn Smythe. Further evidenced that without Primeau and with other centers Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson never replicated their Kid Line success. Joe Primeau simply retired and was never asked to spend serious playing time with other wingers.

As detailed in this post:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79570013&postcount=95

1) Primeau did absolutely nothing noteworthy except for when he was on the Kid Line. He was passed over for a roster spot multiple times until age 24, and was quiet for the first part of 1929-30 until paired with Conacher and Jackson -- at which time he exploded offensively. And Primeau didn't "simply retire", he played most of the 1935-36 season with other wingers and scored less than half a point per game. All told, his career excluding ages 24-29 consisted of slightly more than one season's worth of games in which he scored at a very poor rate.

2) I'm not sure how you can say Conacher never replicated his success away from the Kid Line, considering Conacher led the league in goals the season after that line was split up. He was also already a star prospect prior to joining the Leafs, and was a high scorer prior to the assembly of the Kid Line. Unlike Primeau, Conacher established that he was a very strong scorer away from the Kid Line -- and would undoubtedly have continued to be one if he hadn't bowed to chronic injury issues after 1937. Busher Jackson was nowhere near as much of a star as Conacher, but he was still an All Star and a strong producer as late as 1938, three years after the Kid Line was broken up.

3) The Conn Smythe quote is noteworthy, but it's more about Primeau's work ethic compared to Conacher's than it is about who was the better hockey player. I don't doubt for a second that it took a conscientious, hard-working centerman to get the most out of Conacher. That's not an unusual dynamic when finding the right fit for an elite winger. It doesn't mean the success of the line was due to Primeau to the exclusion of his linemates.

 

[thom]

1958-Please explain how Jacques Lemaire averaged less than a pts a game,never an allstar.never won an award.Its funny when you said Lafleur might have benefited are you serious.1979 -lemaire is hurt and lafleur leads team in scoring by 52 pts with 129 pts.So Lemaire is there does Lafleur get 160 pts plus-come on.I showed stats how lafleur dominated in assists-jacques is a centerman so its a joke.In terms of baseline stats I could argue Lemaire is not hall of fame quality.Peter had 2 100 pts seasons playing with lafleur.I mean even Larouche had a 50 goal season in 1980 playing with lafleur-remember Lemaire retired

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Commericials.

As for Stamkos vs Sedin, I think Henrik arguably has the best 2 season peak (it's close), but Stamkos easily has the best 4 season peak. Does that make sense?

sounds fair. running the finishes--


stamkos

going on the 4 seasons btw his rookie season and this year:

goals finishes: 1, 1, 2, 2
points finishes: 2, 2, 5, 5

all-star recognition: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd
hart recognition: 2nd, 6th (14 ballots), 8th (10 ballots) 11th (15 ballots),

superstar winger: st. louis (2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 8th team all-stars; points finishes of 1, 2, 6, 18; assists finishes of 1, 2, 5, 11)

2nd center support: lecavalier (scoring finishes among centers: 14th, 32nd [19th in PPG], 35th [27th in PPG], 45th [30th in PPG])


sedin

going on the four season peak of 2009-2012

assist finishes: 1, 1, 1, 8
points finishes: 1, 4, 7, 13

all-star recognition: 1st, 1st, 5th (14 ballots)
hart recognition: 1st, 9th (10 ballots) 10th (23 ballots)

superstar winger: daniel sedin (1st, 2nd, 5th team all-star; points finishes of 1, 11 [4th in PPG], 13, 26 [23rd in PPG]; goals finish of 4; assists finishes of 3, 11, 14

2nd center support: kesler (scoring finishes among centers: 7th, 12th, 24th, 45th [worse than that in PPG]; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place selke finishes)



but then split the difference and look at best three seasons and it's basically even right?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Commericials.

As for Stamkos vs Sedin, I think Henrik arguably has the best 2 season peak (it's close), but Stamkos easily has the best 4 season peak. Does that make sense?

I think of Stamkos as being more of a LaFontaine type career to this point anyway. Sort of a really strong third- or fourth-wheel when it comes to talking about the best offensive players in the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, if Sedin/Stamkos have close peak value, Sedin pretty much has to rank ahead on the basis of career value right?

I do tend to prefer goal scorers to playmakers though