Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Canadiens1958]

The Numbers

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.

1.) most post consolidation players did not make the NHL until the age of 24. So what you suddenly benchmark as a negative was the norm.

2.) Yes without Primeau, Conacher led the NHL in goals with 23. With Primeau as part of the equation Conacher led the NHL three times, scoring between 31 and 36 goals. Looking at 25-55% drop in goal production without Primeau. Not exactly replication.

3.) not buying the attempt to disconnect work ethic and being or contributing to others becoming better hockey players. Work ethic is what set apart the majority of the players already ranked from their peers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

the point of that post was to show how situational all-star teams are, and why we shouldn't put too much weight into them. They are symptomatic of point scoring accomplishments, therefore, counting them as valuable is just double dipping into the points we're already considering in the cases of the players. Some accomplishments will more easily be rewarded with all-star votes in some seasons.

The main focus of my argument is on the actual points they scored - which I've always said mattered more than the all-star votes, which today simply represent "highest scoring center" - tell the real story about these offense-only players. There's no "if" associated with the actual (adjusted) point totals each player scored in the games they actually played.

the point of double-dipping, i agree with to a point. to accept your premise fully, however, one would have to accept either 1. that henrik and turgeon have equally low intangibles, or 2. that a 1st team all-star spot separates the first and second guy only on the basis of points, and is not indicative of other non-numerical factors that might separate the players.


on the first hypothesis, as i said upthread i don't think henrik sedin is a great intangibles player in the doug gilmour sense. i think he's pretty average for an offensive superstar though:

- captained his team to sustained regular season success and a cup finals
- has reportedly played through many injuries and had the 5th longest ironman streak ever (and once amputated the tip of his pinky when it was broken so he could keep playing instead of missing 4-6 weeks to let it heal)
-gets his nose extremely dirty to make the play

whereas turgeon is a historically low-intangibles superstar.

- did not fight with his teammates in piestany, allowing a mismatch in numbers leading to stephane roy being held down by one soviet player while getting kicked in the forehead by another
- his most successful playoff run saw his team pulling off an epic upset with him on the sidelines (ewing theory)
- traded three times in his prime, the second two times for far less talented players who were gritty captain types (which speaks to a perceived lack of intangibles) -- and on his way out of montreal, had said about him by an anonymous ex-teammate "you'll never win when your captain has balls the size of snowpeas" -- was nicknamed the "tin man" by a buffalo sportswriter -- eric lindros said about the turgeon/muller trade: "turgeon will have to score 200 points to replace what muller brought to that team"
- not especially injury-prone, per se, but not an ironman either
- perimeter player (i.e., played in the soft areas, not the literal perimeter that henrik plays in)


on the second hypothesis, do we really want to accept that in 2011 henrik got the 1st all-star nod over stamkos because of 3 points? or was he just the better player that season? similarly, lafontaine got significantly more all-star recognition in 1990 than turgeon did, though turgeon scored one more point that year. ditto turgeon's all-star recognition relative to gilmour and yzerman in '93, the two centers on either side of him in the scoring race. some points mean less than others. in all of these cases ('11 sedin vs. '11 stamkos, lafontaine vs. turgeon, yzerman vs. turgeon, gilmour vs. turgeon) the hart trophy corroborates the all-star voting. yes, "some accomplishments will more easily be rewarded with all-star votes in some seasons," but i don't think the massive differential in awards recognition between henrik and turgeon means as little as you suggest.


but then also, to respond to the meat of your earlier posts in support of turgeon that look at "the actual points they scored," surely it makes a difference value-wise when one guy misses zero games in an 8 year prime, while the other guy could have maybe gotten more all-star votes had he not missed 15+ games in three separate seasons right?

 

[tarheelhockey]

1.) most post consolidation players did not make the NHL until the age of 24. So what you suddenly benchmark as a negative was the norm.

In 1928, when Primeau failed to stick on the Leafs in a tryout, 22 players ages 18-23 played at least half the season schedule. That's more than 2 per team.

In 1929, that number jumped to 29. At 3 players per team, it was clearly not impossible to get onto a roster before age 24.

And bear in mind that Primeau was brought onto the team for tryouts specifically because the Leafs were short on centers. His failure to take advantage of the opportunity forced them to fill the gap with a trade instead of a prospect.

And again, bear in mind that Primeau wasn't producing in 1929-30 until paired with Conacher and Jackson. Even when he was on the roster, he wasn't showing all-time value.

We aren't talking about "most players" here, we're talking about the top 60 centers of all time. Its is absolutely a negative for a candidate not to play NHL-quality hockey until age 24.

2.) Yes without Primeau, Conacher led the NHL in goals with 23. With Primeau as part of the equation Conacher led the NHL three times, scoring between 31 and 36 goals. Looking at 25-55% drop in goal production without Primeau. Not exactly replication.

He was still the league's top goal scorer, as opposed to fading into a second-line role and retiring. It's beyond clear that Conacher was driving the bus, especially because he continued to do so with guys who aren't remotely in consideration for this list.

3.) not buying the attempt to disconnect work ethic and being or contributing to others becoming better hockey players. Work ethic is what set apart the majority of the players already ranked from their peers.

Conacher was a better player than Primeau, period. The question is whether Primeau was good enough in his own right to make this list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

talent was extremely fragmented in the 3 years McGee played, new professional leagues and teams were emerging in the states as well as the OHA (where a lot of the growth came in the 1890's and early 1900's), as well as Manitoba.

there was nothing like an NHL at the time or anything even close to it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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



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.



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.

It's a bad example because you are focusing only on one part of the equation and that is Hand, the separation of the compete level and organization of an NHL team in the 30's is a huge cry of what it was circa 1903-06.

It's obvious Hand doesn't belong in the discussion, what you are missing is that while the separation for Hand is largely a space thing, ie he choose to play in a weaker league, for Frank it's a time thing (and not really relevant if there was no other choice or not) and the state of hockey in 03-06 is closer to the Hand situation than it is to anything we see in the recent past.

McGee simply doesn't stand up in a direct comparison to Stamkos his 3 years simply isn't anywhere near the level that Stamkos has played at, if there is any serious consideration for context.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

enough about henrik sedin from me. the guy i'm surprised isn't getting much discussion in this thread is roenick, who is the only 90s-and-later player left that i think should have a shot at the top 60.

to rank the modern players, i'd go:

lemaire
federko, lafontaine, roenick, sedin (this is in chronological order, but more on that group later)
carbonneau
turgeon
brind'amour
nieuwendyk
with no idea where to put stamkos except below the federko/sedin group, and with a lot of hesitation about how high i've got carbonneau.


historical contemporary comparisons:

sedin vs. stamkos has been addressed upthread (with peak being more or less even, and the rest of henrik's career pulling him ahead for now, but that will almost certainly change, and probably very soon assuming that stamkos will either stay the same or improve and that henrik isn't getting back to his peak level)

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

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

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

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

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

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



i think if there are only three spots left in the top 60, without following pre-modern players closely at all, i'd have to have lemaire in there. quite frankly, i'm surprised he's still up for voting. (but, having read all of those arguments for primeau from C1958, plus him being the only one i actually knew much about previously, i'm pretty convinced he's ahead of all of the non-lemaire modern players too.) after him, i can only really see roenick sneaking into the top 60. there's just not enough of a career from henrik (yet?) or lafontaine, and while federko's shorter career isn't particularly short for his era, roenick has a 15 year run as a relevant player, compared to federko's 11; and that on top of the equivalent of 4.5 more years worth of games played. so roenick, followed closely by sedin, followed by lafontaine, followed extremely closely by federko whose playoff record destroys lafontaine's by almost as much as lafontaine's peak destroys federko's.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Numbers

In 1928, when Primeau failed to stick on the Leafs in a tryout, 22 players ages 18-23 played at least half the season schedule. That's more than 2 per team.

In 1929, that number jumped to 29. At 3 players per team, it was clearly not impossible to get onto a roster before age 24.

And bear in mind that Primeau was brought onto the team for tryouts specifically because the Leafs were short on centers. His failure to take advantage of the opportunity forced them to fill the gap with a trade instead of a prospect.

And again, bear in mind that Primeau wasn't producing in 1929-30 until paired with Conacher and Jackson. Even when he was on the roster, he wasn't showing all-time value.

We aren't talking about "most players" here, we're talking about the top 60 centers of all time. Its is absolutely a negative for a candidate not to play NHL-quality hockey until age 24.



He was still the league's top goal scorer, as opposed to fading into a second-line role and retiring. It's beyond clear that Conacher was driving the bus, especially because he continued to do so with guys who aren't remotely in consideration for this list.



Conacher was a better player than Primeau, period. The question is whether Primeau was good enough in his own right to make this list.

But we are discussing centers, a position with greater responsibility, not all players. So the relevent comparable would be other centers. 1928 was the debut year for Marty Barry(9GP - 1G/0A) and Joe Primeau(2GP - 0G/0A). How meaningful is this? Not at all. /if it was Joe Lamb(21GP - 8G/5A), also a 1928 debut would be top 10 all time center.

Then you attribute the Leafs making a trade to Primeau not getting off to a HHOF career path.BTW- care to specify to the actual trade? So would Marty Barry having a poor start in his first 9 games with the Americans, likewise going to the minors be responsible for all the trades the Americans made afterwards. Of course not.

All time value. Jean Beliveau did not show All-time value until playing with Olmstead and Geoffrion. Took longer than Primeau did to find the All Time niche with the Kid Line. Others like Norm Ullman - lost Gordie Howe as a linemate, Phil Esposito - traded away from Bobby Hull, did not miss a beat.

Stretching to find reasons to denegrate Primeau not raised for others does not work. Facts are clear. Three time assist leader. Youth movement in Toronto he simply retired since unlike Conacher, Jackson, Clancy he had alternative career opportunities beyond hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

2 things, vadim:

Turgeon is only "easily" the best offensively on a per game basis over a large number of non-consecutive games (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Lafontaine passes him over a smaller number, say best 250 games?). On a "per season basis," he's right between Henrik Sedin and Jeremy Roenick in best 7 years (VsX), without a ton separating them. I realize that per-game is a valid way of comparing players, but I don't think it's the only way.

Lemaire is still available because of his relatively unimpressive regular season stats (see the VsX tables again) and awards voting. This is the first round where Lemaire didn't have the weakest all-star record of any available NHL centers (he's pretty middle of the pack this time in terms of All-Star record among this current group)

 

[tarheelhockey]

But we are discussing centers, a position with greater responsibility, not all players. So the relevent comparable would be other centers.

Ok... so there were 6 regular under-24 centers in both 1928 and 1929.

That's 6 out of 20-30 available positions, or roughly 30% of the supply.

I fail to see how this supports the idea that Primeau couldn't have made the league at the same age, especially considering he was given tryouts for an open position and failed to stick.

Then you attribute the Leafs making a trade to Primeau not getting off to a HHOF career path.BTW- care to specify to the actual trade?

As noted in the post I linked in the post you quoted:

Primeau was called up to the Leafs at a time when they specifically needed a second line center. They went through a number of options including Primeau, who didn't stick and was sent back down. Toronto eventually filled the roster spot with Jimmy Herbert, acquired from the Bruins for Eric Pettinger and $15,000 cash.

So would Marty Barry having a poor start in his first 9 games with the Americans, likewise going to the minors be responsible for all the trades the Americans made afterwards. Of course not.

This has nothing to do with anything.

The idea that Primeau was given a shot at an open roster spot and failed to secure it, leading to a trade, is not speculation. That's simply what happened. It contradicts the notion that he was at the level of, say, Joe Lamb at a comparable age.

All time value. Jean Beliveau did not show All-time value until playing with Olmstead and Geoffrion. Took longer than Primeau did to find the All Time niche with the Kid Line. Others like Norm Ullman - lost Gordie Howe as a linemate, Phil Esposito - traded away from Bobby Hull, did not miss a beat.

None of this has anything to do with the established fact that Primeau only played noteworthy hockey during the exact, specific timeframe that he was on a line with Conacher and Jackson. Not before, and not after.

Stretching to find reasons to denegrate Primeau not raised for others does not work.

This issue wasn't raised with others because it didn't apply to others. Primeau is the only candidate we've seen whose star-quality career coincided directly and exclusively with being on a specific line.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

2 things, vadim:

Turgeon is only "easily" the best offensively on a per game basis over a large number of non-consecutive games (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Lafontaine passes him over a smaller number, say best 250 games?). On a "per season basis," he's right between Henrik Sedin and Jeremy Roenick in best 7 years (VsX), without a ton separating them. I realize that per-game is a valid way of comparing players, but I don't think it's the only way.

Lemaire is still available because of his relatively unimpressive regular season stats (see the VsX tables again) and awards voting. This is the first round where Lemaire didn't have the weakest all-star record of any available NHL centers (he's pretty middle of the pack this time in terms of All-Star record) among this group.

oh, i meant turgeon vs. roenick, brind'amour, and nieuwendyk. that didn't include lafontaine or henrik sedin.

i'll take another look at the numbers seventieslord ran re: turgeon vs. roenick, but my thinking was that turgeon's peak season is so far above roenick's peak season, and actually beats roenick in PPG in roenick's peak season ('94), so off the top of my head i thought the separation was pretty clear.

re: lemaire, i give him the advantage over the rest of this group based on being a "glue guy" on a dynasty. in the last round, i posted a quote by robinson talking about lemaire helping to figure out the team's game plan and being like "an extra coach on the ice." which to me is a pretty huge intangible, and looking retroactively from his coaching success i don't doubt the veracity of that quote.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

oh, i meant turgeon vs. roenick, brind'amour, and nieuwendyk. that didn't include lafontaine or henrik sedin.

i'll take another look at the numbers seventieslord ran re: turgeon vs. roenick, but my thinking was that turgeon's peak season is so far above roenick's peak season, and actually beats roenick in PPG in roenick's peak season ('94), so off the top of my head i thought the separation was pretty clear.

I realize top 10 finishes aren't everything, but Turgeon and Roenick have identical (5th, 7th) as their top 10 points finishes. Turgeon has a few more top 20s than Roenick and finishes very slightly ahead in VsX, but not a huge difference in either metric. Seventies' point is that injuries hurt Turgeon's end-of-season finishes.

re: lemaire, i give him the advantage over the rest of this group based on being a "glue guy" on a dynasty. in the last round, i posted a quote by robinson talking about lemaire helping to figure out the team's game plan and being like "an extra coach on the ice." which to me is a pretty huge intangible, and looking retroactively from his coaching success i don't doubt the veracity of that quote.

True, that would be pretty huge. The kind of thing that would get a player Hart votes prior to WW2. My issue with Lemaire this round is I look at him and Neil Colville and see Colville with an enormous advantage in peak All-Star recognition. That's not to say I won't consider Lemaire for my ballot this round; I will.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

The point is that they all ran the tables in their respective leagues. Ottawa ran their table in the '01 CAHL season, for example, but Winnipeg won the Cup in straight games against the Shamrocks who were 4-4 in the CAHL that year. The next year they swapped shutouts with Montreal HC, who led the 1902 CAHL table. So I think we can assume that the MHA (which was comprised of just the two fairly well matched Manitoba teams, who played to lots of 1 goal decisions between them) represented pretty equivalent "quality" to the hockey played by the top 2 or 3 teams in the CAHL at least.

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.

Maybe technically true (end of '01 =/= '01/02 season, let alone '02/03 which was McGee's first), but just so you know:

Although Ottawa won the league championship, the Shamrocks had lost their challenge to Winnipeg and Ottawa would not be awarded the Cup. At first, Ottawa was intending to challenge Winnipeg for the Cup, but on February 27, 1901 announced that they would not do so that winter.[1] According to Coleman(1966), Ottawa did not issue a challenge due to the "lateness of the season."[2] The Ottawa Journal as reported in The Globe suggested that the Ottawa club was wise in their decision, as they were in "racked condition in which they are, as a result of the immensely hard exertions put forth by them in all their games this season".[3] The Ottawa Hockey Club did not challenge the following season, either.

(1901 CAHL season linked above)

So they were "too racked" from playing games. Imagine if they were the ones travelling 4000 km (and having to walk a large chunk of it with gear bags because of thawed roads preventing use of dog sled) when some of the Western teams came through town. Obviously the travel was a very, very significant handicap and must be considered; especially when travel prevents your one and only "bonafide star" from making it to the Stanley Cup playoffs in time (as was the case when McGee racked up his big goal games against a Young-less Dawson City, for example).

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.

Yeah it's relevant. The professional/amateur thing changed to complexion of the league, which teams stayed in it and which didn't, and where talent would be congregating if the "best" out there were looking to win a Stanley Cup (instead of the Allan Cup).

 

[thom]

Not taking sides but where does system of play come into play and how a coach used a certain player.A poor example I know but crosby has 2 paltry pts in 5 games-was he used poorly or did teamates not produce for him.People say crosby makes other players around him better.I mean playing for Scotty Bowman with the habs or Detroit was harder for offencive player then a Glen Sathor type.Playing for Hitchock was harder than Blysa-am I right or wrong

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not taking sides but where does system of play come into play and how a coach used a certain player.A poor example I know but crosby has 2 paltry pts in 5 games-was he used poorly or did teamates not produce for him.People say crosby makes other players around him better.I mean playing for Scotty Bowman with the habs or Detroit was harder for offencive player then a Glen Sathor type.Playing for Hitchock was harder than Blysa-am I right or wrong

C1958 said in the preliminary thread that Lemaire saw less PP time than most other first line centers because of the way Bowman ran Montreal. That would be worth looking at if someone wants to crunch the numbers.

 

[Killion]

...see how this supports the idea that Primeau couldn't have made the league at the same age, especially considering he was given tryouts for an open position and failed to stick.

The idea that Primeau was given a shot at an open roster spot and failed to secure it, leading to a trade, is not speculation. That's simply what happened. It contradicts the notion that he was at the level of, say, Joe Lamb at a comparable age.

He was a favorite of Conn Smythes who wanted to sign him, gave him a tryout with the Rangers when he was assembling that team before being fired however NY felt he was just too small, wasnt polished enough. And they were right at that time. Primeau didnt even start to play organized hockey until the age of 13 having been born in Lindsay Ontario but moved to Victoria BC at a very young age where he was raised. The family moved back to Toronto & Joe took up skating for the first time, playing hockey for the University of Toronto School team, the Jr. St. Mikes, St. Marys & Marlies teams before signing with Toronto & assigned to the Toronto Ravinas & London Ontario teams of the CPHL. Definitely a work in progress, later bloomer than most, but Smythe clearly saw something in him that he liked and his judgement proved accurate.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I realize top 10 finishes aren't everything, but Turgeon and Roenick have identical (5th, 7th) as their top 10 points finishes. Turgeon has a few more top 20s than Roenick and finishes very slightly ahead in VsX, but not a huge difference in either metric. Seventies' point is that injuries hurt Turgeon's end-of-season finishes.

well, i certainly think that in their respective 5th and 7th place seasons, roenick was the better player than turgeon. i don't have to think twice about that. but on a purely offensive level, i look at their adjusted >75 points totals and i think there's a separation, though i'll admit that i also seem to have underestimated roenick here; it's closer than i thought.

turgeon: 106, 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84, 80, 78
roenick: 97, 91, 87, 85, 84, 82, 81, 76

and then also, roenick got a career year out of larmer, but that's it. tkachuk did better without him (mostly on zhamnov's wing?) turgeon got 3 consecutive career years from derek king, and most famously scott young's spike 40 goal year. and technically, turgeon plays a hand in andreychuk's first 40 goal year, though two better centers in lafontaine and gilmour would later propel andreychuk to even greater heights and perreault got andreychuk close to 40 in andreychuk's second season. but those are all HOF centers.

roenick and turgeon were both teammates of steve thomas in his best two seasons though (40 goals with roenick, 87 points with turgeon). not certain at all how big of a role either played in those two thomas seasons though.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

not so sure about their peak value. In the 4 seasons and going into the following season, ie in the off season after his first great year and forward, does at any time anyone Pick Hank higher against his competition or peers than Stamkos on a hypothetical one year player draft?

Stamkos and his peak isn't just good for this round, hi 23 and under age performance is elite for all time...period

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

well, i certainly think that in their respective 5th and 7th place seasons, roenick was the better player than turgeon. i don't have to think twice about that. but on a purely offensive level, i look at their adjusted >75 points totals and i think there's a separation, though i'll admit that i also seem to have underestimated roenick here; it's closer than i thought.

turgeon: 106, 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84, 80, 78
roenick: 97, 91, 87, 85, 84, 82, 81, 76

and then also, roenick got a career year out of larmer, but that's it. tkachuk did better without him (mostly on zhamnov's wing?) turgeon got 3 consecutive career years from derek king, and most famously scott young's spike 40 goal year. and technically, turgeon plays a hand in andreychuk's first 40 goal year, though two better centers in lafontaine and gilmour would later propel andreychuk to even greater heights and perreault got andreychuk close to 40 in andreychuk's second season. but those are all HOF centers.

roenick and turgeon were both teammates of steve thomas in his best two seasons though (40 goals with roenick, 87 points with turgeon). not certain at all how big of a role either played in those two thomas seasons though.

Turgeon's 5th place season was 1992-93, which H-R's adjusted points formula is going to overrate because of the way it's calculated.* That year, he scored 89.1% of 2nd place (this is also his VsX score for the season - 89.1). He scored 107.3% of 10th place and 132.0% of 20th place.

Roenick's 5th place season was 1993-94. That year, he scored 89.2% of second place (and also gets a VsX score of 89.2) - yes, seriously, that close to Turgeon's score the previously year. He scored 108.1% of 10th place and 117.6% of 20th place.

*adjusted points are based off league average scoring, and 1st line players outperformed the average by a lot in 1992-93.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

not so sure about their peak value. In the 4 seasons and going into the following season, ie in the off season after his first great year and forward, does at any time anyone Pick Hank higher against his competition or peers than Stamkos on a hypothetical one year player draft?

Stamkos and his peak isn't just good for this round, hi 23 and under age performance is elite for all time...period

but taking age and future improvement into account goes against this project's agreed-upon methodology, no?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Turgeon's 5th place season was 1992-93, which H-R's adjusted points formula is going to overrate because of the way it's calculated.* That year, he scored 89.1% of 2nd place (this is also his VsX score for the season - 89.1). He scored 107.3% of 10th place and 132.0% of 20th place.

Roenick's 5th place season was 1993-94. That year, he scored 89.2% of second place (and also gets a VsX score of 89.2) - yes, seriously, that close to Turgeon's score the previously year. He scored 108.1% of 10th place and 117.6% of 20th place.

*adjusted points are based off league average scoring, and 1st line players outperformed the average by a lot in 1992-93.

that's fair. so let's all talk more about roenick, right?

 

[Hardyvan123]

C1958 said in the preliminary thread that Lemaire saw less PP time than most other first line centers because of the way Bowman ran Montreal. That would be worth looking at if someone wants to crunch the numbers.

I had a post either last round or this round and his ES numbers were very strong and many of his peers racked up more PP number, making them look better on the surface.

Unfortenetly HR only has a PPG search function, it would need to be manually done but jsut looking at his season by season stats and those on the Montreal team page where one can sort G,A by ES,PP ect and one quickly sees that Jaques wasn't padding his numbers like others do.

As well C1958 has a great point Lemaire had good to excellent scoring in the regular season and playoffs well before Guy took center stage on that Habs team as well.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

The point is that they all ran the tables in their respective leagues. Ottawa ran their table in the '01 CAHL season, for example, but Winnipeg won the Cup in straight games against the Shamrocks who were 4-4 in the CAHL that year. The next year they swapped shutouts with Montreal HC, who led the 1902 CAHL table. So I think we can assume that the MHA (which was comprised of just the two fairly well matched Manitoba teams, who played to lots of 1 goal decisions between them) represented pretty equivalent "quality" to the hockey played by the top 2 or 3 teams in the CAHL at least.

McGee played only four seasons, so what is the relevance of the landscape in seasons he didn't play? I agree with you, as I've said already, that the MHA teams were probably the best outside of the CAHL.

Maybe technically true (end of '01 =/= '01/02 season, let alone '02/03 which was McGee's first), but just so you know:

(1901 CAHL season linked above)

So they were "too racked" from playing games. Imagine if they were the ones travelling 4000 km (and having to walk a large chunk of it with gear bags because of thawed roads preventing use of dog sled) when some of the Western teams came through town. Obviously the travel was a very, very significant handicap and must be considered; especially when travel prevents your one and only "bonafide star" from making it to the Stanley Cup playoffs in time (as was the case when McGee racked up his big goal games against a Young-less Dawson City, for example).

Again this doesn't apply to McGee. I agree that Dawson City was given a rough ride and the fact that they were missing their best player further tarnishes what the victory meant, but could they have realistically beaten Ottawa even with rest and Young playing? It seems very doubtful.

Yeah it's relevant. The professional/amateur thing changed to complexion of the league, which teams stayed in it and which didn't, and where talent would be congregating if the "best" out there were looking to win a Stanley Cup (instead of the Allan Cup).

The Allan Cup wasn't around until McGee retired. The Ontario professionals directly after McGee got their butts kicked by amateurs save for a 4-6 loss to the Wanderers with a young Newsy Lalonde leading the OPHL team. Professionalism is a red herring if we're talking about McGee.

 

[Hardyvan123]

but taking age and future improvement into account goes against this project's agreed-upon methodology, no?

That's not what I'm suggesting though.

If there was a metric for greatness early on in one's career (and the more metrics we use the better IMO.

In that type of metric, ie best player and career age 23 and under, Stamkos would be what?, top 10 overall for centers probably.

Surely that emans something one would think.

 

[Hardyvan123]

McGee played only four seasons, so what is the relevance of the landscape in seasons he didn't play? I agree with you, as I've said already, that the MHA teams were probably the best outside of the CAHL.


Again this doesn't apply to McGee. I agree that Dawson City was given a rough ride and the fact that they were missing their best player further tarnishes what the victory meant, but could they have realistically beaten Ottawa even with rest and Young playing? It seems very doubtful.


The Allan Cup wasn't around until McGee retired. The Ontario professionals directly after McGee got their butts kicked by amateurs save for a 4-6 loss to the Wanderers with a young Newsy Lalonde leading the OPHL team. Professionalism is a red herring if we're talking about McGee.

Except that it isn't, there was a great battle going on mainly in the OHA about professionalism and amateurs having a huge affect on the movement of players ans emerging league and dispersion of talent, nevermind the completely different training methods (mainly the lack of training, practice and coaches)of semi professional teams ans truly amateur ones and the lack of artificial ice basically everywhere.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Except that it isn't, there was a great battle going on mainly in the OHA about professionalism and amateurs having a huge affect on the movement of players ans emerging league and dispersion of talent, nevermind the completely different training methods (mainly the lack of training, practice and coaches)of semi professional teams ans truly amateur ones and the lack of artificial ice basically everywhere.

There were good players all over the place, but the large majority of the best players were amateurs, until after McGee retired. The amateur CAHL was definitely the best league, it would turn into the amateur ECAHA, which would turn into the semi-professional ECHA, which would turn into the fully professional NHA, the predecessor to the NHL. Just from eyeballing names of Hall of Famers, about half the best players in the world were in this line of leagues, and about half were spread out all over the place. And the Stanley Cup was usually owned by this line of leagues

And yes, the talent pool was definitely thinner back then.