Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

but then doesn't everybody else kill stamkos in a metric that measures greatness after the age of 25?

but maybe i'm not getting why the age he peaked at matters here?

 

[Hardyvan123]

but then doesn't everybody else kill stamkos in a metric that measures greatness after the age of 25?

But maybe i'm not getting why the age he peaked at matters here?

Well when separating players and what they did it's notable at how great he was at such a young age, and not when a player is expected to have peaks years, like Sedin did have for instance.

Sometimes it's the small things, like how early they were a superstar that matters, obviously his career metric won't be that great.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

Which underwhelming season was that?

Also Schmidt had a statically scattered resume both before and after the war.

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.

the major difference ehre is that Sundin routinelky outperformed his team mates, and often by alrge margins in comaprioon this is how Colville shakes down on his team scoring

37

3rd on his team of 31,32,28,28,26,24 points

38

3rd on his team of 39,37,36,35,34,33,29,29

39

2nd on his team in points 41, 37,,37,35,33,29,29

40

2nd on his team in points 39, 38, 35,32,31,28,28

41

3rd on his team in points 44,44,42,36,31,25

42

7th on his team then the war years

Hard to think he was anything like Sundin in terms of support really.

 

[Canadiens1958]

First Center

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

So a center being groomed as a first center is supposed to take a substitutes role, wasting key development time to satisfy a fantasy metric 80+ years down the road. Jimmy Herbert was a veteran, new the league and the requirements of the role, made the NHL at the age of 27. Traded to Detroit at the end of the season the Leafs recouped virtually their whole cash investment while keeping and developing a key future asset. Contrast this to the Americans who demoted Marty Barry, gave up his rights and saw the Bruins grab him in the minor league draft in 1929. Yet somehow this is a negative for Primeau but not a negative for others.

Furthermore once the Leafs had the key #1 center, Conn Smythe and Dick Irvin Sr.should have played him with secondary players to satisfy list criteria 80 years down the road.Likewise instead of retiring, Primeau should gone to another bottom feeder NHL playing with marginals to prove nothing while incurring a financial loss.

 

[MXD]

Which underwhelming season was that?

Also Schmidt had a statically scattered resume both before and after the war.



the major difference ehre is that Sundin routinelky outperformed his team mates, and often by alrge margins in comaprioon this is how Colville shakes down on his team scoring

37

3rd on his team of 31,32,28,28,26,24 points

38

3rd on his team of 39,37,36,35,34,33,29,29

39

2nd on his team in points 41, 37,,37,35,33,29,29

40

2nd on his team in points 39, 38, 35,32,31,28,28

41

3rd on his team in points 44,44,42,36,31,25

42

7th on his team then the war years

Hard to think he was anything like Sundin in terms of support really.

None of his teammates received votes For this project either.

And none of Sundin non-linemates winger will receive consideration. At least 3 of Colville non-linemates winger will receive consideration for the wingers project, and we'd be utter failures not to have 2 in the top-60. Two of those wingers are in the HHOF. Another of his teammates at center is in HHOF.

Keep in mind his AST record is the best remaining, beating two of Apps, Schmidt and Cowley twice. Players who are already in.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So a center being groomed as a first center is supposed to take a substitutes role, wasting key development time to satisfy a fantasy metric 80+ years down the road.

Primeau scored 0-1-1 in 8 games over 2 years, and was demoted 3 different times. If you want to believe that he was an NHL quality player at that time, well...

Jimmy Herbert was a veteran, new the league and the requirements of the role, made the NHL at the age of 27. Traded to Detroit at the end of the season the Leafs recouped virtually their whole cash investment while keeping and developing a key future asset. Contrast this to the Americans who demoted Marty Barry, gave up his rights and saw the Bruins grab him in the minor league draft in 1929. Yet somehow this is a negative for Primeau but not a negative for others.

Of course it's a negative! How could it be anything BUT a negative that he couldn't make the NHL roster!?

Furthermore once the Leafs had the key #1 center, Conn Smythe and Dick Irvin Sr.should have played him with secondary players to satisfy list criteria 80 years down the road.Likewise instead of retiring, Primeau should gone to another bottom feeder NHL playing with marginals to prove nothing while incurring a financial loss.

They DID play him with secondary wingers, and he struggled. I'm not sure why that point isn't sticking.

As far as his motivations for retiring, that's simply irrelevant -- we're here to rank hockey players, not businessmen.

 

[Sturminator]

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

Yep, we probably should talk more about him. He's a very viable candidate to make the top-3 in this round. I think he's clearly the best of the modern centers here. The question becomes, is he better than Lemaire?

Offensively, Roenick is easily the better of the two. In terms of all-star recognition, Roenick also wins: 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, vs. Lemaire's 4, 4, 8 (plus a 6th place on the wing), and Roenick's era was tougher at the center position, which would put him at a disadvantage in terms of all-star voting.

Are Lemaire's intangibles enough to make up for these disadvantages? He's certainly got a longer playoff record, and was generally a strong postseason performer. To what extent Lemaire benefited from simply having more opportunities is an open question, but I'd say he easily wins a straight-up comparison of postseason record. Defense...I think it's probably a wash. Both were good two-way centers. Neither was an elite checker in his day, but both were plus checkers for the position, and I don't think we should split hairs trying to differentiate them here.

Roenick definitely had more of an "it" factor than Lemaire - played with more energy and aggression and was more a leader of his teams. Of course, this is not entirely Lemaire's fault, as his Habs were quite a lot better than JR's teams, so it would be harder to be a leader.

At any rate, I can't see how Lemaire's intangibles are so much better than Roenick's that they should make up for the obvious offensive gap, and Roenick's advantage in all-star recognition. Roenick also got meaningful Hart support in his best season (1991-92 he finished 6th, 0-5-14), which Lemaire never got.

Bottom line, Roenick should be the next NHL player to be inducted (not counting Keats). Whether or not he makes our top-3 this round should come down to how he compares with guys like Novy, and the western league players. I am probably going to have Roenick in my top-3 at this point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think there is certainly a case for Roenick over Lemaire as an overall player, but I find it hard to believe he was on Lemaire's level defensively. I never got the sense that Roenick was anything more than a "good defensively for a scorer" guy

Edit: in addition to Roenick's physical game obviously

 

[Sturminator]

I think there is certainly a case for Roenick over Lemaire as an overall player, but I find it hard to believe he was on Lemaire's level defensively. I never got the sense that Roenick was anything more than a "good defensively for a scorer" guy

I never got that sense about Lemaire, either - not from watching him, and not from his record or how he is described by contemporaries. Lemaire got only a single token vote in the first Selke voting (1977-78, which was the end of his peak, and his best scoring season), and showed up in none of the Best-X intangibles polls that we have from the 1970's.

Lemaire's defensive reputation seems to have gotten inflated over the years. There is remarkably little substantiation for the claim that he was anything more than a guy who was "good defensively for a scorer". It's not like he played in the dark ages. If Jacques Lemaire was that good defensively, we should have some clear indication of it, but I don't see one.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

Comparing the CAHL/ECAHA to the NHL of the 30's is at least a relevant starting point and fair game for discussion. Though rather than this you chose the British Super League of the 80's/90's, and provided no evidence beyond your own musings that the BSL was of comparable quality to McGee's leagues.

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.

If it is obvious that Hand doesn't belong in the discussion, why was he introduced? You readily admit Hand chose to play in a weaker league, while in McGee's case you make no such assertion; rather, McGee is, in a vague manner, criticized for "the state of hockey". The idea that McGee's impressive play in the highest regarded league that existed in Canada in the early 1900's, which produced several Hall of Famers, is comparable to Hand's impressive play in a league not known to produce any players of any historical note whatsoever is again surmised without any reasoning besides what year AD the calendar displayed.

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.

McGee was one of the top goal scorers in the game for four seasons, identical to Stamkos. Both players were considered amongst the very best in the game, with perhaps one or two others seen as superior. Russell Bowie and Hod Stuart, Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin.

Stamkos' yearly placements in the goal scoring race are 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd. McGee's are 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 5th. McGee's 1st came in the FAHL in the year the Senators split from the CAHL, so it quite possibly would have only been a 2nd (to Bowie) in a consolidated league. The 5th is in a half season after Ottawa withdrew, and projects to 2nd (again to Bowie) had McGee been allowed to complete the schedule. Edge goes to Stamkos in raw finishes. Assists were not recorded in McGee's era. Stamkos is not a prolific playmaker. Difficult to determine who would have the advantage without further study.

Playoffs, McGee was his team's most prolific scorer in a Stanley Cup victory over Russell Bowie's Victorias in 1903. Ottawa accepted a challenge from Rat Portage afterwards, and McGee was again a significant factor in Ottawa's victory over a team with three future HOFers. Ottawa defended the Cup the next December against Winnipeg, McGee scoring a goal in a 2-0 victory described as "the most brilliant game ever played in Ottawa".

Ottawa fell behind in a 1905 Cup series against Rat Portage, losing the opener 9-3 with McGee out injured. He returned for the next two games, helping the Silver Seven comeback to win the series with a hat trick in the decisive 5-4 victory in the third game.

Ottawa hammered several over-matched challengers as well during this era. McGee's scoring exploits against Dawson City among others are notable, but contribute little to his playoff legacy as it would pertain to this project.

Stamkos performed well in his lone NHL playoff campaign, 13 points in 18 games. Noteworthy that he was knocked out of Tampa Bay's Game 7 against Boston due to a puck to the face, but returned to the ice as soon as he could be sewn back together. Nonetheless, playoff accomplishments are decidedly in McGee's favour for the moment.

As you can see, these two players are extremely close in a direct comparison, preference for one over the other likely resting on whether one feels McGee's Stanley Cup exploits overcome Stamkos' regular season proficiency. People may choose to dismiss McGee's case on the basis of his year of birth if they wish, but it is difficult to do so without dismissing his entire era as a whole, which would seemingly go against the project guidelines.

 

[sr edler]

It's possible Lemaire's long time as a strong defensive minded coach makes people think he must have been a strong defensive minded player.

 

[VMBM]

On the surface, Novy's highs internationally look more impressive than Hlinka's.

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

Hlinka played for the national team for about 10-11 years (11 WCs) and Novy about 8 years (7 WCs), and that means more games & more tournaments & more points. That is the main issue for me. Novy's highs IMO aren't high enough to make up for that.

All we know is that Novy was the best Czechoslovak player in one tournament (1976 CC), but that's it; (going by the points and/or all-star nods), he was also arguably one of the best in the 1976 WC, 1977 WC and 1980 Olympics (but the latter on a team that finished 5th & was missing e.g. Martinec and Hlinka). After those, there does not seem to be a whole lot.

Hlinka was the best CSSR player in the 1978 WC (top scorer on his team & all-star). He was at least one of the best also in the 1974 WC, 1976 WC, 1977 WC and 1979 WC. I just think he had more good tournaments than Novy. So, at his best, Novy might have been better, but Hlinka clearly beats him in longevity & consistency.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Don't recall agreeing on a methodology (or even being presented with one).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I never got that sense about Lemaire, either - not from watching him, and not from his record or how he is described by contemporaries. Lemaire got only a single token vote in the first Selke voting (1977-78, which was the end of his peak, and his best scoring season), and showed up in none of the Best-X intangibles polls that we have from the 1970's.

Lemaire's defensive reputation seems to have gotten inflated over the years. There is remarkably little substantiation for the claim that he was anything more than a guy who was "good defensively for a scorer". It's not like he played in the dark ages. If Jacques Lemaire was that good defensively, we should have some clear indication of it, but I don't see one.

There are 3 centers that have a higher career plus/minus than Lemaire; Gretzky, Clarke and Trottier. Not close to the offensive players those guys were, he must have been either good defensively or extremely lucky. Sure, he played 12 years and the Canadiens won the Cup 8 times. But Lemaire was a big part of that. Just by being coached in Montreal you would think he would be better defensively than a Roenick.

That said, from what I recall Lemaire was an excellent two-way player who was even better in the playoffs. Bruins fans who remember that era will agree with Montreal fans about the impact Lemaire made on those great Canadiens teams.

 

[Sturminator]

There are 3 centers that have a higher career plus/minus than Lemaire; Gretzky, Clarke and Trottier.

I'm not sure how much this helps your point. All three played on dynasties, as did Lemaire. Gretzky over the post-Edmonton years is actually a -33.

+/- is a team stat.

Not close to the offensive players those guys were, he must have been either good defensively or extremely lucky.

He's 44 points in career +/- behind his own teammate, Steve Shutt, who was nothing special defensively. Yes, Lemaire was lucky enough to spend basically his whole career playing on one of the greatest dynasties in hockey history, and that is the reason for his career +/- numbers. It's also the reason Dallas Smith has a higher career +/- than Chris Chelios.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Lemaire - Defensively

I never got that sense about Lemaire, either - not from watching him, and not from his record or how he is described by contemporaries. Lemaire got only a single token vote in the first Selke voting (1977-78, which was the end of his peak, and his best scoring season), and showed up in none of the Best-X intangibles polls that we have from the 1970's.

Lemaire's defensive reputation seems to have gotten inflated over the years. There is remarkably little substantiation for the claim that he was anything more than a guy who was "good defensively for a scorer". It's not like he played in the dark ages. If Jacques Lemaire was that good defensively, we should have some clear indication of it, but I don't see one.

Clear indication would be reflected in the extent and importance of the playing time Jacques Lemaire received.

Rookie season playing for Toe Blake, Jacques Lemaire scored two overtime goals in the playoffs. Blake almost never played rookies in tight game situations or overtime because they had not developed the necessary team defense awareness. Yet in both instances Lemaire was on the ice early before the five and ten minute marks. At the time the Canadiens had Beliveau, H. Richard and Backstrom as the other choices at center. See the 1968 playoffs HSP.

Playing for Scotty Bowman, a center would not get the playing time to score 90 plus points three times if he was not very responsible defensively. Combined Yzerman and Fedorov produced only 2 such seasons after the Bowman approach to hockey was accepted by the Red Wings.Both topped 90 during the 1995-96 season, never afterwards.

Furthermore Bob Gainey and Jacques Lemaire were the only forwards extra shifted for defensive purposes.

The information is there in the stats and the game summaries.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not sure how much this helps your point. All three played on dynasties, as did Lemaire. Gretzky over the post-Edmonton years is actually a -33.

+/- is a team stat.

True.

But Gretzky is a completely different animal. So good offensively and barely played defensive.

Clarke did not play on a dynasty, but is regarded as perhaps the best defensive center ever.

The 3 guys with better +/- are all-time greats. Not trying to compare him to them, simply trying to make a case for Lemaire being a better player than Roenick. Not even sure Roenick was clearly a better offensive player than Lemaire.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not sure how much this helps your point. All three played on dynasties, as did Lemaire. Gretzky over the post-Edmonton years is actually a -33.

+/- is a team stat.



He's 44 points in career +/- behind his own teammate, Steve Shutt, who was nothing special defensively. Yes, Lemaire was lucky enough to spend basically his whole career playing on one of the greatest dynasties in hockey history, and that is the reason for his career +/- numbers. It's also the reason Dallas Smith has a higher career +/- than Chris Chelios.

Dallas Smith had a higher +/- because of his defensive partner, not because of the team he played on.

And Steve Shutt, being a winger, did not have the defensive responsibility Lemaire had at center.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Watching Jacques Lemaire

I'm not sure how much this helps your point. All three played on dynasties, as did Lemaire. Gretzky over the post-Edmonton years is actually a -33.

+/- is a team stat.



He's 44 points in career +/- behind his own teammate, Steve Shutt, who was nothing special defensively. Yes, Lemaire was lucky enough to spend basically his whole career playing on one of the greatest dynasties in hockey history, and that is the reason for his career +/- numbers. It's also the reason Dallas Smith has a higher career +/- than Chris Chelios.

Up thread you claim to have watched Jacques Lemaire. So starting with the 1975-76 season you should have seen him play with Steve Shutt a LW who at times would be replaced by Bob Gainey for defensive purposes. Also you should have seen Jacques Lemaire receive extra shifts with the likes of Murray Wilson and other depth players when Bowman wanted to alter the pace or rhythm of the game or force post shift match-ups.

You also should have noticed that the Lemaire line, especially pre 1975-76 was the line of choice when the Canadiens iced one of the Big 3 with the 4th or 5th dman.

Comparing +/- requires team considerations. True enough but within such team considerations you have to respect position consideration or C to C, LW to LW as this represents common responsibilities and common opponents.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rules

Primeau scored 0-1-1 in 8 games over 2 years, and was demoted 3 different times. If you want to believe that he was an NHL quality player at that time, well...



Of course it's a negative! How could it be anything BUT a negative that he couldn't make the NHL roster!?



They DID play him with secondary wingers, and he struggled. I'm not sure why that point isn't sticking.

As far as his motivations for retiring, that's simply irrelevant -- we're here to rank hockey players, not businessmen.

You seem to be overlooking the tryout,emergency call-up, retention rules in an effort to get circumstances to fit a pre-established conclusion. The number of games a minor or semi-pro player could play in the NHL under such circumstances varied over time thru the the O6 era. An emergency call-up at various times could not be kept with the NHL after the emergency passed. Best example - Jacques Plante initially with the Canadiens.

Best example would be Jean Beliveau. He had 2 and 3 game tryouts with the Canadiens, as the rules permitted, before making the team. This does not mean he was not good enough, or that his inability to play beyond the limit of games forced trades or other negatives that you may conjure. There were also call-up/try-out rules from junior, amateur, that allowed a very limited number of games. Usually 3, 5, 10. Such rules are still around in the minors - ECHL, AHL.

Your conclusion is rather interesting. Effectively a player receiving a try-out or call-up according to the rules gets penalized but a player who does not get an NHL camp invite, or gets cut in training camp or does not get called-up under the rules has a virgin sheet.

Example Marty Barry. Montreal High School and semi-pro star. Ignored by the Maroons and the Canadiens plus the Senators up the road gets a try-out from the weak Americans. So not getting a training camp invite is not a negative. Yet it is a pre requisite for making the team is it not?

Primeau struggled with secondary wingers. Interesting claim that is not supported by evidence. Primeau did not score as much as he did with the Kid Line but did the Leafs secondary scoring improve overall. You completely ignore this question. As evidenced by the Leafs 1935-36 scoring including the playoff, the secondary scoring was solid:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1936.html

So another of your claims disappears.

No we are not comparing businessmen or other activities. Recognizing why hockey players retire or continue playing is part and parcel of appreciating their career. Failing to do so may lead to conclusions that are lacking.

 

[MXD]

Conclusion from the first few pages -- Keats and Lemaire have very strong cases as the two best players available. That was my opinion going in, and I dare say its probably a conclusion at this point.

Anybody wants to comment on this ?

 

[MXD]

On Primeau - not making a club at 24 isn't relevant. It becomes relevant because it impacts on longevity. But a 5 year career is the same - whether its a 20 to 25 or a 27 to 32.

The only way I could see this point being relevant would be a 22 years old guy in 1945 who was at war from 19 yo up 22 yo.

Sorry for shady writing, I'm on cell phone.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Don't recall agreeing on a methodology (or even being presented with one).

i don't know that there's a charter, per se, but i was under the impression that it was understood that active players be judged on what they have done to date, to the exclusion of what they will or might do in the future.

but moot point, as hardy clarified that he was suggesting something different from this.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Neil Colville

MXD's enthusiasm for Neil Colville raised my interest. There is some merit considering the context of his career with the NY Rangers.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/colvine01.html

Neil Colville was part of the new wave of NHL centers entering the league in the second half of the 1930s. Syl Apps. Milt Schmidt, Bill Cowley, Clint Smith, who had played their key formative years after the liberalization of the forward pass in hockey.

Colville was in a unique position with the Rangers. Throughout his career the team would rotate upwards of six centers, usually at least four. Core group was Clint Smith, Phil Watson and Neil Colville with others like Frank Boucher, Butch Keeling and Alf Pike plus transients contributing. So TOI was thinner than on teams rotating fewer centers. Given that Neil Colville could play defense - key RHS, he would drop back at times to that position.

Offensively there was not much to choose between Colville, Smith and Watson, all three led the Rangers in scoring at least once, Smith and Colville leading twice. Neither established himself as the clear #1 although Watson seems to be the weakest of the three.

 

[Sturminator]

Up thread you claim to have watched Jacques Lemaire. So starting with the 1975-76 season you should have seen him play with Steve Shutt a LW who at times would be replaced by Bob Gainey for defensive purposes. Also you should have seen Jacques Lemaire receive extra shifts with the likes of Murray Wilson and other depth players when Bowman wanted to alter the pace or rhythm of the game or force post shift match-ups.

You also should have noticed that the Lemaire line, especially pre 1975-76 was the line of choice when the Canadiens iced one of the Big 3 with the 4th or 5th dman.

Comparing +/- requires team considerations. True enough but within such team considerations you have to respect position consideration or C to C, LW to LW as this represents common responsibilities and common opponents.

All true. I wasn't trying to suggest that Shutt was a better defensive player than Lemaire, which would be clearly false. The point, which should be clear enough, is that using career +/- as a means of judging defensive value is a very poor method. Shutt is, in fact, the all-time leader in career +/- among left wings by a wide margin. So what?