Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hawkey Town 18]

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.

Premier in what way? If you mean 1st on his team, fine. If you mean 1st in the NHL, then I do not agree at all.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

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.

This also coincides exactly with the beginning of the dead-puck era (i.e. a large drop in league scoring levels). Any raw stat comparisons during this time, like your 90 pt benchmark, don't really mean much without an adjustment for the difference in league scoring levels.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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 ?

What's the answer to the "Colville seems like a Lemaire-type player*, but with a better All-Star record" thing?

*By that, I mean two-way player, not elite offensively or defensively, but seemingly more than the sum of his parts

Premier in what way? If you mean 1st on his team, fine. If you mean 1st in the NHL, then I do not agree at all.

Yeah, I agree. Brind'amour was always a solid two-way player, but he wasn't an elite one, really until he got to Carolina after the 2005 lockout

 

[Canadiens1958]

Love It

This also coincides exactly with the beginning of the dead-puck era (i.e. a large drop in league scoring levels). Any raw stat comparisons during this time, like your 90 pt benchmark, don't really mean much without an adjustment for the difference in league scoring levels.

Let's do the actual calculations.

Jacques Lemaire's 90+ seasons(97,95,92) were recorded during seasons with 6.55, 6.85, 6.59 TG/G. Sergei Fedorov 107 pt 1995-96 was the result of a 6.29 TG/G season. So the difference in league scoring was app 4.5%. Adjusted for missed games and scoring to the 1995-96 season, Lemaire still maintains the 90+ point seasons.

DPE. Well after the 1995-96 season the TG/G dropped to 5.83 during 1996-97. Yet Fedorov's points dropped to 63. Well below the DPE impact. And it never came back, even adjusted, under Scotty Bowman.So ........

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bronco Horvath

What's the answer to the "Colville seems like a Lemaire-type player*, but with a better All-Star record" thing?

*By that, I mean two-way player, not elite offensively or defensively, but seemingly more than the sum of his parts



Yeah, I agree. Brind'amour was always a solid two-way player, but he wasn't an elite one, really until he got to Carolina after the 2005 lockout

Answer would be Bronco Horvath, Bernie Nicholls etc. ASTs or awards to a degree reflect a season or a short string of seasons. Balanced against team success, taking into account that after Jean Beliveau and retired, Lemaire set the offensive tone for the team and after Henri Richard retired, Lemaire also set the defensive tone for team.

Neil Colville unless more information surfaces was part of the center mix with the Rangers. Ahead of Watson perhaps slightly ahead of Clint Smith but other than first impression offense what sets him apart from his two teammates?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

is it fair to compare lemaire's role and achievements on the late 70s habs dynasty to larionov's role on the red army team, with larionov ahead acknowledging his '88 MVP?

and, furthermore, lemaire's accomplishments pre-bowman years to larionov in detroit, with lemaire's contributions coming out ahead in that comparison?

larionov obviously has the longevity argument, but in terms of importance to the team, it seems pretty close. both were key cogs, but behind a more important superstar winger, beast on d, and sometimes but not always HHOF goalie. value relative to a few other teammates is arguable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Answer would be Bronco Horvath, Bernie Nicholls etc. ASTs or awards to a degree reflect a season or a short string of seasons. Balanced against team success, taking into account that after Jean Beliveau and retired, Lemaire set the offensive tone for the team and after Henri Richard retired, Lemaire also set the defensive tone for team.

Neil Colville unless more information surfaces was part of the center mix with the Rangers. Ahead of Watson perhaps slightly ahead of Clint Smith but other than first impression offense what sets him apart from his two teammates?

Colville destroyed his teammates in All-Star voting. We don't have complete records for every season of the 40s, but we have enough to know that Watson and Smith were not considered close to the player that Colville was.

Neil Colville: 2nd (1939), 2nd (1940), 3rd (1938). As D = 4th (1948), 6th (1949)
Phil Watson: 2nd (1942), 6th (1944)*. Received a single vote at each of C and RW in 1940. Single vote at C in 1941
Clint Smith: 3rd (1944), 5th (1939)*

*Small number of votes

And remember that 1944 and 1945 were the two worse war years with many good players missing. Colville himself missed 1943, 1944, and 1945. Watson and Smith played right on through the war.

Colville was inducted into the HHOF in 1967 by people who saw him play, Smith was a Veteran's Committee pick, and Watson was never enshrined.

is it fair to compare lemaire's role and achievements on the late 70s habs dynasty to larionov's role on the red army team, with larionov ahead acknowledging his '88 MVP?

and, furthermore, lemaire's accomplishments pre-bowman years to larionov in detroit, with lemaire's contributions coming out ahead in that comparison?

larionov obviously has the longevity argument, but in terms of importance to the team, it seems pretty close. both were key cogs, but behind a more important superstar winger, beast on d, and sometimes but not always HHOF goalie. value relative to a few other teammates is arguable.

This is all reasonable. If there is a difference, it's that Larionov was the best Russian center of his generation, even if he was behind his wingers at the time. Where did Lemaire rank among NHL/Canadian centers of his era?

 

[MXD]

Answer would be Bronco Horvath, Bernie Nicholls etc. ASTs or awards to a degree reflect a season or a short string of seasons. Balanced against team success, taking into account that after Jean Beliveau and retired, Lemaire set the offensive tone for the team and after Henri Richard retired, Lemaire also set the defensive tone for team.

Neil Colville unless more information surfaces was part of the center mix with the Rangers. Ahead of Watson perhaps slightly ahead of Clint Smith but other than first impression offense what sets him apart from his two teammates?

I think Colville separates himself offensively from Watson due to teammates. Smith ? Well, postseason award, including the one he had on D, which is kind of strongly implies he could play defense.

TDDM - I will properly reply at home.

 

[seventieslord]

My take on zone starts stats : I wouldn't even bother with it.

Why would you say that?

Wouldn't it be obvious that a player who starts 100% of their shifts in the offensive zone would have a statistical advantage over a player who starts 0% of theirs there?

That's an extreme example to make the point, of course, but how could someone not agree?

LaFontaine seemed to hustle a lot more than Turgeon and looked more involved & less like a perimeter player.

I would agree.

I think it's safe to say that Turgeon could have scored more if he was less of a perimeter player, and Lafontaine would have scored less if he wasn't more involved. So, the extra credit he deserves (or the demerits that Turgeon deserves) are already reflected in their respective point totals.

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.

I was never bringing him into the comparison because post-1990 adjusted points are really only comparable to post-1990 adjusted points without further adjustments. Pre-expansion adjusted points? don't even get me (or TDMM) started.

The comparison was limited to those players because I understood the limitations of the statistics being used. Joe Primeau doesn't have anything to do with it.

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.

Not really, actually. If you think about the numbers being used and how extending the sample by x number of games simple "rolls in" one or two more seasons with the multiple seasons already counted, you see that it doesn't have a huge impact on the final result. (in other words, if you lead over 700 games you're still going to lead over 650 or 750 games) - there's no benefit to cherrypicking there. Cherrypicking could be done to benefit a longer career, more consistent player over a high peak, short career/flameout type player, or vice versa, by deliberately focusing on a short period or a long period, but I did both for just that reason.

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.

you could do that, but I don't think anyone would be interested in that as a statistic, or in the wok involved. Using fragments of seasons that are 50-80 consecutive games more than gets the point across (while doing what I stress - don't project, don't fantasize, it is what it is)

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.

no one's saying that's not true. it's more of a case of whether 80 points in 80 games is better than 80 points in 70 games. And it's not. In those 10 more games, the backfill from the rest of the lineup is still producing and contributing.

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.

That's not what actually happened though. Turgeon wasn't a particularly fragile player. In the period of time that actually matters for his legacy (1989-2001), his teams played 1028 games, and he played 932. I don't think I need to do a bunch of work to convince you that playing 91% of your team's games during your prime is pretty close to par for a star forward, do I?

The issue with how his injuries have affected his legacy is that 67 of those 98 games came in three seasons (which is, again, not that abnormal) that were three of his four best statistically, and if you're not willing to take a deeper look, then 181 games played at a 1.30 adjusted PPG level pretty much get thrown out the window.

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

how so?

Agree.



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



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.



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.



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



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.


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).



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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

tarheel's comments and yours are all quite fair. I would have little to add.

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)

I don't want to spend too much time on this point-by-point, but the Eric Lindros quote said a lot more about Muller than Turgeon, didn't it?

I've seen a good deal of Henrik too, and I really don't see an intangibles difference worth talking about. I mean, it's not like Turgeon didn't take abuse, right? The game plan was always to get to him physically, and I assume they succeeded in doing so regularly, and while that may have kept some points off the board, he still got a ****load of them anyway.

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?

I'd say the media considered them pretty even and used team standings as a tiebreaker, to be honest.

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.

I don't think anyone should have to explain Yzerman or Gilmour getting more votes than Turgeon. Lafontaine in 1990 was a very visually stimulating player, it doesn't surprise me at all, even if they did achieve about the same results.

what do you mean, "some points mean less than others"? I've heard this before but no one's ever really explained it.

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?

yes, obviously that makes a difference, and that's kinda the point.

a few games missed by Henrik in a certain season or two, a few more games played by Turgeon in a certain season or two, and they could be even at 1-1 or 0-0 in first team all-star nods, even though they'd really be no better or worse than they are currently, where the difference is 2-0. (yes, part of the problem is with the incredibly binary nature of counting all-star teams, for which just three votes are cast)

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?).

Using exactly 250 games, and not just the number of seasons that gets cloest to 250:

Turgeon 325 adjusted points
Lafontaine 332 adjusted points

so basically yeah, the "breaking point" is around 350 games. after that, Turgeon's the more sustained producer.

350 games is quite small, no?

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.

I brought this up before and no one had an answer.

you think that the 1992-93 season is skewed by adjusted points, but I don't think it is.

Are you sure about that? Just a quick look at the points versus adjusted points shows that in 1993, 20% of Turgeon’s point total was lopped off to arrive at his adjusted total. In 1983, when I look at Denis Savard, 19% of his total is lopped off to arrive at his adjusted total. And league scoring in 1983 was 7% higher than in 1993, so there has to be something else at work causing 1993 totals to be “punished” more harshly here.

Basically, if I understand TDMM correctly, he's saying that hr's adjusted points are a joke for 1993 because everyone is too high. But the season does seem to be treated every bit as harshly as 1983, when scoring was even higher. So what's going on here?

 

[MXD]

70ies, let me rephrase.

Zone stars can be relevant when comparing, say, Stamkos and Sedin.

But when comparing those players to, say, Jacques Lemaire... I don't know, but that would be dishonest.

It would be even worst when comparing those two players to a guy like Foyston, who was, correct me if i m wrong, a 60 minutes player.

This said, if we had that info on Foyston, heavy Ozone stats for Foyston would be a positive, because he was a 60 mins player. And a faceoffs in the O zone would have occurred because he and his linemates drove the play up to the O zone, or would have been able to keep it there.

 

[seventieslord]

70ies, let me rephrase.

Zone stars can be relevant when comparing, say, Stamkos and Sedin.

But when comparing those players to, say, Jacques Lemaire... I don't know, but that would be dishonest.

I think when you're comparing a Sedin to a modern day, pre-2008 player, it's fair to say "i don't know what their zone starts were like, but it's very unlikely they led the league in the stat twice by obscene margins".

It would be even worst when comparing those two players to a guy like Foyston, who was, correct me if i m wrong, a 60 minutes player.

This said, if we had that info on Foyston, heavy Ozone stats for Foyston would be a positive, because he was a 60 mins player. And a faceoffs in the O zone would have occurred because he and his linemates drove the play up to the O zone, or would have been able to keep it there.

well yes. of course, that is a completely different thing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Easily Replaced Numbers

^^^ Catchall expression to described offensive contribution. All players are may be replaced and eventually they are.

Examples.

Phil Esposito. Traded a few times. Boston replaced his offense with Jean Ratelle and going to a four center rotation.

1992-93 Canadiens. Forward depth, especially center, bit thin at LW. Coach the circumstances to advantage and you can get the offensive numbers at center from Paul Di Pietro and Stephan Lebeau while Vincent Damphousse and Kirk Muller get LW time.

Similarly with Pierre Turgeon. Traded a number of times for players with "intangibles" - Kirk Muller, Shayne Corson because the numbers Turgeon brought could be replaced either from within or with incoming players or a combination.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Zone Starts

Zone starts. Can we avoid taking this path.

Over the course of hockey history faceoff procedures and rules have changed drastically to the point that cross era comparisons are meaningless.

Latest considerations - defensive zone faceoff after a penalty. No defensive changes after an icing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Top 60

Colville destroyed his teammates in All-Star voting. We don't have complete records for every season of the 40s, but we have enough to know that Watson and Smith were not considered close to the player that Colville was.

Neil Colville: 2nd (1939), 2nd (1940), 3rd (1938). As D = 4th (1948), 6th (1949)
Phil Watson: 2nd (1942), 6th (1944)*. Received a single vote at each of C and RW in 1940. Single vote at C in 1941
Clint Smith: 3rd (1944), 5th (1939)*

*Small number of votes

And remember that 1944 and 1945 were the two worse war years with many good players missing. Colville himself missed 1943, 1944, and 1945. Watson and Smith played right on through the war.

Colville was inducted into the HHOF in 1967 by people who saw him play, Smith was a Veteran's Committee pick, and Watson was never enshrined.



This is all reasonable. If there is a difference, it's that Larionov was the best Russian center of his generation, even if he was behind his wingers at the time. Where did Lemaire rank among NHL/Canadian centers of his era?

Well, all you have shown is why Smith and Watson are not in the running for the Top 60 while Neil Colville is.

Larionov was the most appropriate center for Krutov and Makarov.

Your question about Jacques Lemaire is misdirected. Wrong focus.

Jacques Lemaire was the last of the sponsorship centers that the Canadiens developed. From his first days in the MMJHL before playing for the Junior Canadiens he was groomed to be the lead Canadiens center executing demanding offensive and defensive roles. He did this very well - lead the team in scoring over the twelve year stretch of his career and fulfilled all the required defensive responsibilities. Jacques Lemaire became the anchor center.

From the contemporary centers that he faced which ones could have played for the Canadiens. Ratelle,Clarke, Perreault, Trottier, Keon and Mikita. Esposito could not skate well enough or handle the defense. Sittler and others would have been moved to the wing, as Sittler was in the 1976 CC.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You seem to be overlooking the tryout,emergency call-up, retention rules in an effort to get circumstances to fit a pre-established conclusion.

If this angle has real substance, you can undoubtedly present links to the 1928/29 tryout rules and evidence that Primeau's 1-point-in-8-games performance was really good enough to make the Leafs.

Otherwise it's simply speculative. What we know for a fact is that Primeau had been passed over by the Rangers, given three chances to make the Leafs, and produced at a below-replacement level during his tryouts.

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.

This is the second time in a row you've tried to strawman me with a Marty Barry parallel. Where is this coming from? The only input I've had in regard to Barry was a bit of research on whether he played LW or C. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

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.

His scoring rate dropped by 54% but he didn't struggle... Ok.

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.

He quit hockey voluntarily. I'm sorry that he hurt his legacy in that way (sincerely), but that was his call to make. He never proved that he could produce at a high level outside of supporting Hall of Fame linemates, and that's a pretty large strike against a guy who only had 5.5 relevant seasons to begin with.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lemaire vs Larionov

is it fair to compare lemaire's role and achievements on the late 70s habs dynasty to larionov's role on the red army team, with larionov ahead acknowledging his '88 MVP?

and, furthermore, lemaire's accomplishments pre-bowman years to larionov in detroit, with lemaire's contributions coming out ahead in that comparison?

larionov obviously has the longevity argument, but in terms of importance to the team, it seems pretty close. both were key cogs, but behind a more important superstar winger, beast on d, and sometimes but not always HHOF goalie. value relative to a few other teammates is arguable.

No. Larionov pre NHL played as part of a five man unit. Within the five man unit his role was clearly defined.Lemaire was required to have the flexibility to play with distinct and varied wingers while having the diversity to play LW if needed during the Bowman years with Montreal.

Larionov with Detroit was basically and end of career glue player with a better situation than various great NHL centers who played beyond the age of 35. Elder statesman qualities.

Jacques Lemaire pre Bowman was in the Canadiens apprenticeship program MMJHL/OHA/CHL then NHL where he over a four season stretch was given the various center responsibilities, offensive and defensive as appropriate and available. Learned the teammates and systems plus another position LW.

No comparison with an elder statsman role.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Premier in what way? If you mean 1st on his team, fine. If you mean 1st in the NHL, then I do not agree at all.

Not premier as in literally #1 in the NHL, but among the best.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rules etc.

If this angle has real substance, you can undoubtedly present links to the 1928/29 tryout rules and evidence that Primeau's 1-point-in-8-games performance was really good enough to make the Leafs.

Otherwise it's simply speculative. What we know for a fact is that Primeau had been passed over by the Rangers, given three chances to make the Leafs, and produced at a below-replacement level during his tryouts.



This is the second time in a row you've tried to strawman me with a Marty Barry parallel. Where is this coming from? The only input I've had in regard to Barry was a bit of research on whether he played LW or C. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?



His scoring rate dropped by 54% but he didn't struggle... Ok.



He quit hockey voluntarily. I'm sorry that he hurt his legacy in that way (sincerely), but that was his call to make. He never proved that he could produce at a high level outside of supporting Hall of Fame linemates, and that's a pretty large strike against a guy who only had 5.5 relevant seasons to begin with.

Let's settle the basics here. You view Primeau as being passed over by the Rangers as a negative. But introducing a contemporary comparable - Marty Barry who was passed over by his home town teams Canadiens and Maroons plus the nearby Senators is a strawman. Identical situations with the difference that three teams passed on Barry while only one did on Primeau. Plus Conn Smythe who was with the Rangers at the time had the foresight to obtain the rights to Joe Primeau once involved with the Leafs.

1935-36 Joe Primeau's alleged inability to play with secondary players.
1935-36Leafs scored 31 fewer goals than they did in the 1934-35 season. Main reason was that Conacher -13 and Jackson - 11 scored less. Conversely the top four secondary forwards from the previous season contributed 63 goals whereas the previous season they had contributed 47. Primeau's numbers are secondary to the generated team benefit. Both teams lost in the SC Final, even though in 1936 Primeau was third on the team in playoff scoring. So Primeau did benefit the secondary scoring.

Rule changes as they pertain to rosters. Outline follows:

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html

Key element here is the increase of game day rosters from the 8-12 skaters during the 1928-29 season to 15 for the 1929-30 season Will find the other rules if they were published by the NHL. Other than the obvious the NHL was close to the vest with their procedural rules.

Retired voluntarily. Proposing a distinction between forced or injury retirement. As if Primeau's three seasons where he lead the NHL in assists would carry more weight if he did not retire voluntarily but had to retire due to injury or other reasons?

Not buying.

 

[Killion]

^^^ Primeau was on Smythes Radar quite some time before he took on the Rangers job, having seen him play & gotten to know him a bit in & around Toronto. Primeau was a soft spoken & deferential individual, Just the kind of Amateur Gentleman Athlete Smythe loved, clearly offensively talented but like Gretzky on the light & frail side, odd skating style having started late in life (12 or 13). Smythe wanted to sign him in New York but no, the management there wasnt having any of that as Primeau they felt simply wasnt big enough nor tough enough.

1927/28 he went on to lead the CPHL in Goals with the Toronto Ravinas, followed by a season with the London Nationals also of the CPHL. Finally signed by Toronto in 1929 & playing for the Leafs, the Forward Pass had been introduced and it was that Rule Change that changed the game for Joe Primeau who was able to take full advantage of his skill sets. By accident, thrown together with Busher Jackson & Charlie Conacher when injuries felled Leaf stalwarts with whom Smythe had initially planned to have Primeau Centering............

off the ice, Primeau had begun Coaching Junior & Amateur in Toronto & he'd formed a company making concrete blocks out near Smythes Sand & Gravel operations in Etobicoke called Primeau Block, and business was brisk (soon growing to 5 plants across Canada). In 1934 he injured his thumb early in the season & missed 11 games, never gaining full form, and by 1935/36 combined with the slow recovery through 34/35, his ever expanding business responsibilities, new found & very serious interest in Coaching, the 35/36 campaign not exactly stellar clearly time to retire as a player.... Coached the Jr. & Sr. Marlies, Upper Canada College's school team, Toronto Hurricanes RCAF during the war, eventually the Leafs, winning the Trifecta of the Memorial Cup, the Allan Cup & the Stanley Cup in that role.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Let's settle the basics here. You view Primeau as being passed over by the Rangers as a negative. But introducing a contemporary comparable - Marty Barry who was passed over by his home town teams Canadiens and Maroons plus the nearby Senators is a strawman. Identical situations with the difference that three teams passed on Barry while only one did on Primeau.

Absolutely it's a strawman. Has anyone said that Barry being passed over repeatedly is a positive, or even a neutral factor? Of course his legacy would have been stronger if he had played 2 or 3 more productive years in the league -- and the same applies to Primeau. Nobody has said otherwise, so I'm not sure why it's being insinuated that Primeau has been treated unfairly on that point.

The bottom line is that the guy was repeatedly judged as incapable of holding down an NHL roster spot prior to age 24, and his non-production in tryouts eliminates any speculative angle that he was really an NHL'er in disguise.

1935-36 Joe Primeau's alleged inability to play with secondary players.
1935-36Leafs scored 31 fewer goals than they did in the 1934-35 season. Main reason was that Conacher -13 and Jackson - 11 scored less. Conversely the top four secondary forwards from the previous season contributed 63 goals whereas the previous season they had contributed 47. Primeau's numbers are secondary to the generated team benefit. Both teams lost in the SC Final, even though in 1936 Primeau was third on the team in playoff scoring. So Primeau did benefit the secondary scoring.

I agree, Primeau was a solid second-liner that season.

That gives him 5.5 seasons as a first-liner, one season as a second-liner. Who else in this round is in that range of longevity?

Retired voluntarily. Proposing a distinction between forced or injury retirement. As if Primeau's three seasons where he lead the NHL in assists would carry more weight if he did not retire voluntarily but had to retire due to injury or other reasons?

Not buying.

No, his walking away from the game doesn't devalue the time that he played. It simply takes away any excuse for his lack of staying power in the league. I respect his personal choice to quit the game, but that sort of decision comes at a cost to a man's professional legacy.

- Didn't make the league until 24
- Didn't show any sign of stardom until paired with Conacher and Jackson
- Thrived and played very well for 5.5 years with Conacher and Jackson
- Stopped producing while other centers thrived with Conacher
- Sent to the second line and produced less than 0.5 PPG
- Walked away from the game at 30

^ I mean, full marks to him for those few years of stardom. He was in a perfect situation for his skill set and took advantage of it. But there's virtually nothing outside of that, and in fact the short time that he did play away from the Kid Line was so unremarkable that it gives the lie to any notion that he could have been driving the bus on that line. OK, so he was a good prospect in the minors and a solid second liner for part of one season. What else is there to say about him in terms of all-time relevance?

 

[Canadiens1958]

False Positive

Absolutely it's a strawman. Has anyone said that Barry being passed over repeatedly is a positive, or even a neutral factor? Of course his legacy would have been stronger if he had played 2 or 3 more productive years in the league -- and the same applies to Primeau. Nobody has said otherwise, so I'm not sure why it's being insinuated that Primeau has been treated unfairly on that point.

The bottom line is that the guy was repeatedly judged as incapable of holding down an NHL roster spot prior to age 24, and his non-production in tryouts eliminates any speculative angle that he was really an NHL'er in disguise.



I agree, Primeau was a solid second-liner that season.

That gives him 5.5 seasons as a first-liner, one season as a second-liner. Who else in this round is in that range of longevity?




No, his walking away from the game doesn't devalue the time that he played. It simply takes away any excuse for his lack of staying power in the league. I respect his personal choice to quit the game, but that sort of decision comes at a cost to a man's professional legacy.

- Didn't make the league until 24
- Didn't show any sign of stardom until paired with Conacher and Jackson
- Thrived and played very well for 5.5 years with Conacher and Jackson
- Stopped producing while other centers thrived with Conacher
- Sent to the second line and produced less than 0.5 PPG
- Walked away from the game at 30

^ I mean, full marks to him for those few years of stardom. He was in a perfect situation for his skill set and took advantage of it. But there's virtually nothing outside of that, and in fact the short time that he did play away from the Kid Line was so unremarkable that it gives the lie to any notion that he could have been driving the bus on that line. OK, so he was a good prospect in the minors and a solid second liner for part of one season. What else is there to say about him in terms of all-time relevance?

You are introducing a very unrealistic false positive. 1974 when the NHL introduced the 18 year old Entry Draft, a number of such picks - Hampton, Joly, Larouche at the forefront washed out because they were rushed to the NHL before they were ready physically or mentally.

Other examples in between the twenties and seventies are plentiful, George Robertson with the Canadiens, Pat Stapleton with the Bruins although he did manage to salvage a solid career as did Eric Nesterenko, post Toronto. Just a few. So early entry is not necessarily a positive, falsely projected as you have does not work other than create inaccurate impressions. All we know is that Primeau and Barry had HHOF careers entering the NHL when they did. Primeau at the age of 23 was more than appropriate. Also the following debunks some of your claims - see the part about the Cotton,Primeau,Conacher line:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/24-7/greatest-maple-leafs-no-23-joe-primeau/

Didn't show any signs of stardom until paired with Conacher and Jackson. To reach the NHL even for a try-out means that a player shows star qualities on the way. Extremely rare that a player dominates the NHL of any era immediately playing with any and all. So why is this measure introduced for Joe Primeau and no other center considered in this project?



Other centers thrived with Conacher and Jackson. Perhaps but Conacher and Jackson suffered collectively -24 goals which Bill Thoms' increase did not come close to covering. So it was a net loss yet the secondary scorers with Joe Primeau improved collectively by 16 goals as posted previously.

As for voluntarily retiring. NHL players were affected by the introduction of a salary cap for the start of the 1932-33 season:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1573789

The few with better alternatives chose them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You are introducing a very unrealistic false positive. 1974 when the NHL introduced the 18 year old Entry Draft, a number of such picks - Hampton, Joly, Larouche at the forefront washed out because they were rushed to the NHL before they were ready physically or mentally.

Other examples in between the twenties and seventies are plentiful, George Robertson with the Canadiens, Pat Stapleton with the Bruins although he did manage to salvage a solid career as did Eric Nesterenko, post Toronto. Just a few. So early entry is not necessarily a positive, falsely projected as you have does not work other than create inaccurate impressions. All we know is that Primeau and Barry had HHOF careers entering the NHL when they did. Primeau at the age of 23 was more than appropriate.

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

The big issue with Primeau is that his all-time-relevant performance was 100% correlated to playing on a specific line. Outside of playing on that line, he did nothing that would earn him points in a discussion of the top-60 centers. Literally nothing, at all, full stop.

So while you're right that late entry is irrelevant in a vacuum, the entire point of bringing it up is to illustrate that Primeau was not on track for a noteworthy career until he landed on a line with Conacher. All indications, both before and after his Kid Line phase, were that he was a second-liner with the upside to be a serviceable first liner. Nothing in the way that the Rangers or Leafs handled him suggested otherwise.

Also the following debunks some of your claims - see the part about the Cotton,Primeau,Conacher line:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/24-7/greatest-maple-leafs-no-23-joe-primeau/

What's that supposed to debunk? Read the summary I already linked -- Cotton-Primeau-Conacher was not a regular line for the Leafs, they were shifting forwards all over the place trying to find something that worked. Primeau didn't even beat out Andy Blair for the full-time 1st line center spot until he hit it off with Conacher and Jackson.

Didn't show any signs of stardom until paired with Conacher and Jackson. To reach the NHL even for a try-out means that a player shows star qualities on the way.

Primeau didn't show any signs of stardom at the NHL level except when paired with Conacher and Jackson. What he did in his junior career is irrelevant to top-60 candidacy.

Extremely rare that a player dominates the NHL of any era immediately playing with any and all. So why is this measure introduced for Joe Primeau and no other center considered in this project?

The ability to thrive under a variety of circumstances, and to adjust to various environments most definitely has been brought up throughout this project -- and you are usually the one to mention it!

Primeau is the ultimate case of a player that needed to be in a perfect storm of conditions in order to even have a case for this list. It's extremely puzzling to see you defending a player whose success is so obviously linked to specific rule changes and linemates.

Other centers thrived with Conacher and Jackson. Perhaps but Conacher and Jackson suffered collectively -24 goals which Bill Thoms' increase did not come close to covering. So it was a net loss yet the secondary scorers with Joe Primeau improved collectively by 16 goals as posted previously.

Noteworthy that Primeau started that season with Conacher and Jackson, and their production got better when he was replaced with Thoms.

Anyway, I'm not saying Primeau was a replacement level player. Obviously he was going to make a second line better than they were without him. Is that the quality of play we should be looking for in 1/6th of the career of a top-60 center?

As for voluntarily retiring. NHL players were affected by the introduction of a salary cap for the start of the 1932-33 season:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1573789

The few with better alternatives chose them.

That's too bad, but it doesn't make any difference in terms of what Primeau did on NHL ice.

 

[Sturminator]

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.

Excellent point; +/- is infected by all kinds of noise, not only team situation. When used to judge individual performance, it is a silly stat, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. There are arguments to be made for Jacques Lemaire, but let's please not waste any more time with this one.

 

[Canadiens1958]

False Reads

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

The big issue with Primeau is that his all-time-relevant performance was 100% correlated to playing on a specific line. Outside of playing on that line, he did nothing that would earn him points in a discussion of the top-60 centers. Literally nothing, at all, full stop.

So while you're right that late entry is irrelevant in a vacuum, the entire point of bringing it up is to illustrate that Primeau was not on track for a noteworthy career until he landed on a line with Conacher. All indications, both before and after his Kid Line phase, were that he was a second-liner with the upside to be a serviceable first liner. Nothing in the way that the Rangers or Leafs handled him suggested otherwise.




What's that supposed to debunk? Read the summary I already linked -- Cotton-Primeau-Conacher was not a regular line for the Leafs, they were shifting forwards all over the place trying to find something that worked. Primeau didn't even beat out Andy Blair for the full-time 1st line center spot until he hit it off with Conacher and Jackson.



Primeau didn't show any signs of stardom at the NHL level except when paired with Conacher and Jackson. What he did in his junior career is irrelevant to top-60 candidacy.



The ability to thrive under a variety of circumstances, and to adjust to various environments most definitely has been brought up throughout this project -- and you are usually the one to mention it!

Primeau is the ultimate case of a player that needed to be in a perfect storm of conditions in order to even have a case for this list. It's extremely puzzling to see you defending a player whose success is so obviously linked to specific rule changes and linemates.





Noteworthy that Primeau started that season with Conacher and Jackson, and their production got better when he was replaced with Thoms.

Anyway, I'm not saying Primeau was a replacement level player. Obviously he was going to make a second line better than they were without him. Is that the quality of play we should be looking for in 1/6th of the career of a top-60 center?



That's too bad, but it doesn't make any difference in terms of what Primeau did on NHL ice.

More of your false reads and false conclusions, sadly directed a a great hockey - Joe Primeau who was a gentleman on and off the ice.

Did you bother to even check the following. Frank Boucher two seasons after the Cook brothers voluntarily retired - Bill, a shadow of himself hanging on for 21 games? Well below .5PPG or 21 points in 62 games, or 1A in 18 games of a partial season. Elmer Lach without Maurice Richard <.5PPG. Howie Morenz without Aurele Joliat, ~.6PPG in Chicago and NY. Just a small sampling of of pairings or lines that had a long reciprocal synergy amongst component parts.

Your 10 game tryout metric. You do realize that over a career it is possible to cull a combinations of games totaling 10 where a player is below par. Yet if the games are front loaded you reach one conclusion that suits your notion of a specific player.

Phil Esposito, initial NHL effort was 27 GP, 3G - 2A = 5PTS, adjusted for era a wash with Primeau's < 10 game trial phase. Yet Primeau's first 27 games were better. Yes there are many great players who generated similar initial numbers. Just like there are players who had incredible starts and faded away.

Joe Primeau was a great player. Definitely Top 60.

 

[Sturminator]

Did you bother to even check the following. Frank Boucher two seasons after the Cook brothers voluntarily retired - Bill, a shadow of himself hanging on for 21 games? ... Howie Morenz without Aurele Joliat, ~.6PPG in Chicago and NY. Just a small sampling of of pairings or lines that had a long reciprocal synergy amongst component parts.

Boucher and Morenz were both in their thirties when separated from their longtime wingers, in an era where that was already pretty old. In Morenz's case, he was coming off an injured and unspectacular final season in Montreal, and in his first season in Chicago scored at about the same rate he had in his final healthy season in Montreal (1932-33).

I'm not sure how much these examples tell us. Wasn't Lach also pretty much physically worn out by the time the Punch Line was finally broken up?