Tony Amonte vs. Owen Nolan

[Stringer Bell]

Last comparison thread I have.

But overall, who had the better career? Probably Nolan. But in the early 2000's, who would you rather have?

 

[1989]

Last comparison thread I have.

But overall, who had the better career? Probably Nolan. But in the early 2000's, who would you rather have?

Keyword is early 2000's as both Owen and Amonte's point production starts declining in around 2002?

 

[Zil]

Tony Amonte:
900 points in 1174 games
Scored 30+ goals eight times including six straight from 95-96 to 00-01
Scored 40+ goals three times

Owen Nolan:
885 points in 1200 games
Scored 30+ goals five times
Scored 40+ goals two times

They tied for sixth in the league in scoring in 99-00 with 84 points each, which appears to be the only time either guy finished in the top 10.

I'd give a slight edge to Amonte overall for their careers. You need to define what counts as early 2000s. If we're just talking about from 2000-01 forward, then Nolan gets the advantage because he had six reasonably productive seasons, whereas Amonte only managed four. But if you mean strictly pre-lockout, then Amonte goes ahead.

 

[roboninja]

I'd take Nolan. The numbers are fairly similar (if leaning towards Amonte a bit), but I liked Nolan's game more.

 

[pld459666]

I look at the totals that Nolan has in comparison to Amonte and think it's a little more impressive.

I think that Nolan spending 1793 minutes in the box, over a 1000 more minutes than Tony while still posting just 15 less points sort of lends itself to the more productive player.

I would prefer Nolan over Amonte.

That said, I wish the Rangers had never traded Amonte when they did. I thought it was a mistake then and believe to this day it was a mistake (regardless of the end result) Amonte scoring 35-40+ for the Rangers over the next 6-7 years would have been sweet.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

The numbers are similar but I feel like Amonte was a bit more of a gamebreaker, a bit more capable of making something out of nothing.

Nolan was more physical but that led to injuries and, at his peak, Amonte's speed was also intimidating.

 

[1989]

The numbers are similar but I feel like Amonte was a bit more of a gamebreaker, a bit more capable of making something out of nothing.

Nolan was more physical but that led to injuries and, at his peak, Amonte's speed was also intimidating.

Nolan wasn't exactly slow though, and coupled with his bruising build he could really lay down the hurt both physically and on the scoreboard. I feel like it's very very close but for me Nolan wins out by a hair just due to his physical presence. The stats and eye-test are too similar for both players but the style of play is what sets them apart - physicality is usually not a bad thing.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Nolan wasn't exactly slow though, and coupled with his bruising build he could really lay down the hurt both physically and on the scoreboard. I feel like it's very very close but for me Nolan wins out by a hair just due to his physical presence. The stats and eye-test are too similar for both players but the style of play is what sets them apart - physicality is usually not a bad thing.

I'm a big proponent of physicality, usually. But I always found Amonte a really scary player in the offensive zone, more than his stats would justify, perhaps its a case of 'seen him good' but its really such a close comparison, I'm comfortable using that tiebreaker.

 

[MS]

Nolan was probably the slightly better player when he was having a good year, but he was such an erratic player between injuries and inconsistent play that you really didn't know what you were going to get from one year to the next. His 1999-00 season was awesome ... but it was the only year in a four-year stretch dead in the middle of his prime where he cleared 50 points.

Amonte, by contrast, was a consistent, consistently healthy performer. You knew every year for a decade (save for the one off year under Keenan who didn't like him) you'd get a 35-goal sniper with a solid two-way game.

In this case if you could have one or the other in their prime for a season, I'd probably take the known quantity since the difference in peak values wasn't that high.

 

[Boxscore]

Nolan.

 

[begbeee]

Amonte was more consistent with slightly better offensive numbers. Even if I consider Nolan's overall game better, I have a feel like Amonte was always there, while Nolan has always his ups and downs.

Amonte.

 

[plusandminus]

I remember reading a ranking somewhere online, about 10-15 or so years ago, that had Amonte as the best player (or was it just forward) in the league. It might have been named "le sporting..."-something. Not sure about how serious it was, but they provided interesting readings.