PDA

View Full Version : Sundin vs Sakic Who would you rather have?



uncus
09-23-2014, 07:17 PM
If Sakic had been available along with Sundin, which one would you have preferred ..... why?

Pronger84
09-23-2014, 07:21 PM
If Sakic had been available along with Sundin, which one would you have preferred ..... why?

Sakic and this is no disrespect Sundin but I always thought he was the more talented of the 2 players, not to mention he put up far more points then Sundin did.

Sakic IMO was an allstar, Sundin while he was a good player I never considered him an elite player either.

Leafin'
09-23-2014, 07:25 PM
Sakic and this is no disrespect Sundin but I always thought he was the more talented of the 2 players, not to mention he put up far more points then Sundin did.

Sakic IMO was an allstar, Sundin while he was a good player I never considered him an elite player either.

:facepalm

Pronger84
09-23-2014, 07:30 PM
:facepalm

Go and look at the stats, Sundin had that 114 point season with Quebec but he settled into the 75-85 point range with the odd 90 point season... again he was never up there pointswise with guys like Gretzky, Lemeiux, Jagr, Sakic etc which were IMO the elite of the elite during that era.

Again just my opinion but I'd take Sakic over Sundin any day of the week.

MindzEye
09-23-2014, 07:35 PM
Really hard question to answer because Sakic was pretty much always surrounded by other elite talent (arguably wasn't the best player on his team for quite a bit of his career) when Sundin was a one man band for a lot of his.

I really think we were robbed by the organization's inability to put Sundin in that type of situation, he sure as **** looked like top 5 player in the world every time he was surrounded by other high end talents with the Tre Kronor on his chest.

da_next_kid
09-23-2014, 07:40 PM
Mats is my boy but going with Sakic.

Metalleaf
09-23-2014, 07:48 PM
If I was starting a franchise, Mats' size, hands, and durability would be hard to pass up. But based on careers, Sakic.

Leafin'
09-23-2014, 08:07 PM
Mats was the captain of team sweden that had Lidstrom, Forsberg, Alfredsson, Naslund etc.

Leafyblue
09-23-2014, 08:09 PM
Sundin....because he was Great playing in ****ing Toronto.

Habspatrol
09-23-2014, 08:30 PM
Nothing against Sundin, he was a really good player but I take Sakic.

TheCountofMonteCristo
09-23-2014, 08:43 PM
Sakic, hands down.

A better argument would be Sundin v Forsberg

Habspatrol
09-23-2014, 08:45 PM
If we're talking a healthy Forsberg I take him other either of them.

Volcanologist
09-23-2014, 08:49 PM
This shouldn't even be a question, because the Leafs should have drafted Sakic to begin with. he was #2 on their list but they took Luke Richardson instead because they wanted a defenceman.

Red
09-23-2014, 11:01 PM
I'm a Habs fan, obviously, but I REALLY liked Mats. Even as a Leaf hating Habs fan.

However, Sakic is absolutely the answer to this question. Both were awesome, but Sakic was quite obviously the better player.

GGpX
09-23-2014, 11:38 PM
If we're talking a healthy Forsberg I take him other either of them.

I would too.

One of the most complete players I've ever seen. It's a damn shame his body couldn't keep up.

Habspatrol
09-23-2014, 11:48 PM
Yeah, he was basically Crosby before there was a Crosby.

Montana
09-24-2014, 12:02 AM
Nordiques had this question when they had both Sakic & Sundin, and their choice for #1 center was Sakic......Sakic was also a career 1.18 PPG (82gp 38gl 97pts) despite playing in more games (1550 total) and until an older age (39yo)....while Sundin was a 0.996 PPG player (82gp, 34gls, 82pts), played in 1437 total games, and stopped playing at 37.

It's a nice idea for a comparison....but Sakic was the better player, and the right choice if choosing between the two.

Montana
09-24-2014, 12:08 AM
Yeah, he was basically Crosby before there was a Crosby.


Foppa = 1.23 career PPG (82gp, 30gls, 101pts)
Sid = 1.37 career PPG (82gp, 40gls, 112pts)



Adjusted for eras, etc...would be pretty close.

JackBurton
09-24-2014, 12:09 AM
I take Sakic. And I easily take Sakic over Forsberg.

Montana
09-24-2014, 12:12 AM
The real value of such a discussion though, is definitely in demonstrating just how much closer Sakic & Sundin actually were as players.....versus what the general opinion of each of them is.

Even if many of us would still take Sakic over Mats, ever so slightly.

JackBurton
09-24-2014, 12:16 AM
Usually the general opinion is the Leaf player sucks.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 12:20 AM
I take Sakic. And I easily take Sakic over Forsberg.

Over a healthy Forsberg?

Man, I'm not sure there are many forwards in the past 35 years that I'd take over him. Assuming everyone were healthy and in their prime I go...

Mario/Wayne
Lindros
Crosby
Forsberg

Montana
09-24-2014, 12:23 AM
Jagr-Foppa is an intriguing debate.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 12:27 AM
Jagr-Foppa is an intriguing debate.

Good call on Jagr... my final spot should have probably been Forsberg/Jagr

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:31 AM
Peter Stastny & Marcel Dionne have to be in the discussion as well. Different era but remarkably prolific offensive forces.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:34 AM
Then you have quite possible, and obviously arguably, the greatest goal scorer of all time in Mike Bossy. His release was incredible.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:40 AM
If health is removed from the equation, and I am well aware staying healthy is a great part of success, my top 5 players that I would build my team around would be:

Mario Lemieux
Wayne Gretzky
Bobby Orr
Mike Bossy
Sidney Crosby

Next 5 would be:

Jean Beliveau (my #1 choice for captain)
Peter Stastny
Peter Forsberg
Marcel Dionne
Evgeni Malkin

Honorable mention:

Phil Esposito/Guy Lafleur (I give them a tie)

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 12:43 AM
Dionne ahead of Guy? Wow... that surprises me. I like your top 5 but I think I might have Guy at 5b or 6.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:45 AM
As for Sakic vs. Sundin, I take the guy the Nordiques drafted... oh wait.

They were both excellent players and you have to think that Sundin would have had better numbers if surrounded by the talent Sakic had around him. Tough choice but I lean Sakic, slightly.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:46 AM
Dionne ahead of Guy? Wow... that surprises me. I like your top 5 but I think I might have Guy at 5b or 6.

I watched both play and I loved Guy growing up but Dionne > Lafleur. Put Dionne on a stacked team like the Habs of the 70's and he's #2 in scoring behind Gretzky. He was that good on a very bad Kings team.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:48 AM
I could easily replace Malkin or Stastny or Forsberg with Lafleur or Esposito though. I do like Malkin's combination of size and skill, it's impressive.

JackBurton
09-24-2014, 12:49 AM
Marcel Dionne was incredible. He played with such shit teams. A shame his A-hole brother won a cup.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:51 AM
Marcel Dionne was incredible. He played with such shit teams. A shame his A-hole brother won a cup.

One of the clear inequities of the universe.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 12:57 AM
I could easily replace Malkin or Stastny or Forsberg with Lafleur or Esposito though. I do like Malkin's combination of size and skill, it's impressive.
Malkin isn't small... but it seems there's a myth about him being some sort of beast... dude isn't even 200 lbs. He's 6'3 but skinny.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 12:58 AM
He uses his reach better than most. He is a beast on the puck, no question about it.

WellPlayed
09-24-2014, 07:13 AM
If health is out of the equation Lindros needs to be on that list.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 08:45 AM
If health is out of the equation Lindros needs to be on that list.

For sure, if we're talking no health issues then Lindros imo may have been right at the top. He dominated the game with a combination of skill and physicality like no player ever.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 08:46 AM
He uses his reach better than most. He is a beast on the puck, no question about it.

Yeah, and he's strong for a skinny guy. He seems big out there.

MindzEye
09-24-2014, 08:51 AM
If health is out of the equation Lindros needs to be on that list.

Yeah, right after Orr.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 08:53 AM
Disagree.

You guys really underestimate what Bossy brought to the ice.

You can take him over Crosby if you like, I wouldn't.

WellPlayed
09-24-2014, 08:57 AM
For sure, if we're talking no health issues then Lindros imo may have been right at the top. He dominated the game with a combination of skill and physicality like no player ever.


Absolutely. From 93-97 he scored at a 52 goal, 125 point 82 games pace, much of it in the dead-puck era. If I am getting all 82 games of that, and he is fully healthy, meaning he is destroying guys in fights and dominating physically like basically no one ever has, he is right at the top of the list. If your name isn't Mario, Wayne, or Bobby, you don't even get a look.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 08:59 AM
Yep... and maybe.... maaaaaayyyybbbbeeee even above those guys. He was just such an amazing combination of power and skill.

Habsy
09-24-2014, 09:27 AM
I'm wondering how many of you actually saw Bossy play over the years. Lindros was elite but man, Bossy's shot was legendary. In the days of the wooden stick no less.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 09:35 AM
Bossy and Lindros's stats adjusted for era are almost identical.

Lindros - 760 gp, 404 gls, 942 pts (82 gp, 44 gls, 102 pts)
Bossy - 752 gp, 461 gls, 906 pts (82 gp, 50 gls, 99 pts)

EDIT:
Forsberg - 708 gp, 278 gls, 977 pts (82 gp, 32 goals, 113 pts)
Jagr - 1473 gp, 773 gls, 1896 pts (82 gp, 43 gls, 106 pts)
Sakic - 1378 gp, 643 gls, 1697 pts (82 gp, 38 gls, 101 pts)
Dionne - 1348 gp, 610 gls, 1493 pts (82 gp, 37 gls, 91 pts)
Sundin - 1346 gp, 599 gls, 1410 pts (82 gp, 37 gls, 86 pts)
Lafleur - 1126 gp, 480 gls, 1161 pts (82 gp, 35 gls, 85 pts)




Of course Forsberg, Lindros and Bossy didn't have their averages brought down by playing past their primes retiring at 33, 33 and 30 respectively.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 09:39 AM
And not enough Jagr love. If the guy didn't leave for Russia for 3 years he'd be around 800 goals and 2000 points, playing most of his career in the dead puck era.

He was better than Lindros. He wasn't as agressive, but he also had the combination of physicality and skill that no one else could match. The guy is a beast.

WellPlayed
09-24-2014, 10:00 AM
Bossy and Lindros's stats adjusted for era are almost identical.

Lindros - 760 gp, 404 gls, 942 pts (82 gp, 44 gls, 102 pts)
Bossy - 752 gp, 461 gls, 906 pts (82 gp, 50 gls, 99 pts)

EDIT:
Forsberg - 708 gp, 278 gls, 977 pts (82 gp, 32 goals, 113 pts)
Jagr - 1473 gp, 773 gls, 1896 pts (82 gp, 43 gls, 106 pts)
Sakic - 1378 gp, 643 gls, 1697 pts (82 gp, 38 gls, 101 pts)
Dionne - 1348 gp, 610 gls, 1493 pts (82 gp, 37 gls, 91 pts)
Lafleur - 1126 gp, 480 gls, 1161 pts (82 gp, 35 gls, 85 pts)



Of course Forsberg, Lindros and Bossy didn't have their averages brought down by playing past their primes retiring at 33, 33 and 30 respectively.

Ya, but this ignores the most important part of the question posed - health is no issue.

Lindros was a shadow of his former self after the concussions.

I am talking in his prime, can't get injured Eric Lindros, scaring the shit out of everyone else on the ice. And that guy is better than all of the others you listed

MindzEye
09-24-2014, 10:02 AM
And not enough Jagr love. If the guy didn't leave for Russia for 3 years he'd be around 800 goals and 2000 points, playing most of his career in the dead puck era.

He was better than Lindros. He wasn't as agressive, but he also had the combination of physicality and skill that no one else could match. The guy is a beast.

At their respective peaks, Lindros and Jagr were more or less identical offensively, with Lindros being 1) a centre and 2) A ****ing unicorn of a centre...the prototype centre that every GM wanks about trying to find.

I love me some Jaromir Jaguar, but Lindros was a whole other animal for his brief peak.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 10:03 AM
Most of those players played longer as a shadow of their former selves than Lindros did though. He retired at 33.

And the thing about Lindros is there is no such thing as a "healthy Lindros". The style he played contributed to all those injuries. Same as Orr with his knees. Even without the concussions he was always banged up. Collapsed lung, wrist, knee, shoulder injuries. Pre concussions he only played more than 70 games in a season twice, and 73 was the high. Injuries are part of that package.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 10:14 AM
But to address the pre concussion prime argument.

From 1992-93 to 1999-00 (Pre concussion prime Lindros vs Jagr)
Jagr - 575 gp, 328 gls, 832 pts (82 gp, 47 gls, 119 pts)
Lindros - 486 gp, 290 gls, 659 pts (82 gp, 49 gls, 112 pts)

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 10:38 AM
I'm wondering how many of you actually saw Bossy play over the years. Lindros was elite but man, Bossy's shot was legendary. In the days of the wooden stick no less.

Offensively yeah Bossy was as good and perhaps better (though not by much) than Lindros but when you add that Lindros was an absolute beast physically I think that puts him well past Bossy and into the Mario and Wayne area.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 10:42 AM
Most of those players played longer as a shadow of their former selves than Lindros did though. He retired at 33.

And the thing about Lindros is there is no such thing as a "healthy Lindros". The style he played contributed to all those injuries. Same as Orr with his knees. Even without the concussions he was always banged up. Collapsed lung, wrist, knee, shoulder injuries. Pre concussions he only played more than 70 games in a season twice, and 73 was the high. Injuries are part of that package.

Well yeah, of course. But that's the fun of this discussion. We are speaking hypothetically about these guys as if they played their game but never got injured. Talking strictly skill and ability while they were at the top of their games. If we just deal with facts then guys like Lindros and Forsberg can't really be in the discussion cause they just weren't healthy enough.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 10:52 AM
That wasn't my point. My point was you can't play Lindros' style of game injury free. It has nothing to do with him personally, or anyone in particular being prone to injury. Anyone that plays like Lindros did will have injury troubles. Its part of that package. If he wasn't getting hurt, he wouldn't be that player.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 10:56 AM
That wasn't my point. My point was you can't play Lindros' style of game injury free. It has nothing to do with him personally, or anyone in particular being prone to injury. Anyone that plays like Lindros did will have injury troubles. Its part of that package.

But we already know we can't have a healthy Lindros and we know that he broke down primarily due to his style of play.

This conversation assumes that the players just managed to escape injury which we all know is impossible. Hell we know we can't have any of them on our team to begin with. They are all retired and old and broken down. This discussion is 100% hypothetical why draw the line at "they couldn't play that style and stay healthy?"

WellPlayed
09-24-2014, 10:58 AM
But to address the pre concussion prime argument.

From 1992-93 to 1999-00 (Pre concussion prime Lindros vs Jagr)
Jagr - 575 gp, 328 gls, 832 pts (82 gp, 47 gls, 119 pts)
Lindros - 486 gp, 290 gls, 659 pts (82 gp, 49 gls, 112 pts)


Well Lindros had his first concussion in the 97-98 season, so you've included 2 and a half seasons post-concussion. But whatever.

Like I said, 93-94 to 96-97 the guy was a 50 goal, 125 point player. That was his prime and that is insane. And since we are talking "healthy" with no restrictions, those are the years I am basing it off. Combine that with his best-ever physical game, and playing the middle as Mindz said... prime, no injury Lindros > Jagr.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 11:06 AM
But we already know we can't have a healthy Lindros and we know that he broke down primarily due to his style of play.

This conversation assumes that the players just managed to escape injury which we all know is impossible. Hell we know we can't have any of them on our team to begin with. They are all retired and old and broken down. This discussion is 100% hypothetical why draw the line at "they couldn't play that style and stay healthy?"

Because its true. Its like saying this discussion is 100% hypothetical so lets ignore the laws of physics. The hypothetical still takes place in our world.

It is what it is.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 11:13 AM
Well Lindros had his first concussion in the 97-98 season, so you've included 2 and a half seasons post-concussion. But whatever.

Like I said, 93-94 to 96-97 the guy was a 50 goal, 125 point player. That was his prime and that is insane. And since we are talking "healthy" with no restrictions, those are the years I am basing it off. Combine that with his best-ever physical game, and playing the middle as Mindz said... prime, no injury Lindros > Jagr.

Well if we are just strictly talking about their best couple season prime between 1995-96 and 1998-99 Jagr had two of the top 15 adjusted scoring seasons of all time. Over those 4 years he scored 188 goals and 473 points in 303 games, or a 50 goal 128 point pace. From 1992-93 to 1996-97 Lindros scored at a 53 goal 121 point pace.

At worst the guy was as big as Lindros, as dominant as Lindros, slightly more prolific offensively than Lindros, and more durable than Lindros. No he didn't run guys over, he just held onto the puck the whole game. At worst Jagr belongs right there.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 11:19 AM
Because its true. Its like saying this discussion is 100% hypothetical so lets ignore the laws of physics. The hypothetical still takes place in our world.

It is what it is.

But you're making things up. There's no doubt that playing physical led to Lindros' demise and many others... but it's not impossible to play an extremely physical game and have a long career. Scott Stevens had a long and mostly healthy career... and he's not the only one.

So we're not looking at changing the laws of physics just pretending that Lindros was lucky enough to stay healthy. And it's not like we're saying these guys had to stay healthy forever. Lets just say you can have any player ever for their best 5 years and they'll play 82 games a year.

worm
09-24-2014, 11:32 AM
Yeah, he was basically Crosby before there was a Crosby.

I like that. Consider it stolen.

worm
09-24-2014, 11:33 AM
Usually the general opinion is the Leaf player sucks.

That and Sakic is Canadian.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 11:34 AM
No one really played like Lindros though that is exactly why he is being talked about like he is in this thread. He didn't just hit guys hard, the guy was vicious and initiated contact whenever he could, even with the puck. Thats what made him so dominant physically. Thats also what made it impossible for him to ever play an 82 game season.

worm
09-24-2014, 11:35 AM
Love me some Bure.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 11:36 AM
No one really played like Lindros though that is exactly why he is being talked about like he is in this thread. He didn't just hit guys hard, the guy was vicious and initiated contact whenever he could, even with the puck. Thats what made him so dominant physically. Thats also what made it impossible for him to ever play an 82 game season.

Scott Stevens hit really, really hard... just ask Eric Lindros.

But whatever. It was just a fun discussion that assumed people were healthy. If you wanna such the fun out of it feel free.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 11:43 AM
If differing opinions suck the fun out of it you should probably reevaluate your priorities.

Habspatrol
09-24-2014, 11:47 AM
If differing opinions suck the fun out of it you should probably reevaluate your priorities.

Hey if you have a different opinion on what players belong that's fine, but you're arguing that our entire discussion is no good cause we're breaking the laws of physics.

And "sucking the fun out of it" is a figure of speech.... not to be taken literally. I'm still having fun.

leafman101
09-24-2014, 11:52 AM
Hey if you have a different opinion on what players belong that's fine, but you're arguing that our entire discussion is no good cause we're breaking the laws of physics.


Its just my opinion. Its all great discussion thats why I posted in the first place.

There is no right or wrong answer in discussions like this.

worm
09-24-2014, 12:44 PM
Bure

His mostly full seasons....

82GP 51G 39A 90PT

74GP 58G 36A 94PT

82GP 59G 33A 92PT

uncus
09-24-2014, 06:07 PM
I would take Mogilny over Bure ...
Sundin over Sakic ... I mean come on, hoglund as your winger???? Sundin was very difficult to play with but still .. there were years he would have been better off having Haley Wickenhieser as his winger.
Bossy???? Are you kidding me, I watched him as often as possible back then, but still Trottier and potvin and Gillies scaring the hell out of everyone had a lot to do with bossys totals.
Dionne way ahead of Lafleur ... montreal doesn't make that trade with the golden seals then Lafleur might have been a golden seal.
Gretzky over Orr (and I have always been a huge Orr supporter) Orr over Lemieux and Lemieux over Jagr every single minute of any day

Blueman
09-24-2014, 09:20 PM
Surprised no one mentioning Messier

Habsy
09-25-2014, 09:08 AM
Because its true. Its like saying this discussion is 100% hypothetical so lets ignore the laws of physics. The hypothetical still takes place in our world.

It is what it is.

You must be a blast watching sci-fi movies with.

Habsy
09-25-2014, 09:09 AM
Surprised no one mentioning Messier

Good leader but it took him 3000 years to get to second in points.

JaysCyYoung
09-26-2014, 01:22 PM
Like all of you, I adored Sundin. He was one of the greatest international players ever, one of the all-time pioneers for European players, and an icon within Leafs history. With that said, you easily take Sakic here. He beats Sundin in every meaningful statistical category thinkable right across the board, and was also one of the best two-way players in hockey for a substantial part of his career.

His 2000-01 season in particular is one of the greatest of all-time: First Team All-Star, Hart Trophy, Lester B. Pearson Award, Lady Byng Trophy, second in goals, points (by a mere three to prime Jagr), and Selke Trophy voting, and then puts up a playoff-leading 13 goals and 26 points en route to his second Stanley Cup championship and finishing second to Roy in Conn Smythe voting. Then the next year he's one of Team Canada's best performers in the Olympic tournament, helping to bring home the nation's first gold medal in fifty years and scoring the game-winner over the United States in the final.

Moreover, that's not even taking into account his performance for Colorado during their first championship in 1996, when he won the Conn Smythe: 18 goals and 34 points. The only players ever to score that many goals in a single post-season are Gretzky, Kurri, and Bossy.

I love Sundin, but Sakic is a top 15-20 all-time player whereas Mats is traditionally ranked around the 50-75 range. The "other forum" has a truly excellent History of Hockey section and have completed several all-time and all-time positionally-focused drafts. There's simply no justification for taking Mats here.


I'm wondering how many of you actually saw Bossy play over the years. Lindros was elite but man, Bossy's shot was legendary. In the days of the wooden stick no less.

Bossy may have been the best pure goal scorer in NHL history. If he didn't have to retire just after thirty due to his horribly debilitating back issues, he probably scores 800-900 goals. Even just thirty goals per season for seven more years (taking his decline into account given he posted nine consecutive fifty-plus campaigns) takes him almost to 800. And if he was reasonably productive as a supporting offensive piece on the Islanders for a couple of seasons to end his career, say around 1994-95/1995-96, you're likely looking at over that threshold. Just remarkable goal scorer's instincts.

Of course, Potvin was far and away the best player on those Islanders teams. For my money, his 1978-79 season is still the best non-Orr season by a defenceman ever (Bourque's 1986-87 and 1989-90 runner-up Hart campaigns are perilously close though).

JaysCyYoung
09-26-2014, 01:32 PM
If health is removed from the equation, and I am well aware staying healthy is a great part of success, my top 5 players that I would build my team around would be:

Mario Lemieux
Wayne Gretzky
Bobby Orr
Mike Bossy
Sidney Crosby

Next 5 would be:

Jean Beliveau (my #1 choice for captain)
Peter Stastny
Peter Forsberg
Marcel Dionne
Evgeni Malkin

Honorable mention:

Phil Esposito/Guy Lafleur (I give them a tie)

No Mr. Hockey? Hang your head in shame.

Twenty consecutive top five scoring finishes, a level of longevity, consistency, and elite peak performance arguably unmatched by any other participant in team sport, six Art Rosses, six Harts (both second all-time to Gretzky), and still the greatest intimidator in hockey's illustrious 130 year history.

Only Gretzky won his scoring titles by a greater margin than Gordie Howe. People tend to discount era, and Howe's totals suffer from the extremely defensive period from 1942-1967 during the Original Six heyday, but his adjusted totals are insane. He was putting up 95 point years when the second-place finishers were struggling to break 60. Oh, and he was vicious and could play defence as well as any winger in the league.

It's unfitting how perennially underrated Howe has become with the passage of time. He still has a not ludicrous argument as the greatest player ever. Any top five list without his inclusion is crazy to me.

Habspatrol
09-26-2014, 01:41 PM
No Mr. Hockey? Hang your head in shame.

Twenty consecutive top five scoring finishes, a level of longevity, consistency, and elite peak performance arguably unmatched by any other participant in team sport, six Art Rosses, six Harts (both second all-time to Gretzky), and still the greatest intimidator in hockey's illustrious 130 year history.

Only Gretzky won his scoring titles by a greater margin than Gordie Howe. People tend to discount era, and Howe's totals suffer from the extremely defensive period from 1942-1967 during the Original Six heyday, but his adjusted totals are insane. He was putting up 95 point years when the second-place finishers were struggling to break 60. Oh, and he was vicious and could play defence as well as any winger in the league.

It's unfitting how perennially underrated Howe has become with the passage of time. He still has a not ludicrous argument as the greatest player ever. Any top five list without his inclusion is crazy to me.

You're right. I know I'm guilty of underrating him big time.

LeafGm
09-26-2014, 01:46 PM
It's a little early in the game to be penciling Crosby or Malkin into any top-5 or top-10 all-time lists.

Montana
09-26-2014, 01:49 PM
It's a little early


When talking primarily per game ability, there's nothing to wait for......very little of the discussion is revolving around career achievement, but individual ability/per game erformance.

Habspatrol
09-26-2014, 01:49 PM
It's a little early in the game to be penciling Crosby or Malkin into any top-5 or top-10 all-time lists.

Really? Crosby has been in the league for 9 years and is 4th all time in points per game. That's early? Pretty sure he's not a flash in the pan at this point.

Volcanologist
09-26-2014, 01:54 PM
I'd probably take Sakic as well if forced to choose, but Sundin's career unquestionably suffered from playing here. If he was a Wing or even stayed an Av that's probably more career points and some hardware.

The absolute worst was that one year Sundin was saddled with Hoglund and Mikael Renberg. Neither of those two humps could even score 15 goals playing with a dominant power centre having one of the best seasons of his career(40+ goals IIRC). Disgusting.

JaysCyYoung
09-26-2014, 02:05 PM
Keep in mind too that only a handful of players have ever won three Harts.

Gretzky - 9
Howe - 6
Shore - 4
Orr - 3
Lemieux - 3
Clarke - 3
Ovechkin - 3

Crosby has two and should have won the Hart over Ovechkin in 2012-13, with most of his best years ahead of him. Both him and Ovie are already first-ballot Hall of Fame choices before the age of thirty. There remains plenty of time for both of them to solidify their all-time legacies in rarefied company.

Habspatrol
09-26-2014, 02:08 PM
I'd like to see someone do an extensive study on production of players on good, bad and average teams. Sometimes people will argue that a guy is able to produce on a shitty team because "hey someone has to get points, and when you have a bunch of good players the offense is spread out" then other people will argue "if he had better teammates he'd produce more."

I'm not sure either statement is true. Good players will get their points no matter who they play with.

Habspatrol
09-26-2014, 02:11 PM
Crosby has two and should have won the Hart over Ovechkin in 2012-13, with most of his best years ahead of him. Both him and Ovie are already first-ballot Hall of Fame choices before the age of thirty. There remains plenty of time for both of them to solidify their all-time legacies in rarefied company.

I guess you have to include Malkin in this group too since he's slightly ahead of Ovechkin in PPG.

JaysCyYoung
09-26-2014, 02:21 PM
I guess you have to include Malkin in this group too since he's slightly ahead of Ovechkin in PPG.

I believe that no player in NHL history that has won a scoring title is not enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Malkin has two Art Rosses... and a Hart Trophy... and three First All-Star Team selections (same number as Crosby), and a Calder Trophy, and a Conn Smythe (one of the more dominant performances of the last thirty years too), and two Hart runner-ups. He'd be a certainty even today.

MindzEye
09-26-2014, 02:22 PM
I'd like to see someone do an extensive study on production of players on good, bad and average teams. Sometimes people will argue that a guy is able to produce on a shitty team because "hey someone has to get points, and when you have a bunch of good players the offense is spread out" then other people will argue "if he had better teammates he'd produce more."

I'm not sure either statement is true. Good players will get their points no matter who they play with.

The entire concept of "Goals Created", a pretty good statistic developed by HockeyReference.com is to equalize for team performance. Good players will get their points regardless, but would they get as many as they would playing with great players? I don't know man, we've seen all sorts of examples over the years of humps producing well over their career norms when playing with great players, would not a similar effect be expected of great players playing with other great players?

Habspatrol
09-26-2014, 02:42 PM
The entire concept of "Goals Created", a pretty good statistic developed by HockeyReference.com is to equalize for team performance. Good players will get their points regardless, but would they get as many as they would playing with great players? I don't know man, we've seen all sorts of examples over the years of humps producing well over their career norms when playing with great players, would not a similar effect be expected of great players playing with other great players?

It's one of those things. I don't think there's any definitive answer. It makes sense that a hump will benefit from playing with good players, cause he ain't producing on his own. However, there are several varieties of good player. Some need to carry the puck more and control the play in order to produce and set other players up. Some are great finishers and really benefit from a good playmaker setting them up. And many types in between.

Then you have the issue of opportunity. When a team has only a couple "go to" guys that top player is going to get every opportunity in those scoring situations. While a guy on a team with a bunch of good players will get the most opportunities because he's the best on the team, but the coach is far more likely to let the other good players have a chance too.

More so than any of that though... we see good/really good players go from good teams to bad teams to mediocre teams and vise versa all the time and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between production and quality of team.