| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 10:04:13
Why is Dionne not rated as high as Lafleur?
Would he have been rated higher if?
Dionne had played in Montreal.
Dionne had won the Stanley Cup.
These are tough questions to answer.
Dionne drafted #2 in 1971
Lafleur Drafted #1 in 1971
I thought that I would take a look at the years that the two players played together. In 1984-85 Lafleur only played 19 games, so I only looked at the years up to 1983-84.
Dionne Points / Game 1971-1983 1.375
Lafleur Points / Game 1971-1983 1.316
Scoring Titles
Dionne 1
Lafleur 3
Dionne had more points than Lafleur 10 out of the 13 seasons.
40+ goal seasons
Dionne 9
Lafleur 6
50+ goal seasons
Dionne 6
Lafleur 6
60+ goals seasons
Dionne 0
Lafleur 1
100 point seasons
Dionne 7
Lafleur 6
Other Topics
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2439&SearchTerms=Dionne
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1472&SearchTerms=Lafleur
Unfortunately we never had the opportunity to see Dionne play during his prime because he played in LA. When I take a look at the stats when the two played at the same time, Dionne looks better than Lafleur. He led him in points, goals, and assists. Detroit, or LA never finished ahead of Montreal in the standings during that time…
I know that stats are not the only way to judge a player, but I find it hard to believe that Lafleur was that much better than Dionne…
[img]http://www.maldesigns.ca/top%2050%20since%201967%20banner.jpg[/img] |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 14:33:11
I think I read somewhere that Sam Pollock mentioned his hardest decision in hockey was choosing between Lafleur and Dionne!
Habs get number 25 this year |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 20:39:47
I want to mention something about the original Lafleur/Dionne topic. Did you know that they originally played major junior hockey together in Quebec, but since Dionne was always getting secondary press to Lafleur, his family moved to (I believe) a suburb of Toronto in order to improve his pro hockey chances? I'm going by complete memory here on this so I'm sure if you google this you'll find the specifics...it is a riveting story. If I recall accurately, I think they even had major showdowns at juniors, and tournaments later in their junior careers too.
Also, I heard a story very recently explaining why Dionne demanded a trade out of Detroit. He had them held ransom too, so they had to make a poor trade to send him to LA in order to at least get something for him. I don't remember why he demanded the trade though.
Perhaps I should do some homework on this....but it's a great story. I remember as a kid reading the articles in the Hockey News about him retiring. He was a bitter and angry man his last year playing. Maybe I would be too if I got such little fanfare despite being 2nd all time in points at the time of my retiring. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 06:30:02
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Final Question for you. If Mark Messier doesn't win the Cup in 90 or 94, is he known as Gretzky's coat tail rider or is he still known as one of the greatest leaders in Sports History???
Beans, are you running for office there in Edmonton? How is it that I ask you one simple question and end up getting no answer and three questions back from you?
A bit busy now but I’ll touch a bit on the Messier question. My answer is that he shoud be remembered as one of the great leaders even without 1990 and 1994 Cups to his name, particularly if we're just talking about him not winning Cups (if all other things are equal such as the New Jersey semi-final series heroics and the MVP 1990 regular season). Whether he would be or not is another question, but as a huge early admirer of Messier's hockey myself, I for one know that he was a tremendous leader well before 1990.
Again, he, not Gretzky, won the Conn Smythe the year the Oilers won their first cup. More specifically, he, not Gretzky, turned the tide of that final against the Isles.
Beans, I'm not saying that one shouldn't strongly consider individual playoff performance in assessing a player (as I just did when talking about Mark's early leadership abilities). But if Messier wouldn't have been on such great teams and wouldn't have had the same degree of team playoff success, we would still have seen that leadership clearly, albeit to less successful ends.
You can be a great leader and be on a team that always comes up short. Ray was an example of that with no Cups in Boston. In your question, Mark still has, In addition to all his great leadership in regular seasons on Oiler teams (with Gretzky on them), a 1984 Conn Smythe, tremendous play and leadership in a number of other regular seasons and playoffs in the ‘80s and early '90s, the ‘1990 MVP regular season and the 1994 performance (even without a Cup). Very significant leadership indeed!
Gotta run!
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 21:45:15
Here are a few questions for you Andy-San
1) If Mike Gartner is riding shotgun with WG in Edmonton and Kurri is in Washington, what happens??? Gartner more than like gets some more points, the Oilers had two of the top 5 skaters in history on their team at the same time, and Mr. 30 Goal Season has his name on 4 or 5 Cups. Does that not move him ahead of Kurri in your eyes???
2) Mr. Bourque, Cup or no Cup, was the finest defenseman I have seen in my lifetime. But I wonder if his name in on the Cup 3, 4, 5 times if he is somehow on the same level as Mr. Orr?? In your eyes??
I see your point on what it is vs what it should be, and I get it. Take nothing away from Ray Bourque, as I said, amazing player. Or Guy Lefleur or Mark Messier to name a few others. Player vs Player, if one is clearly better than the other the Cups don't matter. But if they guys are close, I, personally go with the guy with the Cups.
Final Question for you. If Mark Messier doesn't win the Cup in 90 or 94, is he known as Gretzky's coat tail rider or is he still known as one of the greatest leaders in Sports History???
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 18:58:43
Beans - I'm not talking about the way things "are" (in terms of how the general public sees things), I'm talking about the way things "should be". In Gartner's case though, in my view they actually match up. He is not considered in the top fifty of the last 40 years and he shouldn't be. The reason he isn't may be related a little to your point about Cups, but my opinion that he shouldn't be has very little to do with that. He simply wasn't as great, looking at all the factors, as some of these other guys, including Kurri by the way, even without putting any weight on the Cup factor (of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player).
But forget the way the "public" looks at these things, I'm asking you, Beans-san, for your own assessment.
Simple question: Is Ray Bourque a "greater" hockey player in your mind because he ended up with a ring?
I say if your answer is yes, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 08:54:52
Hey Andy, I am not sure if you are understanding my point. In my very first post on this topic I talked about how similar Dionne and LeFleur were based on productivity. I talked about that fact that I didn't think if you were to swap their teams that Montreal wins less or LA wins more. What I was clearly saying is that they are very close in many different ways. I said if I feel everything else is a tie, I would go with a player who has won the Cup. That is my opinion when looking at players that are very similar in ability.
However, I think there is a reason some players have their name on multiple Cups.
And I still stand firm on my reasoning (which I do agree with) that a player with his name on the Cup solidifies himself in history. Let's think for a minute and talk about a couple of players.
Mike Gartner
The guy is 7th all time in goals and like 25th in all time points. He played the majority of his career without solid teams around him. He was argueably one of the top 5 skaters in the history of the game. He is rarely if ever mentioned in regards to the best players ever. I will bet a huge sum that if he makes our list, he is not going to be very high.
Jari Kurri
Very similar numbers to Mike Gartner. A little better production wise, but he also rode shotgun for a hockey god. Kurri will be higher(much Higher) on out list, as well as most any other list, than Mike Gartner. 5 Cups is hard to argue with.
And to your Bourque comments. I stongly feel that if he never won the Cup, he would have been known as "The Greatest Defensemen to never win a Cup." Instead, he is know as, "One of the Greatest defensemen ever."
|
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 20:18:16
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
By the way I gotta ask, who is Dino?
Dino Cicarelli...he was my favourite player.
http://www.thetwhl.com/TeamsPage/TeamsInfo/BER/Dino.jpg
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| Alex |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 07:17:34
quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaSeal
Don't get me wrong. I think Lafleur was a great player. I just think Dionne was slightly better.
No cup for Dino, what a shame
By the way I gotta ask, who is Dino?
Habs get number 25 this year |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 06:42:52
I give more respect to a player who tries to get his team a Stanley Cup, than to a player who say's trade me because this team is never going to win one, to me that is selfish...
I am sure a player like Dionne stuck it out in LA thinking this team has a chance someday, and I will do my best to bring a cup here.
Bourque on the other hand decided that Boston was never going to win a cup while he could still play so he asks for a trade to a winning team. I could not care if he won 10 cups he should have made Boston a Cup winner, and he could not...less repect from me anyways...
[img]http://www.maldesigns.ca/top%2050%20since%201967%20banner.jpg[/img] |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 20:48:58
Don't get me wrong. I think Lafleur was a great player. I just think Dionne was slightly better.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 20:45:04
Beans15 I was talking about Henri Richard. I think you are confusing him with his brother Maurice (The Rocket) Richard
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 19:16:41
As I've mentioned in other threads, what happened with Ray and the Cup in his last season, ironically, clearly disproves the ridiculous "you have to a win a Cup to be considered a Great" argument that people sometimes raise. But Seal, I don't think Beans or MSC or I are going as far as saying that a guy who wasn't as lucky as Ray, such as Dionne, shouldn't be considered a "Great". And, in my case anyway, I would say Marcel is at least a couple of steps more of a "Great" than Henri Richard, despite all of Henri's Cups.
BUT, I think you have to consider all factors when comparing players like we are here. You can't just ignore Guy's superb performances in the playoffs that helped his teams to Cups. He should get points for that in this debate.
But let's put the playoffs on the side for a second. I actually think people have, to a certain degree, forgotten just how good Guy was in the second half of the '70s. Dionne was one of the greatest players of that period no doubt but Guy was, in my mind, simply the best player around then, regardless of the great team around him. He was faster, more dynamic and I would say, in his prime, not only a better scorer but a better playmaker than Dionne. That doesn't just have to do with Guy getting the spotlight in Montreal. He was, on merit, better than Dionne in my opinion. So, as I see it, he doesn't need the playoff success stories if we are talking about peak value. People forget but Guy was simply the best player on the planet for three to four years. In that sense, it sounds strange, but I think in some respects we are talking about not only one, but two, underrated players here.
Next - Beans, you ask,
"Are they [Espo, Lafleur,etc] more highly regarded for winning Stanley Cups??? Yes."
My argument with you on this has always been that the answer should be, "They shouldn't be more highly regarded based JUST on the Cup wins". And again, what happened with Ray absolutely disproves that they should be more highly regarded. I mean, are you telling me that if Patrick Roy doesn't come up HUGE in the first half of Game 6 against the Devils in that final, and the Avs end up losing that game, that you would have had Ray lower on your list of all-time greats for the list we are making? If your answer is "yes", I have to question that reasoning big-time. And If your answer is "no, but that pushed him ahead of Potvin (or Park or Coffey) for me" I have to question that too. If you think Ray was better than those guys than it should be based on more than that in my opinion. As basing it on that is essentially pushing Ray ahead of Denis (or Brad or Paul) on the basis of something that a guy named Patrick was primarily responsible for.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 18:05:07
No where did I ever say that Dionne is or was a loser. There is a difference, especially in a team sport, between a loser and player who never won. And I did have a similar discussion about Bourque at one time and I do think that he would not have been as highly regarded if he didn't have his name on the Cup. And to bring up Richard, I think that if his name was not on the Cup 11 times he would have been known as the first guy to get 50 in 50 and that is about it. His production was not all that amazing. But, he was a winner! He just flat out won.
Andyhack, I think the names you brought up solidify my point even more. Ratelle, Neely, Park and the likes have not transended through the decades as other players have. You still hear about Esposito, LeFleur, Orr, Trottier, Bossy, Richard and the likes. Are they really better players?? Who knows. Are they more highly regarded for winning Stanley Cups??? Yes.
I'm just saying I agree with those people who think that if you have two players with very similar abilities and very similar production, the tie breaker goes to the Cup winner. |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 16:54:26
I wonder if Ray Borque wasn't lent out to a contender late in his career if people would consider him a loser too.
Even if you take the hypothetical equation out I feel Stanley Cup wins have no bearing on how good a player is. Does it mean Henri Richard and his 11 cups make him one of the best players ever? You can't use something like the Stanley Cup to measure how good a player is where it suits you.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 09:40:39
quote:
I don't think Dionne was a winner as Lefleur was.
...
Hate to say it, because I like Dionne, but the guy seems more content to score and make money than he was to win.
This seems a little too strong to me. MSC made a similar comment about Dionne not being a winner which I disagree with too.
Marcel did not win in fact, yes, but to just write him off as not being a "winner" based on that is to ignore the point of this hypothetical all together. It is one thing to say that Marcel wasn't as good as Guy, as I believe, but it is another thing to say that Marcel "was not a winner".
I have no idea why he stayed on the Kings. Maybe he and his family liked it there. Maybe he sincerely believed they were getting close to being a contender (they did push the Bruins once in '77 I believe) and they did have that great first line in the early '80s. Hard to say why.
But I think that there is a very valid point that had Marcel been on the Habs, there LIKELY would be no way that you would now be saying he was not a winner.
He was as much a "winner" as Park, Ratelle, Perreualt, Neely and all the other greats who, mainly due to the fates, fell short of winning a Cup. If you want to give those guys a few more "greatness" points than Marcel because at least they came close, okay, perhaps there is a point there (though it is arguable too I think), BUT, any of them including Marcel LIKELY get their name on the Cup if they play on the Habs of the late '70s. They were all "winners"!
Soup time - this is good therapy
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 07:43:48
quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaSeal
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
I disagree, I disagree, I disagree....Yes winning the Stanley Cup is a team effort and some very undeserving players have a ring. There is however a difference to being a 3-4th line role player and actually leading your team and winning games in the play offs. I think play off success is a huge part of a players career. Lafleur played on a team that won in the play offs and he is a huge reason why. In this situation the rings on Lafleurs fingers make him a better hockey player because he is a winner, Dionne is not.
Ask yourself this. If Dionne was playing for the Canadiens do you think they would have still won those cups and do you think if Lafleur was playing for the Kings would it mean his talents would have brought several cups to LA? You said playoff success is a huge part of a player's career. Look tr Reggie Leach. In 1976 he broke the NHL record for goals in the playoffs but his TEAM still didn't win the cup. Also if Reggie Leach played his entire career with the California Seals do you think he would have even come close to that record? I'm sorry but playoff success doesn't amount to anything when comparing players against each other. Unless they played on the same team throughout their career.
No cup for Dino, what a shame
I strongly disagree with this. Reason being is why do player play hockey?? Is it to score a lot of points or is it to win??? I don't think Dionne was a winner as Lefleur was. Answer me this, why did Dionne not ask for a trade to a contender?? Was money maybe more important to Dionne than winning.
Sure, the guy is 4th all time in goals, 9th in assists, and 5th in points, but no ring is no ring. I could even bump him up higher on the list if he came close, but none of the teams he played on ever made it out of the 2nd round of the playoffs. On the Hockey News top 100 all time players he was #38. That was the highest rank of any player to never win a Cup.
You play hockey to win, not to score. Hate to say it, because I like Dionne, but the guy seems more content to score and make money than he was to win. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 06:34:44
quote:
Ask yourself this. If Dionne was playing for the Canadiens do you think they would have still won those cups and do you think if Lafleur was playing for the Kings would it mean his talents would have brought several cups to LA? You said playoff success is a huge part of a player's career. Look tr Reggie Leach. In 1976 he broke the NHL record for goals in the playoffs but his TEAM still didn't win the cup. Also if Reggie Leach played his entire career with the California Seals do you think he would have even come close to that record? I'm sorry but playoff success doesn't amount to anything when comparing players against each other. Unless they played on the same team throughout their career.
I don't think the Habs would have won that fourth Cup with Marcel instead of Guy. That one was the magic of Guy in the historic Game 7 semi-final. They may very well have won the earlier three though.
BUT, I think when doing this type of hypothetical, to be fair to Guy you also have to consider what actually happened. What I mean is that we should not just be asking the general question of would Dionne have had success on the Habs and built an even greater legacy for himself in the process (he very likely would have), but we should rather be asking the specific question of would Marcel have performed as well as Guy actually did on the Habs in the second half of the '70s, regular season-wise and clutch playoff performance-wise.
If you look at some past hypothetical threads you will find me fiercely defending their value against some guys who dismissed them as useless. I think they can be useful in comparing players and certainly would understand anyone who brings up this hypothetical to support Marcel's place in history. But, to me, a hypothetical loses a lot of meaning if you don't bother to specifically compare what you are hypothesizing about to what actually happened. And in that sense I have to disagree with you Seal - actual playoff success is important to look at in my opinion. In this case, the standard is VERY high in the playoff that I am referring to, particularly the way Guy "willed" the Habs to that Game 7 victory.
Dionne was a tremendous hockey player (better than Jagr, Espo, Coffey and other perhaps more highly ranked players in my view) and in this hypothetical my guess is that he would have contributed big-time to some Hab victories, but I don't think he would have been able to quite reach the very high standard of Guy's performance, particularly what actually happened in the '79 playoffs.
Bad cold today - back to my tea and honey |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 23:14:22
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
I disagree, I disagree, I disagree....Yes winning the Stanley Cup is a team effort and some very undeserving players have a ring. There is however a difference to being a 3-4th line role player and actually leading your team and winning games in the play offs. I think play off success is a huge part of a players career. Lafleur played on a team that won in the play offs and he is a huge reason why. In this situation the rings on Lafleurs fingers make him a better hockey player because he is a winner, Dionne is not.
Ask yourself this. If Dionne was playing for the Canadiens do you think they would have still won those cups and do you think if Lafleur was playing for the Kings would it mean his talents would have brought several cups to LA? You said playoff success is a huge part of a player's career. Look tr Reggie Leach. In 1976 he broke the NHL record for goals in the playoffs but his TEAM still didn't win the cup. Also if Reggie Leach played his entire career with the California Seals do you think he would have even come close to that record? I'm sorry but playoff success doesn't amount to anything when comparing players against each other. Unless they played on the same team throughout their career.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| MSC |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 23:33:01
quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaSeal
Bottomline is Dionne played for a team that was largely ignored by the Canadian media (until Gretzky took the purple away). Lafleur could have ended up playing for the Seals. I'm sure his production would have been a lot lower if that happened. The whole thing about Stanley Cup wins is stupid. Winning the Stanley Cup is a TEAM effort, not an individual effort.
No cup for Dino, what a shame
I disagree, I disagree, I disagree....Yes winning the Stanley Cup is a team effort and some very undeserving players have a ring. There is however a difference to being a 3-4th line role player and actually leading your team and winning games in the play offs. I think play off success is a huge part of a players career. Lafleur played on a team that won in the play offs and he is a huge reason why. In this situation the rings on Lafleurs fingers make him a better hockey player because he is a winner, Dionne is not. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 23:29:44
I wonder what stopped Dionne from playing for a different team or asking for a trade??
I agree that a great player does not need a Stanley Cup to be considered a great player. However, I look at Lefleur and Dionne for example and I see their stats as quite similar. We are literally talking about 1 more point for Dionne every 17 games.
So, the way I look at it is this. Dionne did not play on as talented a team as Lefleur. Yet, Lefleur's Habs were very focused on defense. I would consider that a tie. Point production is a tie as well. If you were to flip the two players, the Kings don't win more with Lefleur than Dionne, and the Habs don't win more with Dionne than Lefluer.Everything is a tie in my opinion until now.
What is the tie breaker??
Lefleur has his name on the Mug how many times?? That put Lefluer ahead of Dionne
Fair or not fair, that's my logic. |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 23:17:01
Bottomline is Dionne played for a team that was largely ignored by the Canadian media (until Gretzky took the purple away). Lafleur could have ended up playing for the Seals. I'm sure his production would have been a lot lower if that happened. The whole thing about Stanley Cup wins is stupid. Winning the Stanley Cup is a TEAM effort, not an individual effort.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 18:59:19
My thoughts are still the same as I mentioned in that thread which Pucknuts noted (part of what I said was that Marcel was underrated, but not as great as Guy).
Here's the main point I want to add here though. Although I understand the argument that Dionne's numbers might have increased had he been on the Habs (and it is indeed true Marcel’s legacy would likely have been very different), I’m not so sure his numbers would have been substantially different. That Habs team was great offensively yes, but they also spent a lot of energy and effort thinking about defense. Perhaps his numbers would have gone up, but they wouldn't have skyrocketed by as much as if they would have had Dionne been on the Oilers of the early 80s for instance.
Conversely, if the assumption is that Guy would have produced substantially less points had he been on a team like the Kings of the 70s, I don’t think we should be so sure about that either. He would have been perhaps more free-wheeling offensively on that type of team, thinking more about his own offensive production than the team. Although with no Shutt and Lemaire, it may have affected his numbers a bit.
For me, if you are looking at just peak value, Guy beats Marcel not only on what actually happened (great team or not great team, from 1974 to 1980 Guy reached a higher level of greatness than Marcel ever reached in my opinion), but my best guess is that Guy even beats Marcel on the hypothetical, because for that hypothetical to go in Marcel’s favor he would have had to reach, and surpass, such a high standard of not only regular season performances but tremendous, in fact LEGENDARY, playoff performances. Very, very tough to match!
If focusing on career performance though (as opposed to focusing on peak value), I think things do start to look rosier for Marcel in this comparison. Guy’s prime reached extremely high heights, but it was a relatively brief period. I would say though that for about 3 years he was the best hockey player on the planet.
Edit - this discussion again kind of raises the key point of how each of us views "greatness" - if looking primarily at the number of good or great seasons for instance, as Pucknut's research indicates, Marcel would arguably have the edge - if looking at peak value, I think Guy has the edge |
| Alex |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 10:33:12
Amazing, amazing topic. I was actually thinking of making one myself, but the thing is I don't know enough about the hockey of yesteryear. You should see Dionne's profile on youtube, it really is an eye opener
Habs get number 25 this year |
|
|
