Kukla's Korner

The Puck Stops Here

I NOW Consider Sergei Gonchar A Hall Of Famer

I try to monitor what time in a player's career he becomes a clear Hall of Famer.  At what point is he a Hall of Fame player regardless of what happens in the rest of his career?  I think Sergei Gonchar has passed that point.

Gonchar has been one of the better defencemen in the league for well over a decade.  He has never been the best defenceman in the league but he was good enough to make the NHL Second Team All Star twice.  Had he been stronger defensively he probably would have been a Norris Trophy winner at some point.  His defensive play has improved over his career but it was a weakness fifteen years ago.  His career numbers have reached the point that they are clear Hall of Fame numbers and this is remarkable given the fact that he played in a relatively low scoring era with the loss of 1.5 seasons due to lockouts (and possibly the 1994 lockout as that shortened his rookie season).  In a different higher scoring era, a player of Gonchar's ability would have even more impressive career numbers.

As things stand, Gonchar has 773 career points.  That is good for 18th all time among defencemen.  Three defencemen have more career points and are Hall of Fame eligible but not (yet) inducted.  These are Phil Housley, who as the fourth highest scoring defenceman ever should get there someday (it is an oversight that he hasn't been inducted yet), Gary Suter and Doug Wilson.  The latter two played in a higher scoring era in the 1980s and are less than 70 points ahead of Gonchar.  Were it not for lockouts, Gonchar would have more career points.  In terms of era adjusted points Gonchar is well ahead of either of them without taking lockouts into account at all.

Gonchar is having a strong season with the Ottawa Senators this year.  He is their team leader in terms of ice time this season.  He is currently the fourteenth highest scoring defenceman this season.  Thus it is clear that he is a key player on his team and not merely holding on to a career well past his prime to inflate his career numbers.

This is a hall of Fame career.  There have been few offensive defencemen with Gonchar's ability or longevity in the history of hockey.  He has been one of the best in his position and remains to this day a candidate to appear in an All Star Game. 

This gives us fourteen non-retired Hall of Famers.  They are:

Daniel Alfredsson
Martin Brodeur
Zdeno Chara
Sidney Crosby
Sergei Gonchar
Jarome Iginla
Jaromir Jagr
Evgeni Malkin
Alexander Ovechkin
Chris Pronger
Martin St Louis
Teemu Selanne
Tim Thomas
Joe Thornton

This list may continue to grow into the playoffs.  It may then shrink a bit in the off-season.  Since Chris Pronger and Tim Thomas did not play at all this season they are prime candidates.

Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
 

Comments

« Previous        < 1 2     

LiteWork's avatar

Your are talking to a brick wall Garth. PSH loses all credibility when he thinks Housley and Gonchar are Hall of Famers just because of their placement on the all-time points list.  He thinks Joe Nieuwendyk is a legit Hall of Famer but Datsyuk isnt that makes no sense.

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 03:34 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

Congratulations to LiteWork on winning the dumb comment of the day award

  Career totals are a poor way to judge a players career.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 01:49 PM ET

So Dave Andreychuk was a better player than Martin St. Louis?

Mike Gartner was better player than Maurice Richard?

You call me dumb but reading the back of hockey cards is your only method of evaluating players. I always enjoy reading your threads.

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 03:42 PM ET

Avatar

He is one of the best two way players in the world, is nearly a point per game player (which is completely relevant because it is the only way to compare playeers with significantly different numbers of games played) who is behind only Wayne Gretzky in the modern era for most Byngs and behind only Gainey is most Selkes, has two Stanley Cups, four All-Star appointments and in player polls was named “Smartest Player, Most Difficult to Play Against, Hardest to Take the Puck From (x2), Most Difficult to Stop, Cleanest Player (x2), and Toughest Forward to Play Against”.

Posted by Garth on 04/23/13 at 03:27 PM ET

I’ve come to realize none of this matters, Garth.  Only the subjective, myopic criteria of PSH has any bearing apparently.  He’s right, everyone else is wrong.  Tough it’s funny how supposedly being so right can make you obliviously obtuse to the fact that people would question you if you put out a list of players you thought should be in the Hall of Fame as of right now.

A simple, “you may have a point, I could be wrong” at any point in all these posts would have garnered PSH at least a modicum of respect from me but instead it’s all just, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.  Yet somehow, we’re the ones with our “panties in a bunch”.

Posted by Valek from Chicago on 04/23/13 at 03:44 PM ET

Paul's avatar

Let’s try to keep this somewhat on topic please. Thanks.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 04/23/13 at 03:51 PM ET

Avatar

He’s right, everyone else is wrong.

Oh, absolutely.  I waited a while before wading into this because I know that little he doesn’t post his opinions for discussion, be posts them because they are 100% factually accurate and cannot be disputed or even discussed.  Gregory wants to share his poorly written wisdom with us, to teach us that the only way to judge hockey players is based on naked stats without putting them in the silly context of actual game play.

Why watch hockey when you can see a list of number related to hockey ain without any context whatsoever, right Greg?

Posted by Garth on 04/23/13 at 03:52 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Congratulations to LiteWork on winning the dumb comment of the day award

  Career totals are a poor way to judge a players career.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 01:49 PM ET

So Dave Andreychuk was a better player than Martin St. Louis?

Mike Gartner was better player than Maurice Richard?

Did anyone say that career totals is the only way to judge a player’s career?  No that is your strawman argument.

That doesn’t change the fact that career totals are a good way to measure careers.  Anyone near the top in important career totals like goals or points was a very good hockey player.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 04:00 PM ET

shanetx's avatar

Both Lindros and Datsyuk are more deserving of the HHOF than the likes of Joe Nieuwendyk, Joe Mullen, Ciccarelli, Gartner etc.

Niewendyk has pretty lofty numbers,  three cups, a gold medal, a Calder, one King Clancy trophy and, I would argue the most important individual award in the sport, a Conn Smythe*.  The awards are there to make a strong case for him.  That’s what makes him a good example of why the numbers and trophies aren’t the best measuring stick.  He was the third most important forward for one cup winner (Dallas,
99), a grinder on a gold medal team and a roleplayer/off-ice leader for a second cup team (NJ, 03).  I am not old enough to remember the Calgary team but my impression is that he was of far less importance to the team than, say, Håkan Loob.

* he led they Dallas team in goals (Modano’s broken wrist hurt his and Hull’s performance) but realistically speaking the reason he won the trophy is that Belfour was Dallas’s best player but didn’t compare to the opposing team’s goalie (buffalo, Hasek) so they didn’t want to give it to a lesser or losing goalie.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 04/23/13 at 04:09 PM ET

shanetx's avatar

That doesn’t change the fact that career totals are a good way to measure careers.  Anyone near the top in important career totals like goals or points was a very good hockey player.

But we aren’t discussing the Hall of Very Good hockey players, are we?

TPSH, I have a fewactual, serious question I would like to ask to help wrap my mind around your evaluations of Hockey Players.  I think clarifying on some things might help augment the way your writings are perceived around here. 

*  Are you willing to concede that a player with a well rounded two-way game can be better than a player with a more finely honed offensive game? 
*  Are you willing to concede that there currently aren’t sophisticated enough metrics to evaluate a hockey player’s full contributions in a hockey game from a mathematical perspective?
*  Are you intentionally omitting some portions of a player’s portfolio based on trying to project what the hall of fame inclusion/refusal discussions may be?  What I mean by that is…  We’ve all seen the Dino/Cujo back and forth for years.  Are you considering this sort of media pressure to keep a player out/in as a part of your argument, or is it simply your opinion of whether a player is deserving or not?  If the latter is true, may I suggest a post on recent hall of famers you do not find deserving.
*  How much weight does international play matter to you?
*  How does individual performance versus performance within a team context factor into your decisions?
*  Recent retirees Lidstrom / Selanne / Modano / Hasek / Neidermayer / Chelios / Kariya / Forsberg.  first ballot? Second? Fringe?  Wholly undeserving?  Lindross?

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 04/23/13 at 04:24 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

Did anyone say that career totals is the only way to judge a player’s career?  No that is your strawman argument.

That doesn’t change the fact that career totals are a good way to measure careers.  Anyone near the top in important career totals like goals or points was a very good hockey player.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 04:00 PM ET

But it seems that career totals is your main focus when it comes to judging a player’s HOF worthiness. I agree anywhere near the top in goal or points was definitely a good hockey player. But that does not mean they were a great player or someone that deserves induction into the HOF.

Lets take for example Dave Andreychuk. I could say that Andreychuk should be a Hall of Famer because only 27 players in NHL history have more points than him! That is flawed because you are basically rewarding a player for being born on a particular date. Andreychuk only scored that many points because he had the opportunity to do so. Great players like Howie Morenz, Charlie Conacher, Ted Lindsay, Maurice Richard etc, didnt have the opportunity to put up 1338 points.

Career totals (500 goals, 1000 points,) are nice and all but when you start talking about the HHOF you’re getting into an all-time discussion where if you don’t do your homework a little, or have even a little context (followed by respect) for the different eras in the history of our great game you look completely foolish. Andreychuk may have scored 640 goals and 1338 points but how many seasons was he one of the top players in the game?

Same goes for Gonchar. He be 15th all-time in points among defenseman but that doesnt mean much when you consider how bad he was defensively for most his career.  He never won a Norris. In fact he was never even a finalist. And if there was anytime to win a Norris it was post-2000 in a somewhat weak era for defenseman.

So career totals are pretty flawed because they favor players who enjoyed long, healthy careers. But more important they favor players who played in a certain era. How you dominated your peers is more important. Sorry for the long post.

 

 

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 04:49 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

Niewendyk has pretty lofty numbers,  three cups, a gold medal, a Calder, one King Clancy trophy and, I would argue the most important individual award in the sport, a Conn Smythe*.  The awards are there to make a strong case for him.  That’s what makes him a good example of why the numbers and trophies aren’t the best measuring stick.  He was the third most important forward for one cup winner (Dallas,
99), a grinder on a gold medal team and a roleplayer/off-ice leader for a second cup team (NJ, 03).  I am not old enough to remember the Calgary team but my impression is that he was of far less importance to the team than, say, Håkan Loob.

* he led they Dallas team in goals (Modano’s broken wrist hurt his and Hull’s performance) but realistically speaking the reason he won the trophy is that Belfour was Dallas’s best player but didn’t compare to the opposing team’s goalie (buffalo, Hasek) so they didn’t want to give it to a lesser or losing goalie.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 04/23/13 at 04:09 PM ET

Nieuwendyk doesnt have lofty numbers. His best placements are 16th, 17th, 17th, 22nd, 22nd, 32nd, 47th, 58th, 63rd, 68th. Very unimpressive from a HOF perspective. He wasnt close to top 10 in points. Very rarely he led his own team in points. He was never top 10 in Selke voting. Never top 10 in Hart voting. He was never selected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team. The Calder and King Clancy are very minor awards. The Conn Smythe is a nice award but you dont have to be a great player to win one. There are plenty of Smythe winners who probably wont make the HOF.

As for his 3 Cups he was a supporting player for the win by Calgary. He was great for Dallas in 99. He didnt even play in the finals for New Jersey in 2003. Joe was a good, complimentary player but imo not a Hall of Famer.

 

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 05:06 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Hoo boy, there’s a lot of fun stuff here.

Yes, Datsyuk was only third in Hart voting for 2009 when he won the Selke.  He was behind Ovechkin and Malkin, two guys who are on your list as current Hall of Famers if they retired now.

It would be a good argument to dismiss Datsyuk’s Hart so flippantly as meaningless in the discussion if it wasn’t a year he finished behind two guys with fewer career points.

But whatever, this is about Gonchar.

My questions goes back to what shanetx said earlier. I just want to make sure. Sergei Zubov absolutely deserves to be in the NHL Hall of Fame, right?  I mean, if Gonchar does, then Zubov absolutely does.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/23/13 at 05:41 PM ET

shanetx's avatar

I would argue that top 20 in anything is pretty lofty.  There’s not many guys around him who aren’t hall of famers.  I mostly agree that he’s not a worthy hall of famer, however.  I was using him as an argument that you have to account for more than numbers and awards because his career looks more impressive without context.  He comes across good on paper but its not like any of us will be telling our kids about Niewy unless its the one Dallas run and the terrible gm job.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 04/23/13 at 05:42 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

I would argue that top 20 in anything is pretty lofty.  There’s not many guys around him who aren’t hall of famers.  I mostly agree that he’s not a worthy hall of famer, however.  I was using him as an argument that you have to account for more than numbers and awards because his career looks more impressive without context.  He comes across good on paper but its not like any of us will be telling our kids about Niewy unless its the one Dallas run and the terrible gm job.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 04/23/13 at 05:42 PM ET

I agree completely. Niewy was almost like a compiler of career accomplishments. He checks all the right boxes 500G/1000 Points, Cups, Conn Smythe, and he was a nice guy. We should all love and remember Joe for the player he was and not for being a questionable HOF selection.

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 06:15 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

Hoo boy, there’s a lot of fun stuff here.

Yes, Datsyuk was only third in Hart voting for 2009 when he won the Selke.  He was behind Ovechkin and Malkin, two guys who are on your list as current Hall of Famers if they retired now.

It would be a good argument to dismiss Datsyuk’s Hart so flippantly as meaningless in the discussion if it wasn’t a year he finished behind two guys with fewer career points.

But whatever, this is about Gonchar.

My questions goes back to what shanetx said earlier. I just want to make sure. Sergei Zubov absolutely deserves to be in the NHL Hall of Fame, right?  I mean, if Gonchar does, then Zubov absolutely does.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/23/13 at 05:41 PM ET

Datsyuk will get in. He’s one of the defining players of his era.

As for Gonchar, he and Zubov’s career are very similar. Both didnt become all-around defenseman until post-lockout. Zubov was, for the most part, better than Gonchar and both enjoyed a similar level of team success. Zubov also was better defensively for longer.

Take at look at some of the recent inductees:

Guy Lapointe
Lionel Conacher
Larry Robinson
Borje Salming
Viacheslav Fetisov
Rod Langway
Paul Coffey
Ray Bourque
Larry Murphy
Al MacInnis
Scott Stevens
Brian Leetch

Lidstrom, Chelios, Blake and Niedermayer will be inducted soon as well.

So Zubov and Gonchar have no chance. The case would look different if the Hall treated forwards and defensemen equally though.

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 06:18 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

* 1. Are you willing to concede that a player with a well rounded two-way game can be better than a player with a more finely honed offensive game? 
* 2.  Are you willing to concede that there currently aren’t sophisticated enough metrics to evaluate a hockey player’s full contributions in a hockey game from a mathematical perspective?
* 3.  Are you intentionally omitting some portions of a player’s portfolio based on trying to project what the hall of fame inclusion/refusal discussions may be?  What I mean by that is…  We’ve all seen the Dino/Cujo back and forth for years.  Are you considering this sort of media pressure to keep a player out/in as a part of your argument, or is it simply your opinion of whether a player is deserving or not?  If the latter is true, may I suggest a post on recent hall of famers you do not find deserving.
* 4.  How much weight does international play matter to you?
*  5.  How does individual performance versus performance within a team context factor into your decisions?
* 6.  Recent retirees Lidstrom / Selanne / Modano / Hasek / Neidermayer / Chelios / Kariya / Forsberg.  first ballot? Second? Fringe?  Wholly undeserving?  Lindross?

I will attempt tho answer these questions and I have numbered them for simplicilty to refer to them.  Many of them I have answered repeatedly over the years in past posts.

1.  All other things being a equal “well-rounded” player is better than a “one-dimensional” player.  I put those words in quotes because we will have to debate exactly who falls into which category and probably find that nobody fits either category exactly.

2.  There is no perfect mathematical metric so any numerical analysis is at best imperfect.  The hope is to build that metric and while it will get better and better overtime there always must be an “override” when the results do not fit with reality.  The idea that today we can evaluate players mathematically alone is ridiculous.

3. I have posted about the Hall of Fame case of every player inducted into the Hall of Fame since 2005 and some I call unworthy.  I try to ignore media pressure for a player and the re-writing of history that goes on after a player retires.  If I don’t think the player is a Hall of Famer during his career, then he isn’t a Hall of Famer after he retires and no media pressure will change a decision for or against his induction.

4. International play definitely matters.  International play in the best on best tournaments at least.  The World Championships in May are near useless to evaluate players but Olympics and World Cup/ Canada Cups are valuable.  This is especially true for Canadians who have stiff competition to get on the roster and far less so for a Latvian/ Slovak, with different levels of value for the countries in between.

5.  Being a significant part of a winning team can help a player’s chances but we must key in on the word significant.  If you could replace a player with any of 20 or more others an expect the same result or better it doesn’t mean much anymore.  The player must be the one clearly “driving the bus”.  That said, I won’t punish a player for happening to be on a bad team.  A great player can play on a bad team and there are examples of this in the past.  The meaningful question is how well would a team do if this player was the best player on the team.

6. I refuse to make a distinction between first ballot and “fringe” Hall of Famers.  If a guy is good enough to make the Hall of Fame then he is good enough and it doesn’t matter if he has been out of hocke for 3 years or 5 years or 20 years,  I have kept this Hall of Fame list updated on blogposts that exist as far back as 2005 and you can get a good idea what I think of recent retirees/inductees.  The only player on your list I do not consider a Hall of Famer is Paul Kariya.  He probably reitred in the situation where Pavel Datsyuk is currently.  He is not too far away but he hasn’t earned his enterance yet.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 06:48 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Sergei Zubov absolutely deserves to be in the NHL Hall of Fame, right?  I mean, if Gonchar does, then Zubov absolutely does.

No.  I would induct Gonchar and not Zubov.  Zubov played more in a higher scoring era and yet has fewer points (very slightly fewer).  I waited on the Gonchar call until he passed Zubov for that reason.  If we era adjust the points, Gonchar wins significantly.  Gonchar also has a higher peak value with 2 second team All Star berths compared to Zubov’s one.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 06:50 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Perhaps this post is useful to explain my Hall of fame standards.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 06:59 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

If you think Gonchar was better than Zubov thats ok. I disagree but its close. But how do think Housley deserves to be inducted and Zubov doesnt. That completely indefensible.

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 07:38 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If we era adjust the points, Gonchar wins significantly.

Please do.  I would like a good explanation how the 93-94 season skewed things so much more with their whopping 0.12 goals/game difference over the 95-96 season when they were both playing.

Quick math on that consideration gives the Rangers 11 fewer goals in Zubov’s biggest season and brings his points total down from 89 points to 86.

I’d like a comprehensive accounting for the era differences between two players separated in age by four years and whose careers overlapped for 15 seasons.

Then I’d like a good accounting for why Zubov’s plus/minus is 110 spots higher than Gonchar’s.  I mean, I know that stat has some flaws, but a 110-goal differential is significant.

Then perhaps we could also study the reason Zubov has little more than 1/3rd of Gonchar’s career penalty minutes.  The fact that Zubov played over 1,000 career NHL games and racked up only 337 penalty minutes is absolutely amazing for a guy who actually played defense.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/23/13 at 07:42 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

But how do think Housley deserves to be inducted and Zubov doesnt.

400 plus more points

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 08:07 PM ET

shanetx's avatar

I’ve said it before and never been taken seriously:  in the 00s, Zubov was the closest thing any other team had to Nick Lidstrom.  Quietly rock solid, dependable, fantastic defensive stick work, and he covered up a whole lot of holes in some pretty bad Dallas teams while eating tons of ice time.  He wasn’t as flashy as Neidermayer or Pronger but he was a definite difference maker and a true number one type guy. 

I will always wonder what he could’ve been had he lived more cleanly.  You didn’t see conditioning issues or anything but the guy smoked a cigarette between periods every game.  You would assume that was his lifestyle away from the arena as well and it has to have taken a toll.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 04/23/13 at 08:31 PM ET

LiteWork's avatar

But how do think Housley deserves to be inducted and Zubov doesnt.

400 plus more points

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 08:07 PM ET

Is career totals the only thing you look at? Especially when it comes to defenseman? Housley having 400 more totals means squat when you consider he played during a high scoring era and how bad he was defensively. Just curious do you think Mike Green should have won the Norris in 2009 and 2010?

Posted by LiteWork on 04/23/13 at 08:33 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Just curious do you think Mike Green should have won the Norris in 2009 and 2010?

I have sufficient posts on line to answer that question.  Go read them and see who I picked for the Norris.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/23/13 at 08:53 PM ET

Dakkster's avatar

Or… you know… a simple yes or no could have done…

Posted by Dakkster from Southern Sweden on 04/24/13 at 10:36 AM ET

IwoCPO's avatar

Nobody, including the resident genius (not me…stop), would ever select Gonchar over Datsyuk in any situation: HOF, pickup games, pickup bars.  The only person who would ever debate this is TPSH. And the only reason he does it is to start that debate on a Wing-fan heavy site.  Brilliant in his timing though.  He knows Wing fans are on edge already and throws this out there knowing the reaction. 

Again: nobody, including TPSH, actually feels Gonchar was a better player.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 04/24/13 at 10:44 AM ET

Bossy_Rules's avatar

Gonchar has had a brilliant career as an offensive defenseman.  He has been criminally overlooked and underrated for his whole career.  I think this article serves as a corrective. 

As for Datsyuk I think TPSH should apply the same era dependendt scoring adjustments for Datsyuk that he thinks are appropriate for Gonchar.  That would certainly bump Datsyuk up the list which I think is appropriate.  The more difficult part of the evaluation is measuring and valuing defense.  How can we know how many goals Datsyuk helped prevent?  Its very difficult.  He has the reputation but I don’t trust that.  And +/- is not much help because everyone on those Wings teams had great +/- numbers.  If we assume that he really was the brilliant defensive force that he is claimed to be by some (I personally don’t know if that’s true or not) then I think he is already in the Hall without accruing any more points.  But if his defense was mostly a team thing and not really reliant on his singular talent then maybe he’s not quite there yet.  I’m sure 1 or 2 more years and TPSH will have him as hall-worthy.

Posted by Bossy_Rules on 04/26/13 at 03:50 PM ET

Avatar

Since we are talking about Gonchar and it is harder to compare d-men and forwards I wanted to have a look at Housley, Zubov and Gonchar; I did a little stats work.

DISCLAIMER: I do not have a statistics background (although I have a math background) and this was a very quick look at one facet of the conversation.

That said let me explain my method to try to adjust for the time period in which a player played:

I looked at the average GPG from 1982-83 (Housley’s first year) to now.  From that data I arbitrarily selected 1995 as a standard.  (That was the first year all three played in the league.  However the data would work out similarly if another year was used.

What do I mean by a standard?  I think case I am saying that 1 point in 1995 = 1 true point.  For the other seasons I need to adjust based on a difference in league wide goal scoring.  As an example:

In 1985 there were 7.771 GPG.  So by dividing 5.973 (GPG in 1995) by 7.771 I get 0.768.  In other words 1 point in 1985 = .768 ‘true points’.

I did this for every season and multiplied each player’s total by my adjustment factor to get their total true points.  Results:

Housley: 1099 points, .735 PPG
Zubov: 803 points, .752 PPG
Gonchar: 839 points, .712 PPG.

So there you go some food for thought on the issue. 

I think it’s somewhat interesting that the OP uses the argument of Zubov playing in a higher scoring era than Gonchar as an argument for Gonchar over Zubov but neglects to take this into account when discussing Housley (perhaps just because Housley’s total points are much higher - as are his GP).

Posted by MikeR on 04/29/13 at 12:39 AM ET

monkey's avatar

Let Datsyuk build up his career numbers a bit more.

You want Pavel Datsyuk to build up his career numbers but you think Sidney Crosby is a hall of famer.  25 years old, already has a long history of concussions, 600 career points Sidney Crosby.  You have his poster on your wall, don’t deny it.  Also, Ovechkin and Malkin, all of the above comments also apply.

Posted by monkey from Finland on 05/15/13 at 07:45 PM ET

« Previous        < 1 2     

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Puck Stops Here

imageThe Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.

Who am I? A diehard hockey fan.

Why am I blogging? I want to.

Why are you reading it? ???

Email: y2kfhl@hotmail.com