Henrik Sedin - best passer.... ever?

[zephyr]

I feared I may have opened a can of worms with that comment. But since the snowball is already rolling, I might as well defend my stance. A few issues I have with the posts following mine.

1. Just because we haven't had many jerseys retired in 40 years does not mean the standards should be dropped to accommodate that futility. We have sucked for MANY of those 40 years. What if we continue to dominate the league and make multiple, deep playoff runs (dare I say, win some cups) with players worthy of vezinas, art rosses, harts, selkes, and conn smythes? If we keep that same shitty standard that was established (and now we must), we'll have jerseys slung into the rafters one by one. IF we make some more deep playoff runs, I can already see 5 players on this CURRENT team that would garner consideration: luongo (keeps it up for a few more years), sedin (ditto), sedin (ditto), kesler (ditto + more years), edler (ditto + many more years). We have set such a low standard for performance, the most difficult criteria to achieve for our jersey retirements is longevity.

2. Linden - love the guy too. #1 in our hearts, # "not even on the 1st page" in NHL scoring. In a far higher scoring time, he managed to put up some pretty mediocre numbers. So mediocre in fact, that it is solely his involvement in the community and his "playoff performer" tag that has him up there. For jersey retirement, that's not enough for me. You must be those things, and one of the best players of your time. I'm sure there are hundreds of community service awards that I would gladly nominate him for ...

Hell, if we win a cup and continue with using fan favourite and a couple big goals as major criteria, burrows should be in the discussion. I am not against jersey retirement ... if it is earned.

[dhabums]

For jersey retirement, that's not enough for me. You must be those things, and one of the best players of your time. I'm sure there are hundreds of community service awards that I would gladly nominate him for ...

I think you are confusing the HHOF with retiring a jersey. I am not the biggest LInden fan, but I don't think anything should be wearing the number again. Not our next #1 pick and not some 4th line call up.

[Fred]

I think Linden meant a lot to this team during his years in Vcr. He was respected ( a word that seems to have been lost in the modern day game ) throughout the league and especially here in Vcr. If ever there were two players that stood for what being a Canuck was it had to be Linden and Smyl... I wish we had clones of those two on the roster right now. For a start off to satisfy those staticians in our midst there number would be better. But these 2 player dominated the corners and the boards and in the case of Smyle no one...no one looked at this guy the wrong way and didn't regret it. He lead the team one season in goals, assists and PIM's. Linden was just such a big body the opposition couldn't move him without having to take a penalty.

[ESQ]

I think jersey retirement criteria have to be contextual.

In the context of this franchise's pathetic history, Smyl, Linden and Naslund were clearly standout players who carried the team at different times to near-greatness. If you're comparing our franchise to the Canadiens and their criteria, well, there's really no point of comparison between the two franchises except that they both play ice hockey. Of course, Montreal now has the reverse problem - their bar has been set so high, that as the team suffers under league-wide parity and can't win a Cup every few years, there is virtually no chance of them ever retiring another number.

For a better comparison, look at Buffalo's retired numbers: http://sabres.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=36403

None of them won a Cup. The entire French Connection was retired based on years of strong regular season production and being fan favourites. Tim Horton got retired for only playing 2 seasons at the end of his career. Pat Lafontaine got retired for being a superstar who never got out of the first round in Buffalo.

Anyway, I'm personally as a fan satisfied with whose numbers have been retired and whose have been honoured.

[ESQ]

I think jersey retirement criteria have to be contextual.

In the context of this franchise's pathetic history, Smyl, Linden and Naslund were clearly standout players who carried the team at different times to near-greatness. If you're comparing our franchise to the Canadiens and their criteria, well, there's really no point of comparison between the two franchises except that they both play ice hockey. Of course, Montreal now has the reverse problem - their bar has been set so high, that as the team suffers under league-wide parity and can't win a Cup every few years, there is virtually no chance of them ever retiring another number.

For a better comparison, look at Buffalo's retired numbers: http://sabres.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=36403

None of them won a Cup. The entire French Connection was retired based on years of strong regular season production and being fan favourites. Tim Horton got retired for only playing 2 seasons at the end of his career. Pat Lafontaine got retired for being a superstar who never got out of the first round in Buffalo.

Anyway, I'm personally as a fan satisfied with whose numbers have been retired and whose have been honoured.

[RoyalDude]

I'd vote for Henrik as best passer ever if only he fought more.

[topcornermax]

This guy can chuck sauce like a 2yr old with a plate of spaghetti.. Hands of an angel

[Per]

I think jersey retirement criteria have to be contextual.

In the context of this franchise's pathetic history, Smyl, Linden and Naslund were clearly standout players who carried the team at different times to near-greatness.

This!

I agree whole heartedly. And I think it is fair to claim that these three players, who were bona fide franchise players, albeit for a crappy franchise, hold a special place in the hearts and minds of Canuck fans. Thus it is makes perfect sense to honour them by retiring their jerseys.

And in time, I'm certain the twins will have their jerseys retired too.

[rats19]

2020 draft pick..wearing number 139.

Honoring absolutely.....hanging honoured jersey from rafters...absolutely

Retiring ...hmmmm not so much. And I loved all 3 guys..

[Blob Mckenzie]

if they keep up their current paces, our team continues to perform at the top of the league during the regular season, and advances deep into the playoffs, they will be more than deserving of jersey retirement.

too bad our rafters are already tainted with 3 numbers that have no business being up there ... this coming from a big fan of all 3 players.

No shit zephyr.............. a lot of the leslies would like to also hang up G Butcher and H Snepsts.

10 is the only number desrving of being hung in the rafters but even that is debatable.

A lot of people want to give Trevor the honor for taking a few mongoloids to games and holding old ladies hands across the street. He was Kirk Muller lite at best

Stan was a half decent player who was a tough bastard and who played the game right but he deserves his jersey retired....... I think not.

Naslund...........in my best Ozzie Guillen.........Please.....please

[dbr]

I think all three players were great Canucks whose contributions should be honoured. Should that be with a retired number? I don't think so personally.

I like the way storied franchises like the Habs do it. They have fewer retired numbers than they have Stanley Cups, or former players inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame. And a good thing too, because they'd have to go into triple digits to have a full roster if they had been retiring jerseys the way the Canucks do.

Of course, the Canucks aren't all that different from other Cup-less expansion era teams - ESQ mentioned the Sabres, the Blues have three SCF appearances like us and have retired six numbers, the Kings have SCF appearance and have retired five. The Capitals have one finals appearance and have retired four.

I guess personally I just think the Canucks should conduct themselves as though they plan to be a storied franchise, retiring the numbers of good team players who were generally leaned on a bit too hard isn't really befitting a team that's (hopefully, maybe) going to have lots of players and people of that calibre when it's all said and done.

The other thing that kind of bugs me is how quickly the Canucks seem to retire numbers - Smyl and Linden the same year they retired, Naslund two years after leaving the team and just a year after he retired (and it probably would've been sooner if we hadn't retired Linden's jersey so recently). Maybe the organization should see whether the legacies of these players stands the test of time or not before they fall all over themselves to put another sweater in the rafters.

Anyway, as for the OP - is Henrik Sedin the best passer of all time? Not a chance. However he is the best passer in the game right now and probably since the lockout.

[Puck]

I believe Gretzky was once quoted saying Igor Larionov was the best passer in the game. Don't know how that fits in with this discussion, but I find it interesting. Igor was great.

Meanwhile, I think Hank is damn impressive. I'll agree that he's probably the best in the current era and I will also point out that it's hard to compare his numbers against the goal-crazy 80s.

[Cornuck]

Meanwhile, I think Hank is damn impressive. I'll agree that he's probably the best in the current era and I will also point out that it's hard to compare his numbers against the goal-crazy 80s.

I agree that it's impossible to compare players from different eras. How would Gretzky fare in today's game? He'd probably be next to Sid with a concussion.

Although Gretzky put up the numbers and created tons of chances from his 'office', I don't remember (but then my memory is lacking in many regards) seeing the mastery of passing the Henrik possesses and displays on a nightly basis. Maybe another way of looking at it is, "Would Henrik win a hypothetical skills competition against the others in their prime?".

Now I realize I'm getting a little out of reality here, but I'm just curious what the general opinion is. For the record, I'm not saying that Henrik is the best passer ever, but I think he's gotta be top 5.

[Lloyd Braun]

The thing about Hank when compared to other all-time great passers, is that each had a legendary second attribute. Gretzky's god-like vision (Hank has excellent vision, but nowhere close to the great one), Mario & Forsberg's strength on the puck, Crosby's quickness, etc. To me, Henrik's core game is that of a pure passer, and he's managed to add to that on the basis mostly of work ethic and determination -- to me, this explains a comparatively slower transition to the NHL.

So, pure passing? I think there's a real argument to be made that none of the other all time great passers had the control and adaptability that Henrik seems to have. He seems to be able to saucer forehand or backhand, short range or cross ice, and right on the receiver's stick almost every time. It's insane to watch. I wonder what would have resulted if Gretzky's vision had been combined with Henrik's physical passing skill...?


On the other topic in this thread: I think Kesler in the current era is the perfect example of what would have happened to the Lindens and Smyls on a competitive team. If his career has some longevity and he remains a Canuck, I'm certain he'll hard-work his way into fans' hearts as strongly as Linden by the time he's done. However, can you imagine Kesler's number being retired at a time when we would just have finished retiring two Sedins and possibly a Luongo too (which will probably happen if he wins a cup)? Obviously, it goes without saying that if Kesler's offensive game takes another big step up, he may force the issue.

I think our rafters will get very crowded within the next decade or so.

[Waffle]

There were a couple of posts earlier in December related to trying to get a statistical picture on a play maker's effect on those he plays with, and here is a snippet in case anyone is interested.



From: http://hockeyanalysis.com/

Can a Player Influence his Teammates Shooting Percentage?
By David Johnson on December 9th, 2011

Update:  Eric over at Broad St. Hockey has an interesting post looking at individual shooting percentages as opposed to on-ice shooting percentages as I did above.  Four of the players he looked at are H. Sedin, Crosby, Thornton and Datsyuk and for each he looked at a number of teammates with at least 30 shots with and without.  Taking it a step further I think it is necessary to average across players to get a better idea of what is happening.  If you do that, this is what you get:

With Without Boost
Sedin 11.19% 6.81% 64.28%
Crosby 9.14% 7.55% 21.17%
Thornton 9.69% 7.27% 33.19%
Datsyuk 9.36% 6.98% 34.09%

Wow, that might make Sedin the best playmaker in the league, by a significant margin.  Crosby doesn’t look quite as good as my “on-ice” analysis but that is because much of the reason why Crosby improves his linemates on-ice shooting percentage is because he is such a great shooter himself.
The point still stands, without considering shooting percentages we aren’t getting anywhere close to having a complete analysis of a players impact on the game.

The BroadStreetHockey post
Do Playmakers Drive Teammates' Shooting Percentage?
Dec 9, 2011
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2011/1 ... percentage