Your personal all-time Leafs team

[L K]

I respect a lot out of Keon but his placement as #1 on that list seemed to be a little bit of ego stoking for me to try and get him back in the Leafs fold.  Over his stretch with the Leafs from 1960-1975 he was 38th in the NHL in PPG for guys playing >100 games.  He was outscored by Frank Mahovlich by 120 points, and Norm Ullman by 140 points over that same stretch.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I respect a lot out of Keon but his placement as #1 on that list seemed to be a little bit of ego stoking for me to try and get him back in the Leafs fold.  Over his stretch with the Leafs from 1960-1975 he was 38th in the NHL in PPG for guys playing >100 games.  He was outscored by Frank Mahovlich by 120 points, and Norm Ullman by 140 points over that same stretch.

Again, I can't really say who should be the #1 out of the players you're speaking of (i wasn't around to see them play), but it seems like you're looking at one stat and making a judgement based on that. I get that points is the most quantifiable in regards to skill but is points the only thing we can/should look at to truly name the greatest player of all time on one specific team?

I also agree that Keon seemed a bit like a "look, we still love you" gesture by the Leafs. But I can't really say whether he was the greatest or wasn't the greatest because I've never seen what he brought to the table.

 

[Kin]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Exactly. We can now put a lot of what Bergeron brings to the table on paper with all the fancy stats that are out there now. In Keon's case, I'm not really sure what was out there to show some of these skill sets. Even in regards to a silly stat like plus/minus, the NHL only started tracking this in 67/68.

 

[Guilt Trip]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

If we're talking greatest Leaf ever...Salming for me. Sundin is def top 5.
https://www.nhl.com/video/nhl100-borje-salming/t-277350912/c-48790803

 

[Highlander]

Salming definitely the top D man ever, one of my fav's man. 

 

[Pick]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

 

[Pick]

Salming definitely the top D man ever, one of my fav's man. 

Salming was a well oiled and efficient machine.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

You're never going to have the correct perspective when Keon won cups in a 6-team league and the others played in a league with 16-30 teams.

 

[Highlander]

Its like arguments I used to hear from friends when I lived in Ottawa in the mid 70's going to film school there. They would argue if the Beatles were better than the Stones and the arguments would get quite heated, until fisticuffs where in the air.  How stupid it seems now, even though to me it seemed stupid then.  Keon was a Stanley Cup Champion on 4 winning teams, was he better than Sundin or any of the others, not really?  So he lives in our hearts as an icon of days when the Leafs were truly great.  I sincerely hope that Matthews will move into that spot one day, but to do so, we need a Cup or two. And for some reason I don't think there is any chance of that happening anytime soon.  Hope that changes and Auston can make the Leafs "Great again". 

 

[ZBBM]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

We butt heads from time to time but when it comes to religion, we bow to the same altar.

 

[Kin]

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

I think it can do both. How a guy plays in the playoffs is obviously a huge part of what makes up a legacy but I think we have some pretty good examples of how winning cups drastically distorts the way some players are valued vs. others.

 

[Pick]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

You're never going to have the correct perspective when Keon won cups in a 6-team league and the others played in a league with 16-30 teams.

Keon beat the best of his time. No leaf since can say the same.

 

[Pick]

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

I think it can do both. How a guy plays in the playoffs is obviously a huge part of what makes up a legacy but I think we have some pretty good examples of how winning cups drastically distorts the way some players are valued vs. others.

Yes, you're right it does happen.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

You're never going to have the correct perspective when Keon won cups in a 6-team league and the others played in a league with 16-30 teams.

Keon beat the best of his time. No leaf since can say the same.

Eddie Shack also beat the best of his time.  Was Shack better than Sundin and Gilmour?

 

[#1PilarFan]

No Pilar? This list sucks.

 

[ZBBM]

No Pilar? This list sucks.

You must have missed my post.  I called out the legend that is Pilar.

 

[Pick]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

You're never going to have the correct perspective when Keon won cups in a 6-team league and the others played in a league with 16-30 teams.

Keon beat the best of his time. No leaf since can say the same.

Eddie Shack also beat the best of his time.  Was Shack better than Sundin and Gilmour?

Shack was a 3rd line winger. The only way Shack beat The best of his time was with an elbow to the face. Keon was Leafs #1 center and arguably the best forward in all 4 championships. Only Beliveau achieved what Keon achieved in that era. Mikita, Ullman, Delvecchio, and later Esposito, were guys who routinely out scored Keon but none won 4 cups.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

You're never going to have the correct perspective when Keon won cups in a 6-team league and the others played in a league with 16-30 teams.

Keon beat the best of his time. No leaf since can say the same.

Eddie Shack also beat the best of his time.  Was Shack better than Sundin and Gilmour?

Shack was a 3rd line winger. The only way Shack beat The best of his time was with an elbow to the face. Keon was Leafs #1 center and arguably the best forward in all 4 championships. Only Beliveau achieved what Keon achieved in that era. Mikita, Ullman, Delvecchio, and later Esposito, were guys who routinely out scored Keon but none won 4 cups.

I see.  So then I presume that you would surely be comfortable with the assertion that, say, Sundin's Leafs would have won multiple Stanley Cups if Mats Sundin had been replaced by Dave Keon?

 

[Pick]

People tend to talk about Keon like he was the Patrice Bergeron of his day so points would only be an aspect of the equation.

For my money Sundin's the guy but you can't forget the way winning cups distorts these things.

Does it distort things or does it place things in the correct perspective? The top center on 4 Stanley Cup teams is significantly more than anything Sundin, Gilmour or Sittler ever did.

You're never going to have the correct perspective when Keon won cups in a 6-team league and the others played in a league with 16-30 teams.

Keon beat the best of his time. No leaf since can say the same.

Eddie Shack also beat the best of his time.  Was Shack better than Sundin and Gilmour?

Shack was a 3rd line winger. The only way Shack beat The best of his time was with an elbow to the face. Keon was Leafs #1 center and arguably the best forward in all 4 championships. Only Beliveau achieved what Keon achieved in that era. Mikita, Ullman, Delvecchio, and later Esposito, were guys who routinely out scored Keon but none won 4 cups.

I see.  So then I presume that you would surely be comfortable with the assertion that, say, Sundin's Leafs would have won multiple Stanley Cups if Mats Sundin had been replaced by Dave Keon?

Yes. And if Sundin replaced Keon in the early sixties, Leafs may not have won 4 cups.

Imo, if Sundin had joined the team during that dynasty, he would have been a dissapointment. His story would look more like Bathgate's story than Keon's. Keon had the right stuff, Sundin didn't.