Why So Little Respect for Dionne?

[ScottM]

 

It seems that anytime I come across a list of the top centers in hockey history, Marcel Dionne's name is always missing. To be honest, that puzzles me. I know his attitude left a lot to be desired at times, and I know he was far from a media darling since he wouldn't "kiss their butts," but his play really should seem to speak for itself. If I'm not mistaken, at the time of his retirement, he was third all-time in points in NHL history, and I believe he reached as high as second on that list at one point. He never led the league in goals or assists (though I'd argue that a look at the competition would explain much of that), but he scored at least 50 goals six times, and he was second in both goals and assists at times, revealing a pretty well-rounded offensive game. He also won a scoring title in 1979-80.

 

He never won the Hart Trophy, but he did win the Pearson -- twice in fact. The first time, he beat out Bryan Trottier, and the second time he beat out Wayne Gretzky. Needless to say, that's some steep competition, and it's pretty hard to say that they weren't deserved wins. So, if the primary logic behind his being left off of many lists is the lack of a Hart Trophy, that seems pretty unfair. He's often criticized for his lack of playoff success and his never having won a Cup. But, then I look at the rosters of the teams he played with. It's far from a who's who. It's really hard to imagine that there's much of anyone that could be plugged into his spot that would have improved the team's result. Put quite simply, he played on some well below average teams, and still managed to put up big numbers.

 

I also took a look at his similarity scores on Hockey Reference. These were the names on that list: Joe Thornton, Steve Yzerman, Jarome Iginla, Brett Hull, Teemu Selanne,Marian Hossa, Joe Sakic, Bobby Hull, Maurice Richard, and Jean Beliveau. By no means is that a be all end all comparison. Some of those guys are clearly above him and some are (very) below him, but it's a pretty good list to be in the company of. Personally, I can't find a good reason for excluding him from a list of the greats. Why is he not named more frequently?

[flyercanuck]

He played on a crap team that never won the cup. That's likely THE reason.

[ScottM]

16 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

He played on a crap team that never won the cup. That's likely THE reason.

 

That's the only conclusion that I can come to. Personally, I think it's a crap reason. I think winning a Cup is given way too much importance in judging individual players.

 

Btw, let me add that I'd be interested in seeing where you guys believe he should be ranked among centers.

[flyercanuck]

Gretzky/Lemieux/Beliveau/Clarke/Messier/Mikita/Trottier and then Dionne?

[yave1964]

@flyercanuck IMHO got part of it right, a LARGE part to be sure, but there is more.

 

  He was a tossup along with Guy Lafleur for the first pick in the draft his year he came out, Montreal chose Guy and went on another cup spree, Dionne went second and never won.

  @ScottM He was drafted by Detroit as the heir to the Gordie Howe throne (I know, different positions but huge expectations) and proceeded to whine and cry his way out of town. That left a bad taste in a lot of mouths in an era when players did not do that, let alone kids still trying to establish themselves.

  He has had a rep as a bit of a tool even in retirement. I read an article a few years ago in which he seemed annoyed in retirement about being questioned about lack of cups. He pointed out that he had a friend named Rick Chartraw who won four cups with the Canadiens, Dionne said, and I am paraphrasing, "He won the cups, I made the money. Now that we are retired, go as Chartraw which he would rather have." Even beyond that he is aloof, I read a wonderful book about retired players out on the circuit playing pickup hockey games across country and it is pointed out that Dionne tends to avoid even his teammates and stay to himself. While the rest of the retired players would go to the hotel bar and regale small towns across Canada with tales and exploits, he simply went to his room. Tiger Williams, a much lesser albeit a very good player would work the room til closing time and Dionne would be nowhere to be seen.

  So as a player, he did not measure up to Lafleur, he was regarded as a prima donna and not as dedicated as he could have and should have been, and pops off about how he would rather have the money than the cups. Now the truth is, most players given a choice between winding up working for a living after calling it a career and having their name on a cup or waking every day for the rest of your life at noon and going to the golf course would take door number two you are not supposed to admit it out loud. He seems to wear his not winning a cup with a chip and a snarl.

  Great player. I I me me type, but great player. In a lot of cases players get a bad rep for not winning but I always felt that if his desire came close to matching his talent he would have had half a dozen cups. He was satisfied making his money out in California and riding off to the golf course in the sunrise. Not my type of player.

[yave1964]

7 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

Gretzky/Lemieux/Beliveau/Clarke/Messier/Mikita/Trottier and then Dionne?

Like your list, personally I would add Sakic/Yzerman for certain, absolutely no questions asked. I rank him ahead of contemporaries such as Perreault and Sittler but not by much.

Others whom I might consider ahead of him would be:

Sid Abel

Davey Keon

Elmer Lach

Delvechhio

 

 

All going back quite a ways but all team players.

 

More recent:

Crosby?

Forsberg?

Lindros?

 

  Nobody ever really thought of Dionne as the best player in the game at his position or if they did it was for a very brief moment, Gretzky came along and stole his thunder. Like I said he could play, but he was more interested in individual stats than winning. Not my type of player.

But still, at worst, top 15-20 among centers all time and possibly even top ten.

[ScottM]

@yave1964 I get that too. I don't really have a very high opinion of Dionne personally because of all the things you mentioned, but I guess I look at something like this viewing more of just his play. But, yes, I generally agree with what you said with one excpetion:

 

8 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

I always felt that if his desire came close to matching his talent he would have had half a dozen cups.

 

I don't believe that even Gretzky could have been put in his spot and have had that level of success. I think that's just how badly lacking those teams were in talent.

 

Btw, I'll make my list of who I think is ahead of him this evening when I get home from work. I'm a bit muddleheaded with congestion today so I want to be able to sit down and really focus on it.

[WordsOfWisdom]

15 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

Great player. I I me me type, but great player. In a lot of cases players get a bad rep for not winning but I always felt that if his desire came close to matching his talent he would have had half a dozen cups. He was satisfied making his money out in California and riding off to the golf course in the sunrise. Not my type of player.

 

All excellent points, although if your team has a losing culture (like the Kings had back then) it's very easy to just "fit in" and play down to the lowered expectations. It's like working for a company that you hate. People just punch the clock and do the minimum that is required. You could do more, but then you know you'd be the only one while everyone else is just dead weight, so why bother? I could see how that might be a factor.  

 

 

[yave1964]

Just now, ScottM said:

@yave1964 I get that too. I don't really have a very high opinion of Dionne personally because of all the things you mentioned, but I guess I look at something like this viewing more of just his play. But, yes, I generally agree with what you said with one excpetion:

 

 

I don't believe that even Gretzky could have been put in his spot and have had that level of success. I think that's just how badly lacking those teams were in talent.

 

Btw, I'll make my list of who I think is ahead of him this evening when I get home from work. I'm a bit muddleheaded with congestion today so I want to be able to sit down and really focus on it.

Everyone has stated for so long that the Kings were talentless, but have you ever heard of the Royal Crown line, Simmer, Taylor and Dionne were a wonderful trio, still one of the coolest nicknames for a line of all time. Larry Murphy was a stud on the back end, Mario Lessard, largely forgotten now was one Hell of a netminder, Mike Murphy, Dave Lewis, Billy Harris, not a bad supporting cast.

 If you had traded Dionne with Lafleur, I think that Dionne would have been a lot like a young talented but lazy center named Pierre Larouche who joined the Hab dynasty halfway through from Pittsburgh and immediately was nailed to the bench by Bowman for not wanting to play defense. Larouche was a star who believed himself to be a superstar but Bowman refused to hear of it, until he was willing to sacrifice and play hard he was in and out of the lineup. I believe Bowman would have gotten more out of Dionne.

  Would Lafleur have had a different path if drafted second by Detroit? He started slow in Montreal, his first few years he was booed a lot but when he clicked my God was he beautiful on the ice.

[ScottM]

Yes, I'm definitely familiar with the Triple Crown line, and I meant no offense to Simmer or Taylor. They were good players, no doubt. I do believe though, that Dionne was the main driving force of that line. As good as the other two guys were, they didn't have his long term consistency or his peak. Plus, Murphy wasn't there for all that long, and had his best hockey ahead of him when he left.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase a little. Talentless never describes any NHL team, because it takes an immense level of talent to get there. Still, they were cellar dwellers for quite a bit of his career, and one season when they finished second in the division, they were 30-some points behind the Habs, who were really the only good team in the division. They were a longshot from being at the level of the dominant teams of the era. The Habs of the late 70s, the Isles of the early 80s and the Oilers of the mid 80s could certainly run rings around them. Thus, I don't think it's fair to compare Dionne directly to a Gretzky, Lafleur, Bossy, or Trottier when it comes to team success. He didn't have the luxury of playing with the Hall of Famers in their primes those guys did.

[ruxpin]

46 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

Everyone has stated for so long that the Kings were talentless, but have you ever heard of the Royal Crown line, Simmer, Taylor and Dionne were a wonderful trio, still one of the coolest nicknames for a line of all time. Larry Murphy was a stud on the back end, Mario Lessard, largely forgotten now was one Hell of a netminder, Mike Murphy, Dave Lewis, Billy Harris, not a bad supporting cast.

 If you had traded Dionne with Lafleur, I think that Dionne would have been a lot like a young talented but lazy center named Pierre Larouche who joined the Hab dynasty halfway through from Pittsburgh and immediately was nailed to the bench by Bowman for not wanting to play defense. Larouche was a star who believed himself to be a superstar but Bowman refused to hear of it, until he was willing to sacrifice and play hard he was in and out of the lineup. I believe Bowman would have gotten more out of Dionne.

  Would Lafleur have had a different path if drafted second by Detroit? He started slow in Montreal, his first few years he was booed a lot but when he clicked my God was he beautiful on the ice.

 

See, I disgree quite a bit.  First, I've never really heard of Dionne being a me-me-I floater with no desire.  And I truly disagree about the talentless.  Yeah, they had the line.  It was a brilliant line.  But they really didn't have other pieces that clicked.   Dave Lewis and Billy Harris were meh.   I mean, Dave Lewis was okay, but he was only there for 3 1/2 seasons.  One of which they did have a decent regular season.  But the guy never had more than 14-15 points.  In an era where you really should have had at least 20 just by accident.   Billy Harris.   Again, really only one full season--a good regular season, out the first round.

 

Both Lewis and Harris for Butch Goring, by the way.   I'm sorry, but when Guy Lafleur has the cast he does--including one of the best goalies ever.  When Mike Bossy has Trots, Potvin, and the rest of that cast, the cast that Gretzky had...and we're talking about the Law Offices of Lewis & Harris?   LOL

 

Larry Murphy, yeah, but again, 3 years (including the 80-81 year they did better).

 

Mario Lessard???  He had one good year.  The 80-81 year that the Islanders cast offs were there  (he had the most wins among goalies, but other stats weren't particularly exciting, even by the standards of the day).  Was Lessard that good or was he carried by a better team?    He's forgotten because he's forgettable.

 

Triple Crown Royal Dutch Line or not, the front office was a disaster.  It's hard to believe they were even trying.  It's actually amazing Los Angeles still has a team, because they were just a snoozefest while the Lakers and Dodgers had very good teams.  Dionne and The Line might be the only reason they're still there.

 

Does he belong in the Hall?  Yeah, despite the fact he never won anything.  I don't think he makes my top 5 players.  I'd have to think if and where he's in the top 10.   He doesn't get the respect because his teams did nothing.   But  change places with Gretzky and Dionne?  I don't know.  Dionne has a team then.   Gretzky probably does more with the 1980-81 cast than out in the first round.   I don't know that he wins it nearly by himself against the Islanders.  He didn't in Edmonton that year.

 

I don't know.  I'm not trying to paint him as the best ever or anything.  I just don't know if I agree with some of this.

[yave1964]

@ruxpin

 

All valid points, I am not saying that Dionne is a floater, hell you cannot put up the career numbers he did without putting in effort. And yeah, it is true that the Kings were bad before Dionne got there and more often than not they were bad with.

  I was born in 1964, my grandfather introduced me to Hockey at the old Olympia in Detroit, I have no memories of seeing Gordie live although I must have, as I went to games, at least once a year from the age of four on.

  I do vividly remember watching Dionne play in a Wings sweater, my favorite player at ten was a guy named Danny Grant who was the first Wing to score 50 in a year being set up by Dionne's brilliance.

  And then Dionne left. We got as compensation Dan Maloney and Terry Harper, two capable vets but nothing special. Grant and Mickey Redmond were injured the team hit a tailspin and had one of the worst decades of any team ever. My Grandfather hated Dionne for leaving, calling him a selfish brat, I remember it vividly and the assessment has stuck with me since.

  The other stuff, lots of people have went their entire career without winning cups, Sittler and Perreault two damn good direct contemporaries come to mind, but Dionne still makes the occasional smart ass comment about it which just makes my skin itch. A great player, but nowhere have I ever read anyone state that he is much other than a tool. That does not disqualify you as an all time great, lots of greats are horses you know whats, but he seems to revel in it. Short mans disease or something.

  Maybe what I don't like about Dionne is the fact that he does not play politics, he does not say the nice little cliché he speaks his mind, again, a lot of stuff that others are thinking but have the tact not to state out loud. His comment about how he would rather have the money than the Cups, all true I am sure. You just don't say it is all.

  And he ripped on the Wings, he still does in the few interviews that he gives when they come up. He says that the way that Gordie was retired and stuck in an office, his own personal Hell and then treated shabbily when he wanted to go play in the WHA convinced him (Dionne) that the Wings were a poor organization and he could not get away quick enough.

  Again all true, no problem there, but tact could have handled the situation better.

  Tail end of his career, playing out the string with the Rangers, he ripped his coach (Esposito) for the way he was not getting power play time. You just don't do that when you join a new team in the hunt for the postseason. Again, not saying he was wrong, just that he could have done it behind closed doors instead of becoming a distraction.

 So great player with or without the cups. Top ten at his position-probably. Top twenty-certainly.

  I just never liked him. He didn't care about being liked, not one bit, and that is fine. He did not suffer fools gladly which is fine but it gave him a surly well earned rep as a jerk both while playing and post career and that is something that I always think of when I think of him. Always will.

[ScottM]

@yave1964 @ruxpin I can't find the quote that I've seen about the Red Wings and Howe, though it was referred to here:

 

25 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

And he ripped on the Wings, he still does in the few interviews that he gives when they come up. He says that the way that Gordie was retired and stuck in an office, his own personal Hell and then treated shabbily when he wanted to go play in the WHA convinced him (Dionne) that the Wings were a poor organization and he could not get away quick enough.

 

He said in as many words that after he saw Howe "pushed aside" that he learned that it wasn't about the love of hockey and that he had to look out for himself. That definitely drove his mentality throughout his career. Knowing how the media can be (and this can even be said about some of the local media that I know personally), I can't blame him for not giving a flip about them. I also don't mind that he doesn't play the political game, but even ignoring those things, he's always struck me as a self-centered jerk, so I'm definitely in the "don't really like him" camp.

 

But, that said, I certainly think he ranks highly. I don't have him top 10 among centers, but he's very likely in my top 15, and certainly in my top 20. Some guys I'd have ahead of him are Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Morenz, Mikita, Esposito, Clarke, Messier, Yzerman, Trottier, Sakic, and Stewart. Some guys I'd put right in his neighborhood are Apps, Cowley, Lach, and Schmidt. I'd tend to say Lach's slightly ahead. As for the more modern guys mentioned, I'm not as high on Crosby as many, and Forsberg and Lindros weren't at their highest level for long enough in my mind. Anyway, knowing what I know about differing philosophies of rating players used around here, I think we're probably more or less on the same page in rankings.

[jammer2]

I agree with the assertion that Dionne is vastly underrated historically. I mean, Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmer, the other members of the famed Triple Crown line were also underrated, but I really believe that Marcel was the straw that stirred the drink on one of the greatest lines of all time. Loved Marcel's work ethic, but he was a victim of playing on some horrible Kings teams, not enough late playoff runs and yeah, no cup.

[ScottM]

2 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

I agree with the assertion that Dionne is vastly underrated historically. I mean, Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmer, the other members of the famed Triple Crown line were also underrated, but I really believe that Marcel was the straw that stirred the drink on one of the greatest lines of all time. Loved Marcel's work ethic, but he was a victim of playing on some horrible Kings teams, not enough late playoff runs and yeah, no cup.

 

With the mention of his work ethic, I think it's worth mentioning that as much as some of us might not like the "me first" attitude, it was certainly going to make sure he worked. He wasn't going to be lazy to ensure that he wouldn't be brushed aside. I think he probably felt like that happened in his last season, but he managed to stave it off until then.

[jammer2]

35 minutes ago, ScottM said:

 

With the mention of his work ethic, I think it's worth mentioning that as much as some of us might not like the "me first" attitude, it was certainly going to make sure he worked. He wasn't going to be lazy to ensure that he wouldn't be brushed aside. I think he probably felt like that happened in his last season, but he managed to stave it off until then.

 

 I'm not so sure it was "me first", I see it more as a proud man who refused to be denied. Either way, it got results.