Pens. Flyers. Game 3.

[Tico Rick]

Naming Mario as a two-way center is like calling Coffey a defensive defenseman. Because sometimes he could play defense...? That's not good enough when you're talking about the best players in history in this regard...if we're really looking at defensive play, the list will likely not get long enough for Lemieux's name to ever come up in fact...of course, despite that he's the second best center in the history of the game...but it's not for his Selke game...

Well if you're focusing only on Mario's "Selke game", you're obfuscating. Clearly, no coach is going to ask arguably the best offensive player ever to play a more defensive game, though Mario could be an outstanding shut-down center when the situation warranted him to be. It also begs the question of how you define "two-way center" since your original statement was that Clarke was the best two-way center ever. Not one of the best, but the best. Leaving Mario out of the equation, there are still players that most people would call "two-way centers" who are arguably better than Clarke: Beliveau, Makita, Messier, Yzerman, Sakic, maybe Trottier. I would be tempted to throw Sid in there as well, though he's probably too offensively-minded for you. But again, hard to say since you haven't defined what you consider to be a "two-way center".

[mikey]

Two-way center means that a strong emphasis is being put on defensive play. They aren't a purely defensive center like Steve Kasper for instance...they still bring a high level of offense, but excel in the defensive end of the ice as well. Today: Bergeron, Kopitar, Barkov, etc.

This isn't a trick question like what brother combo has the most points in history: Wayne and Brent Gretzky. There's an implicit emphasis on defensive play. Not a "once in a while, this guy felt like learning who his goalie was...so therefore, he could have done it..." by that logic, I'll take Bryan Fogarty over Duncan Keith...

I don't think there's a perfect definition, but when you talk about two-way players in a historical sense, you're putting an emphasis on defensive play for sure. As such, Mikita doesn't really apply here. Looking back, I don't think there's a lot of merit to him being an all-time defensive player...I know there are some stories out there that he was a dynamo in the defensive zone, but that's not supported by game film or statistics or even most contemporary accounts...and early Yzerman (the first 10 or so years) wouldn't apply to this either...he had clearly had to sacrifice his offense to make it happen too...five times he finished top-8 in points before 1993...became a more defensive player and would never finish top-8 again. Sakic rounded out his game much earlier and still kept his scoring way up too...

[the wicked child]

**** Bobby Clarke, imo

[MR25]

Too much internet ink and oxygen wasted on Bobby Clarke imo

[Tico Rick]

Fair enough, mikey. There is no perfect definition, and I'm not sure how one can statistically compare both offensive and defensive skills sets of players from different time periods. While I accept that Clarke dominated at center during his era, I just don't see him in the same league as Makita or Beliveau. I'm just going by what I saw, and of course I may be biased because I just don't like Bobby Clarke.

**** Bobby Clarke, imo.

This isn't a trick question like what brother combo has the most points in history: Wayne and Brent Gretzky

I'm definitely going to have to use this as a trivia question.

[mikey]

All good. It's nebulous, for sure. I think it's easier to just say: who are the best centers of all-time, instead of "offensive", "two-way", "defensive" whatever...

For the record, I also don't like Bobby Clarke. That guy was a toothless dirt bag...but man, he was about as hard of a worker as you're gonna see...he might have been the first grinder superstar...

I think if tasked with the prompt: Who are the best centers in hockey history (very relevant to this game 3 thread haha), it would look something kind of like this:

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Beliveau
4-5 Morenz/Mikita
Next tier Nighbor/Clarke/Messier/Esposito/Sakic/Crosby
Next next tier: Trottier/Lalonde/Yzerman/Apps/Cyclone Taylor

[shmenguin]

if sakic exists on tier X, then crosby should exist on tier X - 1.

[Silentom]

I don't see Toews on that list.

It means nothing to me.

[mikey]

if sakic exists on tier X, then crosby should exist on tier X - 1.

I'd buy that. Sid is at the end of that tier currently, and I would buy that he's still a tier behind him...but will likely pass him when it's all done...

[meow]

if sakic exists on tier X, then crosby should exist on tier X - 1.

[shmenguin]

nope nope nope

for example, if is sakic is on tier 3, then crosby is on tier 2. crosby is one tier BETTER than sakic

[willeyeam]

best two-way center is a dumb argument because the answer is still Mario or Gretzky because their one-way was that much better than anyone else's so fight me

[willeyeam]

nope nope nope

for example, if is sakic is on tier 3, then crosby is on tier 2. crosby is one tier BETTER than sakic

oh boy here comes mikey

[meow]

nope nope nope

for example, if is sakic is on tier 3, then crosby is on tier 2. crosby is one tier BETTER than sakic

math was never my strong suit

[shmenguin]

It’s not really a hot take, and sort of a minor distinction. Can’t imagine anyone getting jimmies rustled on this one.

[mikey]

Oh, I don't really buy that...I'll buy same tier with Crosby likely to pass him...but I'm not sure I'm ready for full-on Crosby > Sakic yet...perhaps I should re-evaluate...I struggle sometimes to compute where current players fit historically...

[RonnieFranchise]

**** Bobby Clarke

[Robot B9]

Does anybody really think anybody other Mario and Gretzky are total better players than Sid? Who had better skill? Who are you picking ahead of him to start a team?

Honestly, **** Bobby Clarke imo, fwiw, til, tldnr

[mikey]

Beliveau, among others...

[meow]

You're nuts