2009 Top 100 Update Preliminary Discussion Thread

[tommygunn]

He never said Stats are the only thing that matters. He said Results are the only thing. HUGE difference.

Since when is goals not considered a stat?

 

[tommygunn]

In the 1950 poll of the best hockey player of the first half of the century, Morenz, Richard, and Nighbor were the only players to receive more than one vote.

Does anybody have the full results of that poll?

 

[nik jr]

Does anybody have the full results of that poll?

from this thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=486475

Alright, I found more on this (my original intent) in the Globe and Mail of all places. It wasn't actually published until the December 21st paper, which is why you couldn't find it.

It says that Morenz won over such greats as Cyclone Taylor, Frank Nighbor, Eddie Shore, Nels Stewart, Newsy Lalonde, Aurel Joliat, Syl Apps, Maurice Richard, Milt Schmidt and Turk Broda.

Morenz had 27 votes, Richard 4, Taylor 3, Nighbor 2, and the rest one.

Thanks for the heads up. I managed to find New York Times and Washington Post archives through my school's website.

Some interesting articles/points that came up searching for stuff:

- In 1939, writer Red MacKenzie, who mentions covering hockey in 1921 when Morenz was signed, calls him the best player of his time. He also says he's the "fastest player who ever drew on a boot" and that "if he had one fault it was his grit and determination to joust with all comers. Instead of dodging the vicious body checks that were flung in his direction by towering defensemen who outweighted him by 40-50 points, Morenz would deliverately hurl his frame through space where it would collide with these giants. Invariably the giant would topple over, but not without Morenz himself getting the worst of the impact."

- Interestingly though, he picks Nighbor as the center on his all-time forward line when considering "all-around greatness" for a balanced line (along with Joliat and Bill Cook). I thought it was funny hearing his description of his play: "He perfected the poke and hook check which he used to break up opposing attackers and it was nothing to see his own defensemen resting on their sticks and his goaler stifling many a yawn as the Pembroke Peach massacred eight out of ten plays that came through his center slot."

- Frank Boucher on defensemen, when asked if Eddie Shore is the hardest man to slip by: "No, I wouldn't say so. Hitchman is harder to get by. Shore is a rusher. But for tackling you when you come in and blocking you away from that net, Hitchman is tougher. Not that Shore is easy, you know. No, sir. But fellows like Shore and Clancy catch the eye of the spectator when they buzz up and down the rink, while fellows like Hitchman and Sylvio Mantha can do great defensive work without attracting half as much notice."

I'll update this post if I find any other interesting information.

morenz is another player who contemporaries raved about constantly.

 

[overpass]

In regards to Gainey : We shouldn't be revisionnists. The same thing could be said about Maurice Richard.

Seriously, if such a poll would be conducted here in Quebec, with people having an average-to-excellent knowledge of hockey (basically, everybody taking part in this list ranks in this category), Maurice Richard would be ranked second or third overall, next to Gretzky. He could be either over or under Lemieux. And many would rank him first overall (though those people would fall in the AVERAGE knowledge category).

Now, I see 70ies (I know you're doing some terrific research, but that was a blatent example) ranking him below top-10.

Whether anybody has Gainey on their list is IMO a personnal choice : I did not rank him in my list, but it could have been either way, and I prefered to go with another defensive player. He's a fringe guy for a Top-100, or even a Top-120. But we shouldn't be revisionnists, and start considering guys like Ramsay or Marcotte as better players than Gainey, or spread the wealth towards less prestigious teams because they were, well, less prestigious teams, by using an argument that reads like this : HABS ARE OVERRATED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CENTER OF ZE UNIVERSE AND WON MANY CUPS.

Some might really dislike what I just said, and really, that's the point of it.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree with some of it. As I see it, there are a couple of different ways to evaluate players in this kind of exercise - the view of the historian vs the view of the analyst.

The historian's viewpoint is to evaluate the player's importance within his context and time by collecting contemporary opinions and evaluations of his play.

The analyst's viewpoint is to attempt to evaluate players independently of their context, in a pure "all other things equal, who is the better hockey player?" This can be based on personal observation or stats.

This is an over-simplification, and I think basically all of the posters here fit somewhere in between these extremes. However, I think both are valid an important methods of examining the issue.

Personally I fall closer to the "analyst" side of things, especially for modern-era players where I can perform detailed statistical analysis, and even more so for recent players who I have seen play. For players in the last 10 years, I don't care that much about contemporary opinion - I know what I think about them. However, I'm also very interested in history; that's why I'm participating in this project. When evaluating older players for whom the stats are limited and the video almost non-existent, contemporary opinion is invaluable for me. Emphasis on contemporary - reputations can grow or diminish with the passage of time for various reasons.

Anyway, I don't know that someone who rates Maurice Richard is a revisionist - they are just analyzing and evaluating the evidence available and coming to a different conclusion than others. Personally, I think it's important to distinguish contemporary opinion from myths which may have grown up in the time since then. Richard only once won the Hart trophy - that's low for a top-5 player of all time, isn't it? It suggests to me that contemporary opinion may not have rated him that highly.

Regarding Richard, there's also the issue of possible pro-Richard bias in Quebec and anti-Richard bias outside of Quebec which makes it more difficult to accurately assess contemporary opinion. I'm open to arguments on that - but right now on the evidence I have him just outside the top 10.

 

[tommygunn]

from this thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=486475

Thanks for that! And thanks of course to pitseleh for originally posting it!

 

[FissionFire]

Can someone link me the Rocket Richard/Hull debates

I think most of it was in the Vote 2 thread.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=486475

 

[seventieslord]

Ramsay was actually always nose to nose with Gainey for the Selke and many of his best years were pre-selke,

That's actually a good point that hasn't been brought up.

Gainey played in 12 seasons in which the Selke was awarded, and placed in the top-10 in voting 8 times: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 9, 9.

Ramsay played in 8 seasons in which the Selke was awarded, and placed in the top-6 every time: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6.

Gainey played in four seasons prior to the Selke being awarded, Ramsay six.

This is just conjecture based on how their voting records went after the award was introduced, but based on Ramsay's pace he's looking at being top-6 six more times. I don't think that is out of line considering he appears to have been excellent defensively from the start. In his rookie season, his +5 sticks out like a sore thumb among those high minuses: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BUF/1972.html Gainey, assuming his pace, may have been top-10 another three times. And I think that's fair to say considering he was obviously very good in order for them to create the award, but as a rookie was a minus player on Montreal and would not have been considered.

If the Selke was awarded all along instead of halfway through Ramsay's career and 1/4 of the way through Gainey's, what we consider to be "contemporary opinion" might be different. All due to timing.

Look.. you feel that stat shows that Gainey shouldn't be as highly regarded as he is.
You already know how I feel about that stat.. and honestly, which you probably won't believe anyways.. even if it showed Gainey in a favourable light, I'd still dismiss it. There's just too many disclaimers associated with it to hold any water with me.

I agree that there are disclaimers and I wouldn't attempt to use it to compare Ramsay with Ziggy Palffy. But, as overpass mentioned, we're talking about two players with the same position, same defensive assignments, same era. A lot of the variables get eliminated.

Also, I'm not sure you're aware or not, so I'm just pointing out that when I discuss the GA figures for these players, I am referring to the actual numbers, and not overpass' adjusted +/- figures. You also may not be aware, but I'm told these raw figures were not available to the public until the release of 1998's Total Hockey. It is easier to quantify defensive ability with such numbers and the voters (who obviously relied on their own eyes as well) would probably never have imagined that Ramsay was doing better in the GA department and surely would have attributed his frequently higher +/- to his offensive skill.

As I mentioned in the previous post.. Gilbert Perreault.. was he so much better than Lafleur? Obviously not.. yet look at all the ink he gets. Ramsay on the other hand.. gets next to nil.

There's more glory in being an offensive player. based on what I have read and what overpass has already pointed out, I find it increasingly difficult to justify ranking Perreault and not Ramsay. I am aware that he gets little press - remember I referred to him as someone who is a footnote in history with everyone but Sabres fans and people like us.

As for Abel, Nighbor, Gilmour, Delvecchio, Ullman, and Francis. I have four of them on my list and the other two are in tight but are given considerable thought. Not surprisingly, I have Gainey ahead of them all. I feel he is more valuable to a team than any of them. Would he win a skills competition against them? Probably not. But, for an actual game and wanting someone who could control the tone of the game, I'd choose Gainey over any of the others.

I disagree. As you know. But I do think you should take a closer look at Nighbor. Kyle already pointed out everything that is worth mentioning so I won't bother. But I don't see any fathomable way that Gainey can be more valuable than this guy. The others, I disagree as well but I can at least see how the argument can be made.

Regarding Gainey and Ramsay's stats, I don't think Gainey's stats are bad. Many top defensive forwards don't have a great plus-minus because they were placed in tough defensive situations a lot of the time. Considering Gainey's reputation, I've got no doubt that he was one of the all-time greats as a defensive forward. The really impressive thing to me is how good Ramsay's stats were, as well as Luce's and Gare's while they played with him.

That's basically how I feel. I don't hold Gainey's stats against him but they do pale in comparison.

You have your opinion of Gainey, myself and others have their's, fine. But if you value defense as highly as you obviously do, I can't fathom how you can rank Gainey ahead of Frank Nighbor.

Nighbor was considered the best defensive forward of his era. His "sweep-check" technique (described as skating backwards while waving his stick in wand-like fashion) is credited with being a tactic that was of considerable agony to opposing forwards. Simply, if you were in Nighbor's vacinity, he was going to knock the puck off your stick.

The thing is, Nighbor was also an elite offensive player. Three top five finishes in goals, led the league in assists twice and was often in the top-five, and has six top-10 finishes in the points race. That's just in the NHL.

Nighbor was also a star in the PCHA and NHA, with several high finishes in the scoring race in both those leagues. He was named the all-star LW in his lone year in the PCHA, in which his Vancouver team won their only Cup, and tied Joe Malone for the goal scoring title in the NHA's final season (1916-17).

Nighbor was the backbone of the Senators team that won three Cups in the 1920's. In 19 Stanley Cup matches, Nighbor scored 11 goals and 20 points, and of course featured with his excellent two way play. He would probably have won two Conn Smythe's if the award had existed during his day.

Nighbor was criminally underrated on our first list, and hopefully he can move up the rankings this time. I will probably have him rated higher than anybody else does, as I believe now that he was truly amongst the very best of his era, maybe I can convince others of his greatness as well. On my last list I had him rated as the fifth best pre-26 player. I have now moved him ahead of both Denneny and Malone (who are still in my top 50).

Nice post.

One great quote about Nighbor from The Trail Of the Stanley Cup that you've probably found by now is, it was difficult for his admirers to agree on which he was better, offense or defense. To me that is huge. The numbers show how great he was offensively. He was one of the five best of his time. But if he was about that good defensively too, then there is really no comparison to him.

To think I got him at 103rd in ATD10.... and lost in round 1

I was giving Nighbor a good bump upwards, easily ahead of the other five comparable names I listed (as well as Syd Howe who I will be ranking but I will be mostly alone there). Now that you mention him being ahead of Denneny and Malone on yor list, you've got me thinking. He probably did bring more to the table than they did, overall, even if they were better offensively.

I wonder how this will turn out now, because I was also determined to give Denneny a small bump.

"We still get too caught up on individual attributes. Stewart was slow, so what? He still scored a ton of goals. If he was faster, but ended up with the same career achievements, why should we like him any more than we do now? It's all about results. it doesn't matter how you get there."
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=17432693&postcount=554

Wow, major misunderstanding there. Results and stats aren't the same thing.

If Stewart scored way more goals than the other players of his time, that's what matters. I don't care if he did it by having blazing speed, or just an amazing shot and the ability to get open. Do you? It shouldn't matter - the end result is that he scored the most goals.

I'm aware he was a defensive liability. that will certainly be taken into consideration. It has a measurable affect on what happens to his team when he's on the ice. His speed doesn't. He scored all those goals despite being slow.

 

[MXD]

Regarding Richard, there's also the issue of possible pro-Richard bias in Quebec and anti-Richard bias outside of Quebec which makes it more difficult to accurately assess contemporary opinion. I'm open to arguments on that - but right now on the evidence I have him just outside the top 10.

Well, nobody (or nearly nobody) in Quebec would have considered Howe the best player during the fifties, and I think we should take account of this as much as we're taking account everything else.

I don't even have Richard ranked as the higher Hab on my list. This said, having him below ten is exactly what I said earlier : revisionnism.

 

[seventieslord]

In regards to Gainey : We shouldn't be revisionnists. The same thing could be said about Maurice Richard.

Seriously, if such a poll would be conducted here in Quebec, with people having an average-to-excellent knowledge of hockey (basically, everybody taking part in this list ranks in this category), Maurice Richard would be ranked second or third overall, next to Gretzky. He could be either over or under Lemieux. And many would rank him first overall (though those people would fall in the AVERAGE knowledge category).

Now, I see 70ies (I know you're doing some terrific research, but that was a blatent example) ranking him below top-10.

OK, Gretzky over Richard is a no-brainer, fine. Lemieux, sure, I can see him being below depending on what criteria get valued more. Orr and Howe? Not a chance. Howe was the same position at the same time and dominated Richard. I'm not sure I would call someone with Richard over Howe, someone of average-to-excellent knowledge. their judgment is clouded by pro-hab or pro-francophone bias.

Therefore, I can see Richard 4th after the Big Three, but anything higher than that should be seen as a homer pick. I also think Hull, despite being a LW, is a decent comparable as their careers were in the same era (O6), and he was a better scorer, playmaker, and defensive player.

Anyway, those are just the easy choices. And if you had asked me two months ago I'd say Richard is 6th-9th. (it's tough slotting him with Beliveau, Shore, and Harvey)But as I mentioned, the more I read The Trail, the less impressed I get. I wish I kept sticky notes on all the pages where there was an account of an embarrassing Richard incident so that they would be easier to refer back to. His attitude was terrible and a huge detriment.

After reading all this (and I'm not even at 1960 yet) I determined he was definitely due for a drop. So I started to look at the names I used to have below him and the overall impact they had on Hockey in their time. Suddenly names like Bourque and the three most dominant goalies look a lot more appealing in the top-10 than he does. There is absolutely no disputing his goal-scoring ability and playoff record, however, and I could not in good conscience drop him any lower than 13th. I have to remember that Lalonde not too much further down and although I like Lalonde a lot, Richard was clearly better and is a great comparable - basically a more talented, more unstable, winger version of Lalonde.

[/QUOTE]

Anyway, I don't know that someone who rates Maurice Richard is a revisionist - they are just analyzing and evaluating the evidence available and coming to a different conclusion than others. Personally, I think it's important to distinguish contemporary opinion from myths which may have grown up in the time since then.

Bingo.

but right now on the evidence I have him just outside the top 10.

I never would have thought someone else would say this. I thought Richard was just a given in everyone's top-10.

 

[MXD]

...Who write that book?

 

[lextune]

I also take the Rocket as a given in the top ten. In my mind my 1-6 are a mortal lock, but I find I can switch around 7-10 (the order, not the players), depending on my mood.....

I can get comfortable with Richard at 7 on one day, and the next have him at 9 after Beliveau and Harvey.

On a related note I love my top ten so much, lol.
Six forwards and four D-Men....all we need is a time machine and we could have the greatest pickup game of all time.

 

[seventieslord]

...Who write that book?

Which book? The Trail Of the Stanley Cup? Charles L. Coleman.

If you're referring to the book that was linked to earlier, I can't seem to find it on this page. It was either deleted because it was an external link, or I'm blind.

edit: n/m. that was the ATD10 finals thread I was thinking of.

 

[overpass]

Well, nobody (or nearly nobody) in Quebec would have considered Howe the best player during the fifties, and I think we should take account of this as much as we're taking account everything else.

I don't even have Richard ranked as the higher Hab on my list. This said, having him below ten is exactly what I said earlier : revisionnism.

I have Richard 12th. The thing is, he's almost closer to 5th than 13th, as I have the 5-12 group very close, so I can be convinced to move him up in round 2. (Incidentally, my 5-12 group is Beliveau, Bourque, Harvey, Hasek, Hull, Jagr, Richard, Shore, not in that order.)

Anyway, I realize Richard is ranked very highly in Quebec. But isn't that a matter of cultural significance as much as hockey greatness?

I'm sure Jaromir Jagr is ranked very highly in the Czech Republic also.

History is subjective, it depends on your perspective. Ranking Richard outside the top 10 may be revisionist history in Quebec, but not necessarily from every other perspective. I'll take other perspectives into consideration when making my rankings, but in the end the most important perspective for me is my own. I'm not going to depend solely on the popular opinion in Quebec, the Czech Republic, or anywhere else.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Historical Revisionism is a funny thing, we tend to downgrade those who have been placed on pedestals, while at the same time trying to make ourselves look smarter by elevating those whom "we" feel have been overlooked.

The fun of doing one of these lists is that everybody has an opinion and this presents a forum to express it. I have been intently reading the discussion about Maurice Richard's placement on the list. In the interests of full disclosure I have him at number five on my list.

Now, I have seen others say that he is outside the top ten (unbelievable) and others place him between 5 and 13. I too believe that he does not belong any higher than five on this list, simply because he wasn't as talented a player as the four I rank ahead of him. And to be honest I can see where somebody could rank Beliveau and Harvey ahead of him, to be honest I view that as a flip of a coin.

But as I mentioned, the more I read The Trail, the less impressed I get. I wish I kept sticky notes on all the pages where there was an account of an embarrassing Richard incident so that they would be easier to refer back to. His attitude was terrible and a huge detriment.

This may be the first time that I have heard Richard referred to as a huge detriment. A detriment to whom, the Canadiens ?? Reading this I was reminded of an article written by Andy O'Brien in the aftermath of the Canadiens loss to the Red Wings in the 1955 finals. An enterprising Detroit reporter entered the Montreal dressing room and asked Jacques Plante if the Rocket's suspension had cost them the Cup. Plante dejected, exhausted, and disappointed ... looked at the reporter in disbelief, and stated that after all he'd done for the players and the team, in all the years and all the playoffs gone by, that they owed him one.

Admittedly, the Rocket played on the edge, and sometimes crossed it, but that also was a key ingredient in his greatness as a player. When you have goalies like Sawchuk, Plante, Bower, and many more saying how he was the most intimidating to play against, hardest to stop, surely that has to count for something.

We tend to look at statistics for many of the answers to our discussions these days, so I will submit the following. Upon his retirement, the Rocket held the vast majority of scoring records in the book. In later years as he saw his name gradually fading from the record book the Rocket was asked which records meant the most to hm and without exception he always cherished his playoff marks the most, after all to him that was when the games mattered the most.

Interestingly enough, it was only when the NHL switched to a four round playoff format that you began to see some of the Rocket's playoff records begin to tumble. With all the great players who played with and after the Rocket retired, keep in mind that he held the playoff goal record until the mid-eighties. Amazingly enough he still ranks seventh all-time in playoff goal scoring, and if you have factor in goals per games played (six of the seven players ahead of him on the all-time list played in at least 70 more playoff games than he did), he is still third all-time in goals per playoff game (behind Bossy and Gretzky).

For me it is impossible to overlook his inate ability to not only score goals, but to score the biggest goals when the game counted the most. The fact that he held the all-time record for playoff overtime goals for so long speaks to his greatness.

And for me if I had the choice to put one player on the ice to get me a goal in overtime to win the game, he would unquestionably be it.

 

[tommygunn]

But I do think you should take a closer look at Nighbor.

I have and as I mentioned to Kyle, I cannot believe how he was only ranked 95th on the last HOH Top 100! My initial list had him way higher than that, however the more I look at him, the more he's getting bumped even higher. I hope others take a serious look at him. 95th is just plain wrong.

Wow, major misunderstanding there. Results and stats aren't the same thing.

If Stewart scored way more goals than the other players of his time, that's what matters. I don't care if he did it by having blazing speed, or just an amazing shot and the ability to get open. Do you? It shouldn't matter - the end result is that he scored the most goals.

The way I see it.. just concentrating on his results (how many goals he got), is concentrating on a statistic. *shrugs*

 

[tommygunn]

Now, I have seen others say that he is outside the top ten (unbelievable) and others place him between 5 and 13. I too believe that he does not belong any higher than five on this list, simply because he wasn't as talented a player as the four I rank ahead of him. And to be honest I can see where somebody could rank Beliveau and Harvey ahead of him, to be honest I view that as a flip of a coin.

Agree on all counts. I can't put Richard in my top 4.. but at the same time, I can't find 6 others that I can justifiably put ahead of him either.

 

[Triffy]

I just did some statistical breakdown of my list. Something that I found interesting was that I have exactly 60 players (half of the 120) who peaked in the post-expansion era (1968-today). Of those 60 players, 23 are Europeans. That sounds okay for me. Of the 60 pre-expansion players on my list, only two are Europeans and you could put both of them into the post-expansion category as well.

Which raises the question: Where there really no Europeans who could have been one of the best players in the NHL? Players who would fit to this category and might be worth considering:

Soviets: Venjamin Alexandrov, Vsevolod Bobrov, Vyacheslav Starshinov, Nikolai Sologubov, Ivan Tregubov, Alexandr Ragulin, Vitali Davydov

Czechoslovakians: Josef Malecek, Vlastimil Bubnik, Josef Golonka, Vladimir Zabrodsky, Frantisek Tikal

Swedes: Tumba Johansson, Nils Nilsson

 

[MXD]

I just did some statistical breakdown of my list. Something that I found interesting was that I have exactly 60 players (half of the 120) who peaked in the post-expansion era (1968-today). Of those 60 players, 23 are Europeans. That sounds okay for me. Of the 60 pre-expansion players on my list, only two are Europeans and you could put both of them into the post-expansion category as well.

Which raises the question: Where there really no Europeans who could have been one of the best players in the NHL? Players who would fit to this category and might be worth considering:

Soviets: Venjamin Alexandrov, Vsevolod Bobrov, Vyacheslav Starshinov, Nikolai Sologubov, Ivan Tregubov, Alexandr Ragulin, Vitali Davydov

Czechoslovakians: Josef Malecek, Vlastimil Bubnik, Josef Golonka, Vladimir Zabrodsky, Frantisek Tikal

Swedes: Tumba Johansson, Nils Nilsson

For reasons covered by others, Bobrov is staying far from my list. My first list had Ragulin (higher than he should have been, Vasiliev was lower). Comments about Bobrov applies to Zabrodsky was well. Sologubov was a fringe guy in my first list, and is a no-go in this one, but I'd rank him the 2nd best player of that group.

 

[MXD]

Agree on all counts. I can't put Richard in my top 4.. but at the same time, I can't find 6 others that I can justifiably put ahead of him either.

Humm... Since I started that whole discussion...
I have Richard 7th. He can't be ranked higher than fifth for sure. For the other two... I don't have Richard as the highest ranked player of the dynasty. And if his career would have spanned differently (read, 50-68 as opposed to 42-60), he might have ranked higher. But considering my choices (mainly in regards to the other members of the Punch Line), Richard was suceptible to be ranked lower than fifth (or than sixth, at that matter).

Some other might find ironic that I have another player (Lafleur) ranking lower than most, inspite of his icon status. But again, I have many of his contemporaries a bit lower than most have them.

 

[seventieslord]

Historical Revisionism is a funny thing, we tend to downgrade those who have been placed on pedestals, while at the same time trying to make ourselves look smarter by elevating those whom "we" feel have been overlooked.

There is some truth to that. However, "historical revisionism" is a terrible term. What history is anyone revising? The consensus that Richard should be 5th or 6th? That's not history, it's a widely-held opinion. History is what happened, and no one can ever revise that. My opinion is based on my interpretation of history.

Now, I have seen others say that he is outside the top ten (unbelievable) and others place him between 5 and 13. I too believe that he does not belong any higher than five on this list, simply because he wasn't as talented a player as the four I rank ahead of him. And to be honest I can see where somebody could rank Beliveau and Harvey ahead of him, to be honest I view that as a flip of a coin.

I'm well aware that overpass and I are the outliers on this one.

I agree Beliveau and Harvey could be viewed as coin flips. On that note, Shore and Harvey are coin flips, and Hull is certainly better than Beliveau. Right there you have a case for Richard being 9th, and without reaching at all.

Throw in Ray Bourque's 20 straight years of being a top-4 defenseman in the most competitive era in history, and the long, consistent, dominant careers of the consensus three goalies, and if one values those things more than what Richard did, you're left with Richard in 13th. I happen to.

This may be the first time that I have heard Richard referred to as a huge detriment. A detriment to whom, the Canadiens ?? Reading this I was reminded of an article written by Andy O'Brien in the aftermath of the Canadiens loss to the Red Wings in the 1955 finals. An enterprising Detroit reporter entered the Montreal dressing room and asked Jacques Plante if the Rocket's suspension had cost them the Cup. Plante dejected, exhausted, and disappointed ... looked at the reporter in disbelief, and stated that after all he'd done for the players and the team, in all the years and all the playoffs gone by, that they owed him one.

Well, what do you think Plante would say? screw that guy, he's a jerk and cost us the cup ? I'd expect that exact reply from any teammate in that situation. The audacity of that reporter to come in there and ask such a thing was also deplorable. The standard reaction for anyone would be to circle the wagons, so to speak.

Anyway, I did not say Richard was a detriment. If I thought that he was, he wouldn't be on my list at all. I said his attitude was a detriment, and it was. The embarrassing incidents I've read are up to double digits after 1955, with five years of his career left to go. That's why it's not so far-fetched to see him drop to 13th. Jagr's attitude is a detriment to some degree, albeit in a totally different way. Looking solely at talent, we underrated him on the original list but we looked at all factors, just as I am attempting to do with Richard.

Admittedly, the Rocket played on the edge, and sometimes crossed it, but that also was a key ingredient in his greatness as a player. When you have goalies like Sawchuk, Plante, Bower, and many more saying how he was the most intimidating to play against, hardest to stop, surely that has to count for something.

I think "sometimes crossed it" is being very, very generous. He was the most out-of-control player of the time. There is really no comparison. Clarke, Lalonde, Messier, Lindsay, Shore... they were dirty and mean but there was always some lesser player, some Cully Wilson or Jimmy Orlando or Tiger Williams out there, who was the craziest player. Richard is the only guy, IMO, who was hockey's craziest player, and one of its very best, simultaneously.

We tend to look at statistics for many of the answers to our discussions these days, so I will submit the following. Upon his retirement, the Rocket held the vast majority of scoring records in the book. In later years as he saw his name gradually fading from the record book the Rocket was asked which records meant the most to hm and without exception he always cherished his playoff marks the most, after all to him that was when the games mattered the most.

Interestingly enough, it was only when the NHL switched to a four round playoff format that you began to see some of the Rocket's playoff records begin to tumble. With all the great players who played with and after the Rocket retired, keep in mind that he held the playoff goal record until the mid-eighties. Amazingly enough he still ranks seventh all-time in playoff goal scoring, and if you have factor in goals per games played (six of the seven players ahead of him on the all-time list played in at least 70 more playoff games than he did), he is still third all-time in goals per playoff game (behind Bossy and Gretzky).

All true.

I see these things as why I have him as high as 13th.

But at the same time, let's not overstate his ability to score goals. Howe may not have had the same flash, but led the league the same number of times, plus he was second place two more times and third place one more time, than Richard. Hull's goal-scoring credentials far exceed Richard's, this needs no explanation. Same with Gretzky and Lemieux. The former two were much better playmakers than Richard, and much better backcheckers. The latter two were significantly better at scoring and setting up goals that we don't care that their backchecking was as lacklustre as Richard's.

I would say he's the fifth-best goal-scorer of all-time, and considering the other factors surrounding the above four players it's not far-fetched to say they deserve to be at least a few spots ahead of him. So by that logic, he could be 5th, but that would discount the contributions of a few excellent defensemen and goalies. (as well as Beliveau, whose goal-scoring isn't that far off, playoff record is just as solid, playmaking and leadership miles ahead, and never did anything to hurt his team)

Based on the ratios our original list is based on, it's logical to have 2 goalies in the top-12 as well as three defensemen. (I have three and four). If you do that, a forward has to get pushed down further than you earlier imagined he would be. All things considered, I chose Richard.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anyway, I did not say Richard was a detriment. If I thought that he was, he wouldn't be on my list at all. I said his attitude was a detriment, and it was. The embarrassing incidents I've read are up to double digits after 1955, with five years of his career left to go. That's why it's not so far-fetched to see him drop to 13th. Jagr's attitude is a detriment to some degree, albeit in a totally different way. Looking solely at talent, we underrated him on the original list but we looked at all factors, just as I am attempting to do with Richard.

I don't think Richard's problems can really be compared to Jagr's. Richard, for all his issues, remains one of the clutch playoff scorers of all time, and a player who led his team to several Cups, even before the 50s dynasty. The fact that his playoff goals record stood for so long after the number of rounds expanded is simply amazing. Yes, he hurt his team by getting suspended and not being on the ice (a big reason I have him one spot below Beliveau and not one spot above). But historically, if you needed a clutch goal in the playoffs and had to pick only one player to get it, the top two choices would be Richards and Gretzky.

Jagr, on the other hand, for whatever reason was not able to carry his regular season dominance into the playoffs. He had some moments here and there - he was spectacular in carrying the Penguins over the #1 seeded Devils in 1999. But he was never able to lead his team on a long playoff run without Lemieux. The Jagr-led Penguins and Rangers routinely went nowhere in the playoffs - it took Lemieux coming out of retirement to get them to the Conference Finals in 2001.

And it wasn't just that Jagr was dominating on an average team like a Bourque or Hasek - when the team needed clutch play in the playoffs, Jagr, for whatever reason, wasn't the guy to do it. Don't get me wrong - Jagr put up some very good numbers in the playoffs. But with such elite-level talent, "very good" is not good enough, and certainly wouldn't have been for Richard.

 

[MXD]

History is subjective, it depends on your perspective. Ranking Richard outside the top 10 may be revisionist history in Quebec, but not necessarily from every other perspective. I'll take other perspectives into consideration when making my rankings, but in the end the most important perspective for me is my own. I'm not going to depend solely on the popular opinion in Quebec, the Czech Republic, or anywhere else.

Hummm... If I would only look it from MY perspective, guys like Vasiliev and Firsov wouldn't even make my list, and Jagr would be, well, around where I had him last year (didn't break Top-50). Eddie Shore wouldn't be in my Top-10 either. So I look beyond my perspective. Still, I think ranking Richard that far is revisionnism.

 

[lextune]

On that note, Shore and Harvey are coin flips

I have to strongly disagree with this.

Throw in Ray Bourque's 20 straight years of being a top-4 defenseman in the most competitive era in history

That's 20 years of being one of the top two; not four.

Ray is without a doubt in my top ten. He is the Gordie Howe of defense. No one has even come close to to his level of consistent dominance at the position. I cannot get him higher than tenth though. As I already said earlier in this thread I can move around 7, 8 and 9 (Richard, Beliveau and Harvey), but 1-6 are locked in. And my admitted homerism aside, I have yet to hear an argument that can knock Ray out of the ten spot.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't think Richard's problems can really be compared to Jagr's. Richard, for all his issues, remains one of the clutch playoff scorers of all time, and a player who led his team to several Cups, even before the 50s dynasty. The fact that his playoff goals record stood for so long after the number of rounds expanded is simply amazing. Yes, he hurt his team by getting suspended and not being on the ice (a big reason I have him one spot below Beliveau and not one spot above). But historically, if you needed a clutch goal in the playoffs and had to pick only one player to get it, the top two choices would be Richards and Gretzky.

Jagr, on the other hand, for whatever reason was not able to carry his regular season dominance into the playoffs. He had some moments here and there - he was spectacular in carrying the Penguins over the #1 seeded Devils in 1999. But he was never able to lead his team on a long playoff run without Lemieux. The Jagr-led Penguins and Rangers routinely went nowhere in the playoffs - it took Lemieux coming out of retirement to get them to the Conference Finals in 2001.

And it wasn't just that Jagr was dominating on an average team like a Bourque or Hasek - when the team needed clutch play in the playoffs, Jagr, for whatever reason, wasn't the guy to do it. Don't get me wrong - Jagr put up some very good numbers in the playoffs. But with such elite-level talent, "very good" is not good enough, and certainly wouldn't have been for Richard.

Do you work in a call center? In sales, perhaps? Because you handled just about all my objections... before I could even present them

That said, I think you're being a bit rough on Jagr. He played in a league with a lot of teams and though he never took them to the final-4 alone, he did get to the final-8 many more than his fair share of times (95, 99, 00, 07, 08 makes 5 times out of nine times that he was his team's far most dangerous player) His teams either went out right when they were "supposed" to or occasionally overachieved thanks to him. The only time I can see where his team did not meet expectations in the playoffs was 1998, and he had 9 points in 6 games.

Anyway, enough about Jagr's playoffs. I'm not trying to say they're as good as Richard's. He is one of the top-10 playoff performers of the last two decades, though.

My point was their attitudes are both considered detrimental, just in different ways. Jagr has a reputation for sulking and coasting when unhappy - Richard would explode if you cut a loud fart. I think Jagr's attitude problem was appropriately accounted for in our rankings, but I feel it wasn't with Richard.

I have to strongly disagree with this.

Sorry, but I honestly don't know what side you're even on when you say this. They are so close that depending on what angle you come from, either one can be argued ahead of the other. For example, Shore has four Harts, Harvey none. That's a big gap to overcome right there. On the other hand, Shore was a loose cannon who could hurt his team and singlehandedly lost a series for Boston with one outburst. Harvey was smooth and flawless. Which outweighs the other?

That's 20 years of being one of the top two; not four.

Ray is without a doubt in my top ten. He is the Gordie Howe of defense. No one has even come close to to his level of consistent dominance at the position. I cannot get him higher than tenth though. As I already said earlier in this thread I can move around 7, 8 and 9 (Richard, Beliveau and Harvey), but 1-6 are locked in. And my admitted homerism aside, I have yet to hear an argument that can knock Ray out of the ten spot.

He was a second team all-star six times... so I think top-4 is more accurate than top-two... don't you think?

And if you think Bourque is the Gordie Howe of defensemen (an assessment I agree with strongly) isn't that a good case for moving him closer to Howe and above forwards like Beliveau and Richard who aren't the Gordie Howes of forwards? Just saying.

 

[lextune]

lol....A good point about the Shore/Harvey coin flip remark. I didn't really explain my disagreement very well did I?

My disagreement lies in my feeling that Shore is well ahead of Harvey. For the longest time I had Harvey behind Bourque, and after reading a lot of arguments in favor of Harvey, I reassessed it and put Harvey in that rotating 7,8,9 spot. None of the arguments I have read have convinced me that he belongs ahead of Shore though. Obviously I never got to see either of them play in person. So maybe growing up in Boston has given me more Shore-biased fodder for the intellectual exercise of evaluating their careers....I don't know. But I just don't see them as that close.

I like hearing you agree about Ray

Seeing him outside of the top ten was the most upsetting thing about the original list in my opinion. You make a great point about Beliveau and Richard not being the Gordie Howe of forwards (I guess that would be Gordie himself ), but if I bow to having Harvey ahead of Ray, and put Ray ahead of Beliveau and Richard, that locks Harvey into the number seven spot.........Unless........

..........to tell you the truth I am very close to admitting that my seven through ten are all virtually interchangeable.