Round 2, Vote 3 (2009 update)

[Triffy]

Nikolai Drozdetsky finished 3rd in Soviet League scoring in both 1981 and 1984. He was not Top 5 in MVP voting in 1981, but he won it in 1984 (technically, the Soviet Player of the Year" Award, not MVP). He won the award after his amazing performance in the Olympics that year (10 goals in 7 games). While not conclusive proof, it does seem to indicate that international play was a factor.

1984 was also the only year Drozdetsky finished Top 5 in voting for the award.

I'm currently doing an in-depth analysis of the MVP votings from 1968 (the first year the award was given) until 1979. So far, after three years, it looks quite clear that international perfomance had a lot of weight and could ruin player's chances for the MVP if the world championships weren't a success for the player.

Your find supports the theory.

 

[tommygunn]

Sorry I didn't vote last time. Focused on holidays.

Top 10 for this round (going from the top of my head):

1. Terry Sawchuk: Why is this guy still an option?

I'm wondering that myself.. he's my top choice this round, too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm wondering that myself.. he's my top choice this round, too.

Many of us are concerned that he was nothing more than an average NHL starter after he left the Detroit dynasty.

Basically, what is the difference between Ken Dryden and Terry Sawchuk? A decade of average play?

 

[tommygunn]

Per THN:

http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1972/stats/rutop10.htm

IIHF at the Olympics:

http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1974/stats/rutop10i.htm

Europeans:

http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1972/stats/10europe.htm

Valeri Kharlamov does not top any list nor can a consensus case be made.

The 'Europeans' list in in alphabetical order..

Here's another list.. I copied off of IHWC.net a few years back.. but, can't seem to find it on the newer iihf.com site.

All-Time Top 10 Stars of The World Championships

1. Boris Mikhailov
2. Viacheslav Fetisov
3. Vladislav Tretiak
4. Valeri Kharlamov
5. Sven "Tumba" Johansson
6. Sergei Makarov
7. Jiri Holik
8. Mats Sundin
9. Jiri Holecek
10. Saku Koivu

- IHWC.net

 

[kmad]

I've got Sawchuk pegged as a better technical goalie than Dryden.

I don't count Dryden's Vezinas as much because they were essentially Jennings trophies, and you have to downplay his accomplishments at least a little due to the best dynasty in NHL history playing in front of him.

Seriously, would Rogie Vachon have done any less with Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, Gainey, Lafleur, Shutt, Cournoyer, and Lemaire in front of him?

Dryden did play in the era of curved sticks, but Sawchuk played with smaller pads and less overall equipment. The numbers he accumulated with that in mind has to overshadow Dryden.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

In addition to my request for a statistical comparison between Taylor, Lalonde and their respective contemporaries, could someone please do the same for Sawchuk and Hall?

I've forgotten some of the things I used to know about their achievements.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Your Canada Cup years are off a year.. they took place in '76, '81, '84, and '87.

Bolded.. the exact same could be said for Robinson.

On my Top 100 list, I had Robinson exactly 1 place higher than Fetisov.. but, it honestly could go either way.

I noticed that, but just went with the years given to me at hockey-reference.com -- weird those years are off.

I agree about Robinson - intangibles do not really favor either player, I just think Fetisov has accomplished a lot more.

 

[tommygunn]

Many of us are concerned that he was nothing more than an average NHL starter after he left the Detroit dynasty.

Basically, what is the difference between Ken Dryden and Terry Sawchuk? A decade of average play?

I get what you're saying.. but, in only considering his time with Detroit.. IMO Sawchuk was much more valuable to those Wings teams than Dryden was for the Habs. His rookie year of 1950-51 was one of the greatest seasons by a goalie, ever (The Hockey News had it only behind Hainsworth's 1928-29 season). He also most likely would have been the recipient of a couple Conn Smythes, in 1951-52 and 1953-54. He was an innovator as well, as evidenced with his introduction of the crouch style of goaltending.. considered a great advancement back in the day. Stats buffs be damned.. quote after quote of those who saw him play (myself included) rank him as the best netminder of all-time.. better than his contemporaries Plante and Hall.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In addition to my request for a statistical comparison between Taylor, Lalonde and their respective contemporaries, could someone please do the same for Sawchuk and Hall?

I've forgotten some of the things I used to know about their achievements.

If it's not much more effort, I'd like to add Brodeur and Dryden to the comparison, as well, to see if the two of them really deserve to be in ahead of those two.

Edit: Here are some links I posted in the last discussion thread.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=489442

See posts 32, 67, 155, 160

 

[MXD]

I think that's a bit unfair. I mean, Kharlamov did do SOMETHING with his skill(s), eh?

Unlike with Mikhailov and Petrov (usually), you needed often more than one player to stop Kharlamov (in his prime 1969-76, at least); i.e. he was fast and he could dangle, and thus he often created room for his linemates. That's something that statistics don't maybe show.

He if would have done nothing, he wouldn't have been in my list to begin with.

I think that's what's often forgotten with Kharlamov. He may not have statistically out shined his linemates, but, he did more to improve his linemates numbers than they did his. He was the play creator.

Esposito may have had better numbers than Orr, but that doesn't make him a better player.

1st paragraph : That's why I had him above Mikhailov.
2nd paragraph : C'mon, you can do better than that. I mean, all forwards in this round posted better offensive numbers than Doug Harvey, yet I wouldn't think of anybody really deserving to be anything less than 10 ranks below Harvey. Except for one guy.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ken Dryden

I've got Sawchuk pegged as a better technical goalie than Dryden.

I don't count Dryden's Vezinas as much because they were essentially Jennings trophies, and you have to downplay his accomplishments at least a little due to the best dynasty in NHL history playing in front of him.

Seriously, would Rogie Vachon have done any less with Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, Gainey, Lafleur, Shutt, Cournoyer, and Lemaire in front of him?

Dryden did play in the era of curved sticks, but Sawchuk played with smaller pads and less overall equipment. The numbers he accumulated with that in mind has to overshadow Dryden.

Rogie Vachon did less with equally great players in front of him playing himself out of the number one job the two season before Ken Dryden took over and led the Canadiens to the 1971 Stanley Cup Championship.

As for Dryden's teammates the difference in the three play-off victories against the Bruins 1977/1978/1979 was the goaltending and the coaching.

Ken Dryden was the first "Big" goalie that could play. Previously the "Big" goalies like Gary Smith and Cesare Maniago were rather ordinary. Today quality "Big" goalies are sought after - Brodeur. Luongo, Price amongst others

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Mikhailov with his physical North American style did a lot more to create open ice especially against European opponents. Petrov who was defensively responsible, as was the case for most Soviet centers, allowed Kharlamov the freedom to focus on offense.

Petrov was actually weak defensively for the first half of his career while Kharlamov's speed made him quite responsible in his own end. Not saying he's Bob Gainey or anything, but, for a scoring line forward he was quite good defensively.

2nd paragraph : C'mon, you can do better than that. I mean, all forwards in this round posted better offensive numbers than Doug Harvey, yet I wouldn't think of anybody really deserving to be anything less than 10 ranks below Harvey. Except for one guy.

I probably can, look at what time I posted. But, I'm racking my brain, and I can't think of the right example.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I've got Sawchuk pegged as a better technical goalie than Dryden.

I don't count Dryden's Vezinas as much because they were essentially Jennings trophies, and you have to downplay his accomplishments at least a little due to the best dynasty in NHL history playing in front of him.

Seriously, would Rogie Vachon have done any less with Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, Gainey, Lafleur, Shutt, Cournoyer, and Lemaire in front of him?

One could just as well ask, would Harry Lumley have done any less with Howe, Abel, Lindsay, Kelly, and Delvecchio in front of him? After all the Red Wings did finish first overall in the league and won the Stanley Cup in 1950, the year before Sawchuk became a starter.

In contrast, the Habs always finished high in the standings but did worse before and after Dryden than they did with him, and took a noticeable drop in his one-year absence in 1974. Not to mention that between 1970 and 1985 a consistently strong Montreal team never won the Cup without Dryden in net.

How good was Sawchuk really during his peak? Here are the seasonal GAA numbers for Detroit's starting goalies during the Red Wings' period of greatness, adjusted based on the average level of scoring of the other 5 teams in the league:

1947-48: Lumley, 2.16
1948-49: Lumley, 2.36
1949-50: Lumley, 2.27
1950-51: Sawchuk, 1.96
1951-52: Sawchuk, 1.93
1952-53: Sawchuk, 2.15
1953-54: Sawchuk, 2.10
1954-55: Sawchuk, 2.04
1955-56: Hall, 2.12
1956-57: Hall, 2.11

Sawchuk was a big upgrade on Lumley, but did any of that defensive improvement in '50-51 come from Howe's first breakout season at the age of 22 or the maturation of the 23 year old Red Kelly? It's possible. Notice also how even as a first year starter Hall picks up pretty much right where Sawchuk left off.

Another thing is that Sawchuk's five best years were against a very weak crop of goalies, the cohort that bridged the gap between the retirements of Broda, Brimsek and Durnan and the emergency of Plante, Hall and Worsley. Playing on a dynasty against weak goalie competition in a 6 team league, could it be that his environment made Sawchuk's prime look more dominant than it actually was?

I think Sawchuk was very good in Detroit, but I don't think his peak was the best ever by a goalie. He definitely got a lot of support from his outstanding teammates. The hardest thing with him is reconciling his stats with his excellent reputation. No doubt he had terrific skills, but at the end of the day isn't it really performance that matters most? I'd probably rate both Hall and Dryden ahead of Sawchuk.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ken Dryden was the first "Big" goalie that could play. Previously the "Big" goalies like Gary Smith and Cesare Maniago were rather ordinary. Today quality "Big" goalies are sought after - Brodeur. Luongo, Price amongst others

all your points are true. but i tend to see patrick roy was the trailblazer for big goalies, as opposed to dryden, or big guys who emerged at around the same time as roy, like tom barrasso, ron hextall, or sean burke. roy (and allaire) gave big goalies a model they could replicate, maximizing their size advantage. it's true that GMs placed a premium on goalie size well before roy was winning vezinas (barrasso and burke's top prospect status proves that), but it was nothing like it is post-roy, where the small goalie has nearly been systematically eliminated.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Ken Dryden Influence

all your points are true. but i tend to see patrick roy was the trailblazer for big goalies, as opposed to dryden, or big guys who emerged at around the same time as roy, like tom barrasso, ron hextall, or sean burke. roy (and allaire) gave big goalies a model they could replicate, maximizing their size advantage. it's true that GMs placed a premium on goalie size well before roy was winning vezinas (barrasso and burke's top prospect status proves that), but it was nothing like it is post-roy, where the small goalie has nearly been systematically eliminated.

The Ken Dryden influence was such that in the early 1970's minor hockey coaches started looking for kids who were tall for their age and wanted to play goalie. I was coaching minor hockey at that time. This gave an opportunity to the goalies you listed amongst others.

Re the Roy / Allaire player coach relationship. At the time Patrick Roy was drafted Jacques Plante was working for the Canadiens, helping with the goalies. It was Plante who scouted Roy and in unison with Allaire developed an approach that would maximize Roy's attributes.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononep197802.htm

 

[kmad]

One could just as well ask, would Harry Lumley have done any less with Howe, Abel, Lindsay, Kelly, and Delvecchio in front of him? After all the Red Wings did finish first overall in the league and won the Stanley Cup in 1950, the year before Sawchuk became a starter.

In contrast, the Habs always finished high in the standings but did worse before and after Dryden than they did with him, and took a noticeable drop in his one-year absence in 1974. Not to mention that between 1970 and 1985 a consistently strong Montreal team never won the Cup without Dryden in net.

Consider the goalies before and after Sawchuk compared with those without Dryden. Wayne Thomas vs. Glenn Hall. Bunny Larocque vs. Harry Lumley. Average goalies vs. Hall of Famers. Measuring any statistical differential is unfair and can't really be used as an argument here.

As far as the supporting cast goes, Dryden definitely had more support defensively. The big three are the most feared defensive unit in the history of the sport, and Bob Gainey might be the best defensive forward ever.

Sawchuk was a big upgrade on Lumley, but did any of that defensive improvement in '50-51 come from Howe's first breakout season at the age of 22 or the maturation of the 23 year old Red Kelly? It's possible. Notice also how even as a first year starter Hall picks up pretty much right where Sawchuk left off.

We can produce a similar argument for Dryden. His best years happen to coincide with those of Lafleur, Robinson, etc.

Another thing is that Sawchuk's five best years were against a very weak crop of goalies, the cohort that bridged the gap between the retirements of Broda, Brimsek and Durnan and the emergency of Plante, Hall and Worsley. Playing on a dynasty against weak goalie competition in a 6 team league, could it be that his environment made Sawchuk's prime look more dominant than it actually was?

Outside of wins, Sawchuk's statistics aren't affected by opposing goalies. The argument to make here would be that Sawchuk's contemporaries at forward were weak, which isn't the case.

I think Sawchuk was very good in Detroit, but I don't think his peak was the best ever by a goalie.

Nobody's questioning that. That belongs to Hasek and there's no argument.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Canadiens1958;

Re the Roy / Allaire player coach relationship. At the time Patrick Roy was drafted Jacques Plante was working for the Canadiens, helping with the goalies. It was Plante who scouted Roy and in unison with Allaire developed an approach that would maximize Roy's attributes.

If you read Michel Roy's biography of his famous son a different picture emerges than what you're propagating. In short, Plante was asked as a favour to come out one night and "scout" Patrick Roy. Typically, of Plante this meant running Roy through drills. Sadly, this meeting between two of the greatest innovators of all-time was nothing short of a disaster.

Plante strongly encouraged Roy to abandon the 'butterfly' style and instead play a style more based on Plante's theory of 'angular' goaltending. Roy wouldn't hear any of it and Plante became visibly upset. At the conclusion of the stormy session Plante told the person who arranged the meeting (I can't remember the name, but it is in the book), that Roy would "never make it as an NHL goalie."

As far as I know, this was the only meeting between the two men as Plante left his post as Canadiens goaltender coach in the spring of 1984, just as the Habs we're drafting Roy.

Contray to your post Plante never worked with Roy nor with Francois Allaire. After all, Plante was not a proponent of the 'butterfly' so the assumption that he would work in tandem with Roy and Allaire sounds a little bit off. You're link makes no mention of what you describe either. If you could provide some factual background to what you're claiming I would like to see it.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

As for Dryden's teammates the difference in the three play-off victories against the Bruins 1977/1978/1979 was the goaltending and the coaching.

You are right about Dryden being a factor in the 1979 playoffs but not in the way you argue. Pop in a tape of game seven that year and you'll see Dryden at his worst. Not only is he subtantially outplayed by Gilles Gilbert, the Bruins goalie, but his play is so bad that he almost cost the Canadiens the game.

If you read Dryden's book 'The Game' he admits as much.

Needless to say his play was so bad in game 7 against the Bruins and game 1 against the Rangers that Bowman tapped 'Bunny' Larocque to start game two of the finals. Thanks to an errant slapshot in the warmup from Doug Risebrough, which knocked Laroque out, Dryden started game two.

Lafleur was the difference in 1979, according to the Bruins at least.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Consider the goalies before and after Sawchuk compared with those without Dryden. Wayne Thomas vs. Glenn Hall. Bunny Larocque vs. Harry Lumley. Average goalies vs. Hall of Famers. Measuring any statistical differential is unfair and can't really be used as an argument here.

Comparing the statistical differences is unfair, I agree. That's why I didn't compare the numbers. I just pointed out that the Habs, despite being a strong team, didn't win without Dryden. Certainly some of the Habs' underperformance without Dryden was because his replacements weren't that great, but I think he was an example of a great goalie on a great team.

Posting the Detroit goalie numbers was more to show that Sawchuk in Detroit really wasn't that far ahead of what Hall did right after him, which some might consider relevant for this round of voting.

As far as the supporting cast goes, Dryden definitely had more support defensively. The big three are the most feared defensive unit in the history of the sport, and Bob Gainey might be the best defensive forward ever.

In the late '70s, there's no question about it. In the early '70s, the Habs were allowing higher than average shot totals against in the playoffs, yet Dryden still did pretty well.

We can produce a similar argument for Dryden. His best years happen to coincide with those of Lafleur, Robinson, etc.

That's true. Both Sawchuk and Dryden spent their peaks on great teams, and that makes them tough to evaluate, I agree. Sawchuk may be better, I don't think it's clear cut, but what I object to is focusing on Dryden's teammates and not doing the same for Sawchuk.

Outside of wins, Sawchuk's statistics aren't affected by opposing goalies. The argument to make here would be that Sawchuk's contemporaries at forward were weak, which isn't the case.

That was more of a comment about awards voting, where that would have benefitted Sawchuk, rather than something that directly affected his stats.

Nobody's questioning that. That belongs to Hasek and there's no argument.

I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure some of the voters on here have made that argument before in favour of Sawchuk.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Comparing to contemporaries. Pre NHA/PCHA in terms of winning Stanley Cups, Frank McGee,Ernie Johnson,Ernie Russell,Jack Marshall with 3-4 all out - performed Cyclone Taylor's one.

Taylor only played two years in pre-NHA leagues that could challenge for the Stanley Cup, and won it in one of those years. It is also a stretch to call McGee a contemporary. He was retired two years before Taylor played his first game in a major Canadian league. They only have one season of overlap where both played in a major league. Johnson, Russell, and Marshall all had the good fortune of playing for the Wanderers dynasty (with Marshall seeming to win Cups everywhere he went), though surely nobody would argue that any are superior to Taylor. If there's a stain on Taylor's resume with regards to winning, it is the failure of the Renfrew Millionaires to win a Cup. There are a few other HOFers that shoulder the load for that as well though.

The number of rings isn't the be all and end all. A player on the losing side can contribute much more towards winning than a player on the winning side in many instances. I think most will agree that Nik Lidstrom did more to win the Stanley Cup this year than Hal Gill did, even though the latter got his name on the trophy.

In the NHA/PCHA era. Joe Malone led the Quebec Bulldogs to two
consecutive Stanley Cups in the pre WWI period. No other NHA/PCHA team won two consecutive Stanley Cups. Malone also contributed to the 1924 Canadiens Stanley Cup championship. But Joe Malone is not eligible in this round.

Comparing to contemporaries Clarke,Sakic and Yzerman do fall short of Trottier.

And again, its nice that Malone won two Cups. But I don't see how this is especially relevent, since Taylor was clearly regarded by his contemporaries as the superior player. Lalonde only won a single Cup in that era as well, so there you have three superstars of the day and only four Cups between them in the East-West challenge era (I'm discounting Malone's 1924 Cup as he was a regular season sub, and did not appear in the playoffs. In fact he is not even credited with a Cup win for that year as far as I can tell). Just goes to show that it takes a great team to win; even the very best of their generation can only do so much.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

On another note, could someone try a statistical comparison (with any relevant data) of Taylor and Lalonde to their contemporaries?

Seventieslord might have a lot of that data readily available from his "Consistency In Scoring" project from a little while back. If he doesn't have it or post it by the weekend I can pick some of it out from The Trail, at least for goalscoring.

 

[tommygunn]

If it's not much more effort, I'd like to add Brodeur and Dryden to the comparison, as well, to see if the two of them really deserve to be in ahead of those two.

Edit: Here are some links I posted in the last discussion thread.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=1...8&postcount=32
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=1...5&postcount=67
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=1...&postcount=155
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=1...&postcount=160

Those links are all pointing me to some bizarre post..

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Those links are all pointing me to some bizarre post..

Huh, you are right. That's weird, I'll try to fix it. Not only is it a weird post, it's one I never read before.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Plante

If you read Michel Roy's biography of his famous son a different picture emerges than what you're propagating. In short, Plante was asked as a favour to come out one night and "scout" Patrick Roy. Typically, of Plante this meant running Roy through drills. Sadly, this meeting between two of the greatest innovators of all-time was nothing short of a disaster.

Plante strongly encouraged Roy to abandon the 'butterfly' style and instead play a style more based on Plante's theory of 'angular' goaltending. Roy wouldn't hear any of it and Plante became visibly upset. At the conclusion of the stormy session Plante told the person who arranged the meeting (I can't remember the name, but it is in the book), that Roy would "never make it as an NHL goalie."

As far as I know, this was the only meeting between the two men as Plante left his post as Canadiens goaltender coach in the spring of 1984, just as the Habs we're drafting Roy.

Contray to your post Plante never worked with Roy nor with Francois Allaire. After all, Plante was not a proponent of the 'butterfly' so the assumption that he would work in tandem with Roy and Allaire sounds a little bit off. You're link makes no mention of what you describe either. If you could provide some factual background to what you're claiming I would like to see it.

My comment - bolded.

Re the Roy / Allaire player coach relationship. At the time Patrick Roy was drafted Jacques Plante was working for the Canadiens, helping with the goalies. It was Plante who scouted Roy and in unison with Allaire developed an approach that would maximize Roy's attributes.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/...onep197802.htm


From 1981 to 1987 I was involved in scouting Midget AAA hockey in the province of Quebec.Saw Patrick Roy fairly often in Midget with St.Foy. Part of the role was going to the various QMJHL games in the Montreal area - Laval, Longueuil and Verdun.

During the 1983-84 season when Granby was playing, Jacques Plante would be part of the Canadiens entourage - Claude Ruel, etc and he would observe Roy play usually from a favourable vantage point behind the net.The link was meant as evidence that Plante was with the Canadiens in the capacity referred to.

Those who followed QMJHL games were not surprised that Patrick Roy was drafted by the Canadiens in 1984.

Francois Allaire was hired to be the assistant coach in Sherbrooke for the 1984-85 season. Patrick Roy was sent to Sherbrooke at the end of the 1984-85 QMJHL season once Granby was eliminated. For some reason Patrick Roy clicked with Francois Allaire. Previously Roy had a bit of a reputation as not being coachable.

Prior to Sherbrooke, Francois Allaire was coaching minor hockey, hockey school goalie specialist - Mirabel / Basse Laurentides area, north of Laval who did not have access to an NHL teams data bank. Thru the Canadiens, the various scouting notes and recommendations that Jacques Plante had left on Patrick Roy were passed down to Francois Allaire who applied them to the situation and his theories.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

My comment - bolded.

Re the Roy / Allaire player coach relationship. At the time Patrick Roy was drafted Jacques Plante was working for the Canadiens, helping with the goalies. It was Plante who scouted Roy and in unison with Allaire developed an approach that would maximize Roy's attributes.

From the Webster's Dictionary.

in unison

1. In complete agreement; harmonizing exactly.
2. At the same time; at once.

Looking over some old scouting notes left by Plante, before imparting your own well-developed idea's on a young Roy hardly strikes me as being in unison. You're suggesting that Plante and Allaire worked closely together in developing Patrick Roy.

Not true.