Round 2, Vote 4 (2009 update)

[Jungosi]

Anyone care to compare Schmidt and Apps? Their careers overlapped nicely. I had Schmidt a couple of spots higher than Apps but now that I look into it Apps wouldn't be a bad choice either. Both are known for their high level two-way game. Schmidt has the physical element Apps lacks which can't be overlooked.

I had them significantly higher than both Yzerman and Sakic.

If no one else steps up I might be willing to do the comparison, depending on how much I'll have time and energy.

Syl Apps vs. Milt Schmidt

Statistical Comparition :

Offense Regular Season:

Goal scoring in the regular season :

I'll use the same methods as seventieslord did in his great analysis of Sakic vs.Yzerman

Schmidt : 2,6,9,12,13
Apps : 4,5,6,10,5,15,12,13,11,11

If we eliminate the identical finishes we have to following result :

Schmidt : 2,9
Apps : 4,5,5,10,11,11,15

So we can see that Apps has a slight advantage in goal-scoring , especially when it comes to consistency. Schmidt has only one top-5 finish left after the cross-out while Apps still comes up with 3.

Advantage : Apps

Playmaking in the regular season :

Schmidt : 1,4,3,4,12,13,13
Apps : 1,1,6,6,14,14,11

Again the elimination thing :

Schmidt : 3,4,4,12,13,13
Apps : 1,6,6,11,14,14

I think it's pretty much a wash here. Apps first place finish is evened out by Schmidt's 3 top-5 finishes. But Apps can come up with two more top-10 finishes.

Advantage : Equal

Points scored in the regular season :

Schmidt : 1,4,4,10,10,12
Apps : 2,2,2,6,7,8,12

There is one fnish that can be crossed out (12) but else there are no identical results. It looks pretty similar but I think we can give Apps the edge. Schmidt's Art Ross obviously can't be ignored but I think three times on the second place is at least equal or even slightly better than placing 1st , 4th and 4th. But what really helps Apps is that he has better and more top-10 finishes compared to Schmidt.


Advantage : Apps

Conclusion : Syl Apps was the better regular season performer.

Longevity of regular season offense:

Schmidt : Top-10 in goals over the span of eight seasons.
Apps : Top-10 in goals over the span of eight seasons.

Schmidt : Top-10 in assists over the span of eight seasons.
Apps : Top-10 in assists over the span of five seasons.

Schmidt : Top-10 in points over the span of nine seasons.
Apps : Top-10 in points over the span of nine seasons.

Schmidt : Top-5 in goals over the span of one season.
Apps : Top-5 in goals over the span of eight seasons.

Schmidt : Top-5 in assists over the span of eight seasons.
Apps : Top-5 in assists over the span of two seasons.

Schmidt : Top-5 in points over the span of eight seasons.
Apps : Top-5 in points over the span of five seasons.

Schmidt wins this category 3 to 1. Due to WW II this is kind of difficult to do so I decided to subtract the years Schmidt (3) and Apps (2) in service from the overall years.

Offense, Playoffs

Note : I only used the Top-10 finishes here because I felt that the sample size was too small for Top-15.

Goal-scoring in the post season :

Schmidt : 2,4,5,7,8
Apps : 1,3,4,4


Eliminating identical finishes.

Schmidt : 2,5,7,8
Apps : 1,3,4

Apps once again proves to be the better goal scorer with a slight edge over Schmidt.

Playmaking in the post season :

Schmidt : 2,3,4,9
Syl Apps : 1,2,2,6

----

Schmidt : 3,4,9
Apps : 1,2,6

Again Apps resume looks better than Schmidt's.

Points scored in the post season :

Top-10 in points :

Schmidt : 1,4,6,8
Apps : 1,3,4,5,8,8

After the elimination :

Schmidt : 6
Apps : 3,5,8

With the edge in both playmaking and goal-scoring , the edge in overall scoring only comes natural. Apps

Conclusion : Once again Mr. Apps comes out on top.


Leading team in playoff goals or points:

Schmidt : He led his team in points 5 times during the playoffs. He led his team in goals scored once.
Apps : He led his team in points 3 times during the playoffs. He also led his team 3 times in goals scored during the playoffs.

So on paper Schmidt's resume looks a bit better but you have to keep in mind that those Bruins team after WW II weren't really great and only made it out of round 1 once. This of course isn't Schmidt's fault but it is easier to lead a team like that in points than a team that features Drillon and later Kennedy.

So I'd say it is about equal.

Career Per-Game Averages, Regular Season and Playoffs:

Similar to Sakic and Yzerman the careers of Schmidt and Apps overlapped quite a bit. Both played in the one of the lowest scoring eras ever so the per game average are at least a bit helpfull here.

Regular Season : PPG , GPG , APG

Schmidt : 0,74 / 0,3/ 0,45
Apps : 1,02 / 0.48 / 0,55

Playoffs :

Schmidt : 0,57 / 0,28 / 0,29
Apps : 0,78 / 0,36 / 0,42

A fist glance Apps seems to have an huge advantage here but you have to keep in mind that Schmidt spent a lot of his late career on lesser teams plus the fact that he played way more games. But I still think that it makes clear that Apps was in fact the better offensive performer in both regular and post season.

Clutch play:

No data available maybe someone can add this?

Clean play :

Apps. No arguing about that one.


Awards :

The isn't much data available so I can only come up with the Hart record and the All-Star teams. Both have one retro-Conn Symthe

Again the elimination principe :

All-Star Selections :

Schmidt : 1st,1st,1st,2nd
Apps : 1st,1st,2nd,2nd,2nd

If the cross out the identical results it leaves out with the following :

Schmidt : 1st
Apps : 2nd,2nd

I'd call that a tie or a slight edge for Apps.

Hart Trophy Voting Record :

Schmidt : 1,2,4,4,5
Apps : 2,2,2,2,3

With elimination :

Schmidt :1,4,4,5
Apps : 2,2,2,3

While Apps can't come up with a trophy he has the better overall result. So conclusively Apps comes up the the better results in the award category.

--------------------------

Conclusion : I think if you look purely on statistics you'll see that Apps was the better player. However I have to admit that I was too lazy to do the parts that can't be measured in statistics like two-way play, physical play and leadship. This is a shout out to everyone who can help me here

 

[Jungosi]

By the way a question to FF : Will you release the the voting results for round 2 and 3 ? I'm very interested how Fetisov and Kharlamov did.

For this round :

Fetisov
Robinson
Cook
Sakic
Apps
Brodeur
Schmidt
Yzerman
Park
Kharlamov

This my list so far I am open for arguements though especially for Dryden. I am also really,really curious to see the comparision between Makarov and Kharlamov seventies talked about. I had the feeling too that Makarov was better but I still think this is the time for Kharlamov as I'd probably put Makarov even higher.

 

[Triffy]

Thanks Jungosi! Something to consider: Most of Schmidt's all star team selections came after the war. All of Apps's all star team selections came before the war. The competition level at center was quite a bit stiffer after the war.

Basically Cowley, Schmidt, Apps, Colville before the war.

Lach, Abel, Bentley, Kennedy, Apps and Schmidt after the war.

So Schmidt's all-star spots are probably more valuable on average.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

Without Orr how did Park finish in terms of defenseman scoring?

Maybe not exactly what you're asking, but close. Scoring and ranking (in defensemen scoring) among defensemen for the top three in Norris voting:

Season |First |GP |TP |Rank |Second |GP |TP |Rank |Third |GP |TP |Rank
1969-70 |Orr |76 |120 |1st |Park |60 |37 |Tied for 6th |Brewer |70 |39 |5th
1970-71 |Orr |78 |139 |1st |Park |68 |44 |Tied for 6th |Tremblay |76 |63 |2nd
1971-72 |Orr |76 |117 |1st |Park |75 |73 |2nd |White |76 |29 |Tied for 23rd
1972-73 |Orr |63 |101 |1st |Lapointe |76 |54 |2nd |White/Park |72/52 |47/53 |5th/3rd
1973-74 |Orr |74 |122 |1st |Park |78 |82 |2nd |White |69 |36 |13th
1975-76 |Potvin |78 |98 |1st |Park |56 |59 |6th |Salming |78 |57 |Tied for 7th
1977-78 |Potvin |80 |94 |1st |Park |80 |79 |2nd |Robinson |80 |65 |5th

 

[God Bless Canada]

Glad to see Taylor and Lalonde go. Won't say I'm shocked to see Kharlamov still out there. I am shocked to see Coffey up for voting this early.

Early look at this round:
1 - Kharlamov
2 - Fetisov
3 - Tretiak
4 - Dryden
5 - Robinson
6 - Brodeur
7 - Sakic
8 - Yzerman
9 - Chelios
10 - Schmidt
11 - Apps
12 - Park
13 - Cook
14 - Geoffrion
15 - Coffey

How can anyone be shocked that Coffey is eligible for voting this round? We're looking now at guys who were top 45 in voting. Coffey should be a no-brainer for the top 50 players ever. He's an eight-time all-star (against tremendous competition), a three-time Norris winner (again, against tremendous competition), a four-time Stanley Cup champion. He's the second-best offensive defenceman of all-time, an absolute wizard with the puck who rates among the best skaters and the most creative players to ever play the sport. I'm shocked that anyone would think he shouldn't be in the top 50.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Maybe not exactly what you're asking, but close. Scoring and ranking (in defensemen scoring) among defensemen for the top three in Norris voting:

Season |First |GP |TP |Rank |Second |GP |TP |Rank |Third |GP |TP |Rank
1969-70 |Orr |76 |120 |1st |Park |60 |37 |Tied for 6th |Brewer |70 |39 |5th
1970-71 |Orr |78 |139 |1st |Park |68 |44 |Tied for 6th |Tremblay |76 |63 |2nd
1971-72 |Orr |76 |117 |1st |Park |75 |73 |2nd |White |76 |29 |Tied for 23rd
1972-73 |Orr |63 |101 |1st |Lapointe |76 |54 |2nd |White/Park |72/52 |47/53 |5th/3rd
1973-74 |Orr |74 |122 |1st |Park |78 |82 |2nd |White |69 |36 |13th
1975-76 |Potvin |78 |98 |1st |Park |56 |59 |6th |Salming |78 |57 |Tied for 7th
1977-78 |Potvin |80 |94 |1st |Park |80 |79 |2nd |Robinson |80 |65 |5th

Close enough to what I was asking. Basically without Orr if another guy was topping the defenseman scoring consistently (albeit by a much smaller margin) I think votes would've shifted from Orr to him, rather than from Orr to Park.

Judging from the table generally Park was right up there in scoring anyways.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brodeur v Sakic and Yzerman

I see lists with Sakic and/or Yzerman over Brodeur, and I find this to be completely incomprehensible.

______________________
Brodeur was at or near the best at his position far more consistently than either Sakic or Yzerman.

All Star Teams (1st, 2nd, 3rd as listed here: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=19985096)
Brodeur 3, 4, 3 (with 4 Vezinas)
Sakic 3, 0, 3
Yzerman 1, 0, 2

Martin Brodeur now has an amazing 10 all-star selections (3-4-3). This ranks him second all-time behind Hall (7-4-0) and ahead of Plante (3-4-2).

And don't try to say that center was a more competitive position than goaltending. Two of Brodeur's 2nd Teams and two of his 3rd Teams were behind Dominik Hasek in Hasek's prime. No goaltender in history would have beaten Hasek when Hasek was at his best. Without Hasek, Brodeur has 5 First Teams and 4 Second Teams.
____________________________

Brodeur was also Top 5 in Hart voting far more often than either of them:

Top 5 Hart Finishes
Brodeur 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Sakic 1
Yzerman 3, 4

Since the three were more or less contemporaries, they faced similar competition for the Hart.

Brodeur's 7 Top 5 Hart finishes are very likely the most of anyone left to go up. And he did it while playing in goal, a position traditionally at a disadvantage when it comes to Hart voting (though not so much as defense).

 

[Dark Shadows]

Sure it is. Just look at what actually happened. Brad Park did not hit the NHL as a star offensive player. He wasn't a great scoring defenceman until 1972. How did he do earlier on, when he wasn't putting up big scoring numbers? First Team All-Star in 1970, Second Team All-Star in 1971.

Let's look at 1970. Park got prime power play minutes on the Rangers, but was just 6th in the league in points. Not only that, but he wasn't much of an even strength player - he was 4th among defencemen on his own team in even strength goals for while he was on the ice, and he was 4th among defencemen on his own team in shots. All the evidence suggests a good power play quarterback who was also good defensively, yet certainly not a dynamo rushing defenceman at 5 on 5.

What did the voters do? They voted him as the #2 defenceman in the league behind Bobby Orr.

I agree that it is possible that certain players have benefitted in awards voting because of the way specific skills were viewed at the time. I just disagree with this particular example. It doesn't make any sense to say that for an all-arounder like Brad Park, who was pretty much good at everything and did get voting recognition even before he had fully developed his offensive game. No matter what criteria you use, Park was one of the top defencemen of his era.

Yes. Early in his career, Park was not as much of a rusher. He was a positionally sound excellent two way defenseman who was rock solid in his own zone, and was coming in higher in the Norris voting than many defensemen who outscored him.

His transition game was flawless. More like Doug Harvey in style than Orr early on. He would slow or speed up the pace of the game, retrieve the puck with a brilliant defensive move and send a pinpoint pass up ice. He also skated the puck out brilliantly

The following years, he would indeed begin rushing the puck more and more. But in his first 2 Norris Runner up's, he was not simply following Orr's lead. He was his own man.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tretiak vs. Fetisov (and Kharlamov)

Why do most people here seem to be listing Fetisov quite a bit higher than Tretiak?

They have similar international accomplishments:
Starting goaltender and #1 dman of many Soviet Champions
Both are members of the IIHL Centennial All-Star Team: http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-w....html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=552&cHash=397f823a8f
(Kharlamov is the First Winger over Makarov).

Tretiak has a decided advantage when it comes to the Soviet Player of the Year award.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=592565
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=672152

Is Fetisov considered better than Tretiak because he happened to be born six years later, and therefore was able to spend the twilight of his career as a good second pairing defenseman in the NHL? I don't think time as a solid but unspectacular second pairing defenseman should have much effect on the rankings.

Kharlamov, Tretiak, and Fetisov are considered the Top 3 Soviet players of all time on almost every list, but in different orders. I think that it makes sense to vote all three of them in very close to each other, if not right next to each other.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

13.Bernard Geoffrion
Sorry but not ahead of Dickie Moore.

.

This statement has me confused. Obviously stats aren't everything, but Geoffrion's stats are quite a bit better than Moore's:

Career regular season:
Geoffrion 883GP 393-429-822
Moore 719GP 261-347-608

Career postseason:
Geoffrion 132GP 58-60-118
Moore 135GP 46-64-110

Major Awards:
Geoffrion Art Ross 55, 61; Hart 61
Dickie Moore Art Ross 58, 59

Playoff scoring during Stanley Cup Wins:

1953 Points
1. Geoffrion 10
2. M Richard 8
3. Lach 7
4. Mosdell 5
5. Moore/Howell/Harvey 5

1956 Points
1. Beliveau 19
2. Geoffrion 14
3. Olmstead 14
4. M Richard 14
5. Moore 9

1957 Points
1. Geoffrion 18
2. Beliveau 12
3. M Richard 11
4. Moore 10
5. Olmstead 9

1958 Points
1. M Richard 15
2. Beliveau 12
3. Geoffrion 11
4. Harvey 11
5. Moore 11

1959 Points
1. Moore 17
2. Bonin 15
3. Geoffrion 13
4. Harvey 12
5. H Richard 11

1960 Points
1. Geoffrion 12
2. H Richard 12
3. Moore 10
4. Beliveau 7
5. Bonin 5

Playoff Goals During Stanley Cup Wins:

1953 Goals
1. M Richard 7
2. Geoffrion 6
3. Moore 3
4. Mosdell 3
5. (Four with 2)

1956 Goals
1. Beliveau 12
2. Geoffrion 5
3. M Richard 5
4. Olmstead 4
5. H Richard 4

1957 Goals
1. Geoffrion 11
2. M Richard 8
3. Beliveau 6
4. Moore 3
5. Curry 3

1958 Goals
1. M Richard 11
2. Geoffrion 6
3. Beliveau 4
4. Goyette 4
5. Moore 4

1959 Goals
1. Bonin 10
2. Provost 6
3. Moore 5
4. Geoffrion 5
5. H Richard/Backstrom 3

1960 Goals
1. Moore 6
2. Beliveau 5
3. Harvey 3
4. H Richard 3
5. (Three with 2)

Most playoff points in the 1950s:

1 Bernie Geoffrion 96
2 Dickie Moore 73
3 Ted Lindsay 72
3 Maurice Richard 72
5 Jean Beliveau 71
6 Doug Harvey 62
7 Gordie Howe 61
8 Fleming Mackell 57
9 Alex Delvecchio 49
10 Bert Olmstead 48

The surprising part is the gap that Geoffrion has over the rest of the greats on that list.

Geoffrion never had the adoration of the Montreal fans nearly as much as Richard or Beliveau. Put Geoffrion on Boston, New York back then and he'd be the best player on the team. In Montreal he was considered the 5th best on the team. You have to wonder how much highly regarded his career would be on another team where he wouldn't be in anyone's shadow.

On the best team of all time, Geoffrion had similar offensive production to Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau. Moore was very good, but behind the other three.

 

[seventieslord]

Robinson
Chelios
Fetisov
Coffey
Park

Early look at this round:
1 - Kharlamov
2 - Fetisov
3 - Tretiak
4 - Dryden
5 - Robinson
6 - Brodeur
7 - Sakic
8 - Yzerman
9 - Chelios
10 - Schmidt
11 - Apps
12 - Park
13 - Cook
14 - Geoffrion
15 - Coffey

There's a serious lack of respect for Park going on here. There's no way he should be behind Chelios.

In an Orr-less world, he's a 4-time Norris winner and 3-time runner-up. And without Orr, the field of defensemen he was up against was still highly competitive: Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Savard, Lapointe.

The thing about the argument in Park's favour is that you assume by dropping Orr the rest of the votes all stay the same.

Why wouldn't they?

You're telling me that the voter who goes "Orr is the best, and Park is the next best", when told they can't vote for Orr suddenly goes "ok, then player X is the best, and Park is still the second best"???

Doesn't work that way.

Maybe with hart voting, but Norris voting is for defensemen only.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kharlamov will likely top my list this round as I consider him the top Russian. There are good arguments for others, but for now I will agree with Kharlamov's countrymen in calling him the best. Russia has been the main rival to Canada for hockey supremacy overall, and they should surely have one player in or around the top-30.

I like peak value with my goaltenders, so I am leaning towards Dryden over Brodeur and Tretiak, though I am uncertain where I will slot the goaltenders. I can be convinced otherwise though as Brodeur's longevity comes into play for sure. He has been elite for literally twice as long as Dryden now.

The biggest knock with Brodeur is that I've watched almost his whole career and I've never been overly impressed by him from a visual standpoint. I understand that a goalie who plays a sound positional game will naturally appear less brilliant than a Hasek-type goalie, since they can make difficult saves look simple. But still, I never felt that Brodeur was the reason his team was winning games in the Devils' contending years, and I watched many of his playoff games. Post-lockout (post-elite defense corps) his playoffs have definitely left us wanting more.

Among d-men, Coffey and Robinson are my top two. Fetisov, Chelios, and Park are just a step below them.

Coffey is a polarizing figure, but of all the players up in this round, I'd argue that he was the premier game-breaker among them. Coffey was simply unstoppable offensively in the mid-80's. Ask the Calgary Flames what player gave them fits the most back then. Surprisingly, most will say it wasn't Gretzky, but rather Coffey. You could at least attempt to check Gretzky with your opposing centerman, but when Coffey wound up behind his net there was little that could be done about it. Coffey sometimes gets punished for playing with Gretzky, Lemieux, and many other offensive stars. But he was a vital cog in those offensive machines, his talents perfectly suited to his situation. He seems Esposito-like in that regard. Unlike most dynasty players of that era, Coffey continued to excel into the mid-90's, winning a Norris in 1995.

My biggest qualm with Brad Park is that he missed so many games in the 70's. Park only topped 70 games played four times before 1980-81. Seventieslord points out that he remained productive into his twilight years, and perhaps the reason is because of all that time off in the previous decade. A lot to like about Park, but probably not enough for me to list him in this round, or ahead of Coffey and Robinson.

 

[DaveG]

How can anyone be shocked that Coffey is eligible for voting this round? We're looking now at guys who were top 45 in voting. Coffey should be a no-brainer for the top 50 players ever. He's an eight-time all-star (against tremendous competition), a three-time Norris winner (again, against tremendous competition), a four-time Stanley Cup champion. He's the second-best offensive defenceman of all-time, an absolute wizard with the puck who rates among the best skaters and the most creative players to ever play the sport. I'm shocked that anyone would think he shouldn't be in the top 50.

With as much as the guy gets bashed I didn't think we'd see him until the next round to be honest.

For me nothing is official on this round and that was simply a list based on first look, other then Tretiak finding his way in with the holdovers from last round. I wasn't entirely satisfied with my vote last round or the list that I submitted so I'm up in the air on a lot of players, especially in this range.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

There's a serious lack of respect for Park going on here. There's no way he should be behind Chelios.

In an Orr-less world, he's a 4-time Norris winner and 3-time runner-up. And without Orr, the field of defensemen he was up against was still highly competitive: Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Savard, Lapointe.




Why wouldn't they?

You're telling me that the voter who goes "Orr is the best, and Park is the next best", when told they can't vote for Orr suddenly goes "ok, then player X is the best, and Park is still the second best"???

Doesn't work that way.

Maybe with hart voting, but Norris voting is for defensemen only.

I probably dont place as much value on the awards as some do here, the criteria used in voting I dont always believe actually ends up with the best defender or most valuable player winning the award. Even just take a look at some of the more current topics on this board. Many equate most points to should have won an award. Many voters often do as well. See Mike Green this year.

In this hypothetical no Orr world, do I believe Park should've won a substantial number of Norris? Yes, but we're talking hypothetical award winners and I believe if there was another guy outscoring Park by a decent margin he would've won several. Thats why I asked for information of where Park finished in the scoring race for defenders.

 

[MXD]

Kharlamov will likely top my list this round as I consider him the top Russian. There are good arguments for others, but for now I will agree with Kharlamov's countrymen in calling him the best.
.

...Kyle, you probably know at this point that when I typed 45th in last round when casting my vote, I really meant it, as in, I really expected Kharlamov would be the worst player AGAIN in this round.

But geez, do you realize that if Kharlamov is the best russian by that logic, we made an horrible mistake as a group when we ranked Maurice Richard below 4th?

PS.: This has nothing to do with separatism.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Best Russian

...Kyle, you probably know at this point that when I typed 45th in last round when casting my vote, I really meant it, as in, I really expected Kharlamov would be the worst player AGAIN in this round.

But geez, do you realize that if Kharlamov is the best russian by that logic, we made an horrible mistake as a group when we ranked Maurice Richard below 4th?

PS.: This has nothing to do with separatism.

The Soviet MVP voting has been shown to be somewhat unique. Also, no one is going to accept blindly the opinions of imaginary Russian fans that are not here on the board to defend their view. Also we are not here to rubber stamp a Russian or Soviet view of hockey rather we are trying to slot everyone fairly from a historic perspective.

If certain posters are willing to blindly accept such empty claims about Kharlamov then so be it. MXD's point is that the debate is more than just saying a great number of Canadians view Gretzky as the greatest ever so let's slot him #1.

The Richard analogy is very valid and pertinent. The further we backaway from the political interpretation of hockey talent the clearer the picture gets.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

...Kyle, you probably know at this point that when I typed 45th in last round when casting my vote, I really meant it, as in, I really expected Kharlamov would be the worst player AGAIN in this round.

But geez, do you realize that if Kharlamov is the best russian by that logic, we made an horrible mistake as a group when we ranked Maurice Richard below 4th?

PS.: This has nothing to do with separatism.

Russians ranking Kharlamov first is different than Quebecers ranking Richard too high. It is just absurd to rank Richard ahead of Gretzky, Orr, Howe, or Lemieux. The people who do are clearly biased. I see no such bias with ranking Kharlamov ahead of Tretiak and Fetisov. There are many North Americans who also believe Kharlamov was the best of the Soviet era. I am not saying I rank Kharlamov as the #1 Russian solely based on his reputation. That his countrymen consider him tops is just the cherry on top, and I will consider him the best until I see a convincing enough argument to change that (and some arguments have been very close, especially for Tretiak).

 

[seventieslord]

I probably dont place as much value on the awards as some do here, the criteria used in voting I dont always believe actually ends up with the best defender or most valuable player winning the award. Even just take a look at some of the more current topics on this board. Many equate most points to should have won an award. Many voters often do as well. See Mike Green this year.

In this hypothetical no Orr world, do I believe Park should've won a substantial number of Norris? Yes, but we're talking hypothetical award winners and I believe if there was another guy outscoring Park by a decent margin he would've won several. Thats why I asked for information of where Park finished in the scoring race for defenders.

- Hypotheticals are ok when they involve removing one of the consensus top-4 players from the equation.

- Park was not just about offense, ever. So the idea of a guy coming along with more points and pacing Park in norris voting doesn't make sense.

- And, if there was such a player, the voters had the opportunity to vote for him ahead of Park even with Orr there! They wouldn't suddenly change their mind in Orr's absence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fudging

There's a serious lack of respect for Park going on here. There's no way he should be behind Chelios.

In an Orr-less world, he's a 4-time Norris winner and 3-time runner-up. And without Orr, the field of defensemen he was up against was still highly competitive: Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Savard, Lapointe.




Why wouldn't they?

You're telling me that the voter who goes "Orr is the best, and Park is the next best", when told they can't vote for Orr suddenly goes "ok, then player X is the best, and Park is still the second best"???

Doesn't work that way.

Maybe with hart voting, but Norris voting is for defensemen only.

Two bolded. Major difference between an Orr-less world and being told that you cannot vote for Orr.

In an Orr-less world the old defense / offense ratio for defensemen does not change so defensemen like Harry Howell, Jacques Laperriere, Gus Mortson - pre Norris days get recognition. Being told that you cannot vote for Orr still includes the Orr era shift in the defense / offense ratio so the offensive part gets a much higher consideration.

The J.C. Tremblay situation would illustrate this point. Tremblay always had interesting offensive numbers but his defensive shortcomings - lack of physicality, not blocking shots, etc were constantly used against him when it came to award considerations during the regular and post season. Laperriere won a Norris in the pre Orr NHL

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/trembjc01.html

This changed when Bobby Orr arrived and offensive production from a defensemen started receiving much greater consideration. Note that J.C. Tremblay's AS nominations are after Bobby Orr made his mark.

 

[Dissonance]

- Park was not just about offense, ever. So the idea of a guy coming along with more points and pacing Park in norris voting doesn't make sense.

- And, if there was such a player, the voters had the opportunity to vote for him ahead of Park even with Orr there! They wouldn't suddenly change their mind in Orr's absence.

Totally agree with this, although as I mentioned a while back in another thread, the one weird year is 1971, where Park beat out Tremblay for second in Norris voting, but then Tremblay was voted to the first all-star team ahead of Park. I have no clue what explains the disparity, but it makes me wonder whether Park definitely would've won had voters been forbidden from voting for Orr, or whether somehow Tremblay might've snagged it.

 

[MXD]

Russians ranking Kharlamov first is different than Quebecers ranking Richard too high. It is just absurd to rank Richard ahead of Gretzky, Orr, Howe, or Lemieux. The people who do are clearly biased. I see no such bias with ranking Kharlamov ahead of Tretiak and Fetisov. There are many North Americans who also believe Kharlamov was the best of the Soviet era. I am not saying I rank Kharlamov as the #1 Russian solely based on his reputation. That his countrymen consider him tops is just the cherry on top, and I will consider him the best until I see a convincing enough argument to change that (and some arguments have been very close, especially for Tretiak).

Actually, I have'em in this order

- Fetisov
- Tretiak
- Kharlamov

For the record, Fetisov is a shoo-in for my top-10 in this round.

The thing with Richard is that there are some rationnal arguments for ranking him as high as 5th (and some stupid ones to rank him as high as 3rd). Kharlamov? Well, to a certain extent, he did win as much scoring titles than Richard. But he also won as much as Lindsay, who could obviously do much more on the ice. He also won as much as Trottier, and as much as a very slick two-way playmaking center that will be considered around rank 80th or so. (and the three guys had a longer career as well).

But Kharlamov was something of a 1-dimensionnal player playing in a league that I would describe as weaker than the NHL and the WHA (as a whole...). I'm not implying Richard was a complete player, but he definitely had more facets in his game than Kharlamov did, same thing could be said with Lindsay, Trottier and the aforementionned guy.

Actually, I have Mikhailov higher than many does here... probably. Might be another reason why I rank Kharlamov so low.

 

[MXD]

I see no such bias with ranking Kharlamov ahead of Tretiak and Fetisov. There are many North Americans who also believe Kharlamov was the best of the Soviet era. I am not saying I rank Kharlamov as the #1 Russian solely based on his reputation. That his countrymen consider him tops is just the cherry on top, and I will consider him the best until I see a convincing enough argument to change that (and some arguments have been very close, especially for Tretiak).

Actually, I don't think it's wrong to rank Kharlamov ahead of Fetisov (and Tretiak), but then, it might be too early to vote Fetisov and Tretiak in. (something I really disagree with, BTW).

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I see lists with Sakic and/or Yzerman over Brodeur, and I find this to be completely incomprehensible.

______________________
Brodeur was at or near the best at his position far more consistently than either Sakic or Yzerman.

All Star Teams (1st, 2nd, 3rd as listed here: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=19985096)
Brodeur 3, 4, 3 (with 4 Vezinas)
Sakic 3, 0, 3
Yzerman 1, 0, 2



And don't try to say that center was a more competitive position than goaltending. Two of Brodeur's 2nd Teams and two of his 3rd Teams were behind Dominik Hasek in Hasek's prime. No goaltender in history would have beaten Hasek when Hasek was at his best. Without Hasek, Brodeur has 5 First Teams and 4 Second Teams.
____________________________

Brodeur was also Top 5 in Hart voting far more often than either of them:

Top 5 Hart Finishes
Brodeur 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Sakic 1
Yzerman 3, 4

Since the three were more or less contemporaries, they faced similar competition for the Hart.

Brodeur's 7 Top 5 Hart finishes are very likely the most of anyone left to go up. And he did it while playing in goal, a position traditionally at a disadvantage when it comes to Hart voting (though not so much as defense).

Yzerman has dominated offensively like few ever --

Of all players to ever play, he is 3rd for individual points in a single season (behind only Gretzky and Lemieux)
He has the 4th highest 3 seasons in NHL history (behind Gretzky, Lemieux and Esposito)
-- On much worse teams than the above
For 5 years periods (87,88,89-91,92,93) he was 3rd behind only Gretzky and Lemieux in goals and points, ahead of 4th place by a significant margin.
For 10 years and more, from 1984 - 1993+ only Gretzky and Lemieux out-pointed him, ahead of 4th by a significant margin.

He is ahead of numerous Hall-of-Fame players during these time periods.

He has a Conn Smythe and led two Cup winning teams in points, packed with All-Stars and Hall-of-Famers.

He later won a Selke while still being top ten in the league in points.

Brodeur has never led in individual statistics like that.
He has never led the league in save percentage for a single season and only once led the league in goals against average.

From 2000-2009 he is behind: Chechmanek, Luongo, Roy, Thomas, Huet, Lundqvist, Hasek, Vokoun and Giguere in save percentage for goalies with over 200 games played.

He fares better from 1994-2000, but still behind Hasek, Roy and Hackett in save percentage.

It just does not impress me as much as Yzerman being behind only Gretzky and Lemieux in points, but ahead of Hall of Famers like Messier, Oates, Hull, Francis, Kurri, Gartner, LaFontaine, Shanahan, etc...

I would like to see some domination from Brodeur in individual statistics (is it acceptable that save percentage is the most telling, individually?).... but don't have the time right now to make as good of a comparison for Brodeur as possible. But I believe it is vastly behind Yzerman.

Am I being unfair?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Geoffrion vs Moore

This statement has me confused. Obviously stats aren't everything, but Geoffrion's stats are quite a bit better than Moore's:

Career regular season:
Geoffrion 883GP 393-429-822
Moore 719GP 261-347-608

Career postseason:
Geoffrion 132GP 58-60-118
Moore 135GP 46-64-110

Major Awards:
Geoffrion Art Ross 55, 61; Hart 61
Dickie Moore Art Ross 58, 59

Playoff scoring during Stanley Cup Wins:

1953 Points
1. Geoffrion 10
2. M Richard 8
3. Lach 7
4. Mosdell 5
5. Moore/Howell/Harvey 5

1956 Points
1. Beliveau 19
2. Geoffrion 14
3. Olmstead 14
4. M Richard 14
5. Moore 9

1957 Points
1. Geoffrion 18
2. Beliveau 12
3. M Richard 11
4. Moore 10
5. Olmstead 9

1958 Points
1. M Richard 15
2. Beliveau 12
3. Geoffrion 11
4. Harvey 11
5. Moore 11

1959 Points
1. Moore 17
2. Bonin 15
3. Geoffrion 13
4. Harvey 12
5. H Richard 11

1960 Points
1. Geoffrion 12
2. H Richard 12
3. Moore 10
4. Beliveau 7
5. Bonin 5

Playoff Goals During Stanley Cup Wins:

1953 Goals
1. M Richard 7
2. Geoffrion 6
3. Moore 3
4. Mosdell 3
5. (Four with 2)

1956 Goals
1. Beliveau 12
2. Geoffrion 5
3. M Richard 5
4. Olmstead 4
5. H Richard 4

1957 Goals
1. Geoffrion 11
2. M Richard 8
3. Beliveau 6
4. Moore 3
5. Curry 3

1958 Goals
1. M Richard 11
2. Geoffrion 6
3. Beliveau 4
4. Goyette 4
5. Moore 4

1959 Goals
1. Bonin 10
2. Provost 6
3. Moore 5
4. Geoffrion 5
5. H Richard/Backstrom 3

1960 Goals
1. Moore 6
2. Beliveau 5
3. Harvey 3
4. H Richard 3
5. (Three with 2)



On the best team of all time, Geoffrion had similar offensive production to Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau. Moore was very good, but behind the other three.

Previously I posted a comparison between Mark Messier and Bernie Geoffrion - see post #2 in the following thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=20725469#post20725469

Will focus on the Geoffrion vs Moore discussion at this point, using the previous as a base for Geoffrion.

So far we have seen that when Geoffrion was removed from the Canadiens power play during the regular season it functioned without missing a beat. At the start of the 1961 -62 season Jean Beliveau was injured, Harvey was traded, while Maurice Richard retired. Bernie Geoffrion did not step-up. In fact if you look at his playoff stats starting with the 1961-62 playoffs they are rather meager even with the Rangers. He was hurt during the 1961 playoffs.

Bernie Geoffrion benefitted from extra power play time because he was one of the point men and not part of the forward rotation so his bump in scoring have to be viewed as similar to the bump enjoyed by Bobby Rousseau who replaced Geoffrion on the right point in the sixties.

Dickie Moore

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mooredi01.html

Two very important playoff spikes - 1958-59 playoffs noticed the improved performance when Beliveau and Maurice Richard were out with injury and Moore became a playmaker.

His performance with the St. Louis Blues leading a borderline playoff team to the 1968 playoff finals.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=404558&cmpid=rss

Note how Dickie Moore won the 1957-58 Art Ross playing half the season with his wrist in a cast. This was not known to the voters when voting for the Hart.

Prefer Dickie Moore.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Really Bogus

Brodeur has never led in individual statistics like that.
He has never led the league in save percentage for a single season and only once led the league in goals against average.

From 2000-2009 he is behind: Chechmanek, Luongo, Roy, Thomas, Huet, Lundqvist, Hasek, Vokoun and Giguere in save percentage for goalies with over 200 games played.

He fares better from 1994-2000, but still behind Hasek, Roy and Hackett in save percentage.

It just does not impress me as much as Yzerman being behind only Gretzky and Lemieux in points, but ahead of Hall of Famers like Messier, Oates, Hull, Francis, Kurri, Gartner, LaFontaine, Shanahan, etc...

I would like to see some domination from Brodeur in individual statistics (is it acceptable that save percentage is the most telling, individually?).... but don't have the time right now to make as good of a comparison for Brodeur as possible. But I believe it is vastly behind Yzerman.

Am I being unfair?

Really bogus use of numbers.

Comparing Brodeur to goalies with at least 200 games. Wow that's slightly more than 20 games per season. Let's compare his SV% against goalies that have played at least 70 games a season for at least 10 regular seasons. Who has the best SV%, GAA, then - only one answer Martin Brodeur.


As for leading in individual stats - that is not the objective of the game. The objective is team wins. The stats are byproducts.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/brodema01.html

Brodeur has played about 10 -15 more games per season than his contemporary stars like Hasek, Roy, etc Luongo is approaching Brodeur like numbers. So while Roy or Hasek might have slightly better individual stats because they are more rested. The team had to use the back-up goalie about 10 or 15 times more often during the season. Back-up goalies usually have weaker SV% and GAA numbers so there is a net disadvantage to playing them.