Round 2, Vote 5 (2009 update)

[FissionFire]

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top 15 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days
• Final voting will occur for two (2) days by private message
• Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 10 places with remaining players until a list of 100 players is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (35):
BM67, Canadiens1958, Canadiens Fan, cottonking, DaveG, Dennis_Bonvie, God Bless Canada, Hockey Outsider, Jekyll, Jungosi, Kyle McMahon, lextune, MXD, Nalyd Psycho, NOTENOUGHBREWER, overpass, papershoes, pappyline, pitseleh, pnep, Pwnasaurus, quoipourquoi, Radovsky, raleh, reckoning, seventieslord, Shirtless Joe, Spitfire11, Sturminator, TheDevilMadeMe, TheGoldenJet, tommygunn, Triffy, ushvinder, Weztex

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes. Anyone wishing to participate who has not submitted a list yet will have until the start of Round 2, Vote 2 to get their list in. Once Vote 2 begins, no additional lists will be accepted.

On that note, I hope everyone is ready to wrack their brains and debate against some of the best hockey minds on the 'net! Have fun!

Click to read more...

 

[FissionFire]

*** PLEASE NOTE THE VOTING DEADLINE ***

Vote 5 will begin now and debates will run through Sunday 8/30. Any extension to this time frame will be annouced prior to the deadline. Votes must be submitted no later than midnight EST on Sunday 8/30, and voting will run until this time or until all voters have sent their vote in, whichever comes first. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

I will be sending out confirmations when I receive ballots from the voters now. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume I never received it and should either resubmit it or contact me to arrange a different method to submit the ballots. Please submit all ballots via PM to FissionFire or email them to [email protected]

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 15 OUT OF THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS.

Vote 5 will be for places 41 through 50 on the Top 100 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:
Andy Bathgate
Max Bentley
Frank Boucher
Chris Chelios
Paul Coffey
Charlie Conacher
Marcel Dionne
Bill Durnan
Bernard Geoffrion
Tim Horton
Frank Mahovlich
Joe Malone
Brad Park
Pierre Pilote
Vladislav Tretiak

 

[lextune]

Here is my ordering of the eligible players on my original list.

Chris Chelios
Bill Durnan
Joe Malone
Frank Mahovlich
Vladislav Tretiak
Bernard Geoffrion
Paul Coffey
Brad Park
Andy Bathgate
Charlie Conacher
Max Bentley
Marcel Dionne
Pierre Pilote
Frank Boucher
Tim Horton

I am pretty open on a number of them, so I am looking forward to learning a a thing or two about them during the debate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comments

In alphabetical order.

Andy Bathgate
One of the all-time whiners. Rarely a play-off presence like a Fleming Mackell.

Max Bentley
Saw his personal stats slip when traded to the Leafs but was well compensated with Stanley Cups. I prefer Ted Kennedy but understand and appreciate Max's contribution and placement.

Frank Boucher
Gentleman, centered one of the greatest lines ever. Won where others whined.

Chris Chelios
At times a little too aggressive.Interesting to see if his ranking equals his age.

Paul Coffey
Great offensive defenseman. did not adapt well to aging.

Charlie Conacher
One of the best from the 1930's.

Marcel Dionne
Mega talented but predictable. Never had good coaching.

Bill Durnan
Achieved alot in a short NHL career.

Bernard Geoffrion
Better and more important dynasty Canadiens exist.

Tim Horton
Came back from a horrific injury - Gadsby hit, to be a Leaf stalwart.


Frank Mahovlich
Enigmatic. Very talented left winger who contributed more to his teams than the credit he receives.

Joe Malone
One of the NHA stars, somewhat underappreciated.

Brad Park
Close to finding the right slot. Comments to date are interesting.

Pierre Pilote
If only Pierre was 3" taller and 25lbs heavier he would be about 15-20 slots higher. One of the two best things Kenogami ever produced.

Vladislav Tretiak
Defined Soviet goaltending. Underappreciated these days.

 

[overpass]

Here are my numbers and analysis for the players who played since the 1967 expansion. They rest on the idea that there are three separate phases of the game of hockey - even-strength play, power play, and penalty killing - and these should be evaluated separately.

These don't include playoffs or intangibles and can't be taken as the final word, but can hopefully provide some information in certain areas.

Stat Glossary:

$ESGF/G - even-strength goals for per game, adjusted for scoring level. Higher is better.
$ESGA/G - even-strength goals against per game, adjusted for scoring level. Lower is better.
R-ON - Player's even-strength on-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA). Should be higher than R-OFF.
R-OFF - Player's even-strength off-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA).
XEV+/- - Players expected EV+/-, based on off-ice results.
EV+/- - Even-strength plus-minus, adjusted for scoring level.
AEV+/- - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus. =(EV+/-) - (XEV+/-). If you look at just one number, make it this one.
/82 - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus per season.
SH% - . Percentage of team's PPGA the player was on the ice for. Measures a players role in killing penalties, but not effectiveness.
PP% - Percentage of team's PPGF the player was on the ice for. Measures a players role on the power play, but not effectiveness.
$PPP - Scoring-adjusted power play points per game.
$ESP - Scoring-adjusted even-strength points per game.

Marcel Dionne

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Marcel Dionne | 72-74 | 2.94 | 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.88 | -19 | -13 | 7 | 2 | 4% | 80% | 0.52 | 0.67
Marcel Dionne | 75-78 | 3.88 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0.82 | -44 | 5 | 48 | 13 | 26% | 86% | 0.54 | 0.81
Marcel Dionne | 79-85 | 6.80 | 1.08 | 0.79 | 1.37 | 0.74 | -110 | 163 | 273 | 40 | 11% | 80% | 0.54 | 0.86
Marcel Dionne | 86-89 | 3.31 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.86 | -20 | -31 | -11 | -3 | 11% | 58% | 0.38 | 0.50
Marcel Dionne | 72-89 | 16.92 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 1.11 | 0.80 | -194 | 124 | 317 | 19 | 13% | 78% | 0.51 | 0.77

Dionne was an excellent power play scorer right from the beginning of his career almost to the end. I'd put him on the short list of best post-expansion PP forwards, behind Lemieux and Esposito and alongside Gretzky, Forsberg, and Sakic.

His even-strength record is interesting. From 1978-79 to 1984-85 his numbers are absolutely outstanding. This corresponds roughly with the Triple Crown line years, during which LA was a terrible team with an incredible first line. Dionne's numbers didn't get much of a boost from his goalies and defense, but Taylor and Simmer certainly helped. No doubt Dionne deserves much of the credit for the line's success, but it's worth considering that he may not deserve full credit for his great on-ice numbers in these years. He had some good years before this time, but not outstanding.

Dionne's playoff record is the main reason he hasn't been voted in already, but I won't go into that here.

Tim Horton

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Tim Horton | 68-70 | 2.88 | 1.32 | 1.19 | 1.11 | 1.03 | 6 | 32 | 25 | 9 | 60% | 43% | 0.13 | 0.36
Tim Horton | 71-74 | 3.15 | 1.05 | 0.87 | 1.21 | 1.06 | 10 | 46 | 37 | 12 | 59% | 16% | 0.04 | 0.19
Tim Horton | 68-74 | 6.03 | 1.18 | 1.02 | 1.15 | 1.04 | 16 | 78 | 62 | 10 | 60% | 29% | 0.08 | 0.27

Horton was still receiving Norris consideration immediately post-expansion, playing a large number of minutes at even-strength and on the penalty kill and playing them well, and also making minor power play contributions. His even-strength and power play role diminished, but, like Chris Chelios, he was a key penalty killer well into his forties. Obviously, these numbers don't cover most of his career.

Frank Mahovlich

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Frank Mahovlich | 68-74 | 6.65 | 1.10 | 0.74 | 1.49 | 1.18 | 60 | 199 | 139 | 21 | 26% | 70% | 0.38 | 0.77

Although this only covers the Big M's thirties, he was still a very good player. His even-strength record is particularly good.

I'll post more about Mahovlich's years in the sixties later, but the gist of it is that his power play scoring was held back by Punch Imlach.

Chris Chelios

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Chris Chelios | 84-87 | 2.48 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 1.03 | 1.14 | 17 | 5 | -12 | -5 | 45% | 61% | 0.34 | 0.29
Chris Chelios | 88-97 | 9.28 | 1.09 | 0.78 | 1.40 | 1.22 | 99 | 236 | 137 | 15 | 60% | 79% | 0.37 | 0.38
Chris Chelios | 98-02 | 4.15 | 1.15 | 0.89 | 1.28 | 1.00 | 1 | 86 | 86 | 21 | 61% | 42% | 0.18 | 0.37
Chris Chelios | 03-09 | 4.68 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 1.15 | 1.39 | 57 | 35 | -22 | -5 | 56% | 6% | 0.01 | 0.21
Chris Chelios | 84-09 | 20.59 | 0.99 | 0.78 | 1.28 | 1.18 | 173 | 362 | 189 | 9 | 58% | 52% | 0.24 | 0.33

Very good all-around prime for about 10 years, with major contributions outside of that.

Brad Park

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Brad Park | 69-71 | 2.37 | 1.21 | 0.82 | 1.47 | 1.22 | 28 | 76 | 48 | 20 | 30% | 64% | 0.28 | 0.38
Brad Park | 72-79 | 6.63 | 1.48 | 0.94 | 1.58 | 1.24 | 100 | 294 | 194 | 29 | 51% | 89% | 0.43 | 0.59
Brad Park | 80-85 | 5.10 | 0.86 | 0.78 | 1.09 | 1.12 | 27 | 30 | 3 | 1 | 38% | 77% | 0.34 | 0.28
Brad Park | 78-87 | 14.10 | 1.21 | 0.86 | 1.40 | 1.20 | 155 | 400 | 245 | 17 | 43% | 81% | 0.37 | 0.44

Sometimes when I pick time periods for analysis it can be difficult to draw the cut-off, but Park's career breaks down neatly into three distinct phases. In the first he was an excellent defenseman, good enough to finish second in Norris voting, but not a top rushing defenseman or elite on the power play. In the second phase of his career, from 1972-79, he was a terrific rusher and scorer at EV, great on the power play and penalty kill, and just an excellent all-around defenceman. Later in his career he basically entirely lost his speed and effectiveness at even-strength, but was still a fine power play scorer.

Brief Park-Chelios comparison:

I see Park's 1972-1979 prime as better than Chelios's prime, as he was better on the power play and more of a difference maker at even-strength. Chelios gets the edge on the PK. Chelios also makes up ground in that he had a longer prime and contributed more outside of his prime. I prefer Park. More career-oriented voters may prefer Chelios.

Paul Coffey

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Paul Coffey | 81 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.84 | 1.07 | 0.99 | -1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 8% | 29% | 0.10 | 0.27
Paul Coffey | 82-87 | 5.73 | 1.52 | 1.03 | 1.47 | 1.39 | 137 | 228 | 90 | 16 | 34% | 83% | 0.43 | 0.73
Paul Coffey | 88-95 | 7.10 | 1.32 | 1.16 | 1.14 | 1.10 | 47 | 94 | 46 | 7 | 29% | 87% | 0.51 | 0.55
Paul Coffey | 96-01 | 4.04 | 1.00 | 0.91 | 1.10 | 1.19 | 38 | 31 | -7 | -2 | 21% | 68% | 0.32 | 0.37
Paul Coffey | 81-01 | 17.79 | 1.29 | 1.04 | 1.23 | 1.21 | 222 | 357 | 135 | 8 | 28% | 79% | 0.42 | 0.55

Paul Coffey's best attribute was undoubtedly his even-strength scoring. However, he traded off defensive play to achieve that, so his overall even-strength results were not as great as they could have been. Also, when you consider that unlike the other defensemen on this list, he was not the top option for a defensive-zone faceoff, his even-strength results are less impressive.

During his Edmonton years, he was not as productive on the power play as contemporaries Ray Bourque, Denis Potvin, or Al MacInnis (although Potvin peaked earlier and MacInnis later). On the Pittsburgh power play with Mario Lemieux, and then in Detroit during the lockout year he was the equal of any non-Orr PP quarterback. By this time, however, his defensive problems were almost entirely negating his even-strength effectiveness.

He also played a smaller role on the penalty kill than any other defender up for voting to this point has.

 

[MXD]

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:
Andy Bathgate
Max Bentley
Frank Boucher
Chris Chelios
Paul Coffey
Charlie Conacher
Marcel Dionne
Bill Durnan
Bernard Geoffrion
Tim Horton
Frank Mahovlich
Joe Malone
Brad Park
Pierre Pilote
Vladislav Tretiak

Order, as of the list

Joe Malone
Charlie Conacher
Bill Durnan
Brad Park
Bernard Geoffrion
Frank Mahovlich
Marcel Dionne
Chris Chelios
Frank Boucher
Andy Bathgate
Pierre Pilote
Tim Horton
Paul Coffey
Max Bentley
Vladislav Tretiak

Since then...

- Changed my views on Tretiak. Would basically rank between around Geoffrion
- Chelios went up a little as well. IMO, he's better than his actual age.
- I won't consider in this round : Max Bentley. Not that much of a big gap between him and his brother, and I don't really see Doug getting in there before round 7.
- I won't either consider : Tim Horton. I'm probably in the minority, but Horton getting in this round, while Earl Seibert is still uneligible to vote, would be a total travesty.
- Why Bathgate is a possibility and Dickie Moore isn't? That goes pretty much against EVERY, EVERY ranking that's been done in the past (and yes, I think they're relevant for this one). The worst is, I MIGHT vote Bathgate in this round (and wouldn't have voted Moore that much higher than Bathgate : for the record, I had the LW trifecta of Kharlamov/Mahovlich/Moore back-to-back. That was a mistake. The latters did more than the earlier). Tretiak is the wild card here. If the poor Hart results could be an argument for Lindsay, it's certainly for Moore.

BUT

- Joe Malone is the undisputed no.1 here.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Here are my numbers and analysis for the players who played since the 1967 expansion. They rest on the idea that there are three separate phases of the game of hockey - even-strength play, power play, and penalty killing - and these should be evaluated separately.

These don't include playoffs or intangibles and can't be taken as the final word, but can hopefully provide some information in certain areas.

Stat Glossary:

$ESGF/G - even-strength goals for per game, adjusted for scoring level. Higher is better.
$ESGA/G - even-strength goals against per game, adjusted for scoring level. Lower is better.
R-ON - Player's even-strength on-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA). Should be higher than R-OFF.
R-OFF - Player's even-strength off-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA).
XEV+/- - Players expected EV+/-, based on off-ice results.
EV+/- - Even-strength plus-minus, adjusted for scoring level.
AEV+/- - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus. =(EV+/-) - (XEV+/-). If you look at just one number, make it this one.
/82 - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus per season.
SH% - . Percentage of team's PPGA the player was on the ice for. Measures a players role in killing penalties, but not effectiveness.
PP% - Percentage of team's PPGF the player was on the ice for. Measures a players role on the power play, but not effectiveness.
$PPP - Scoring-adjusted power play points per game.
$ESP - Scoring-adjusted even-strength points per game.

Marcel Dionne

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | SH% | PP% | $PPP/G | $ESP/G
Marcel Dionne | 72-74 | 2.94 | 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.88 | -19 | -13 | 7 | 2 | 4% | 80% | 0.52 | 0.67
Marcel Dionne | 75-78 | 3.88 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0.82 | -44 | 5 | 48 | 13 | 26% | 86% | 0.54 | 0.81
Marcel Dionne | 79-85 | 6.80 | 1.08 | 0.79 | 1.37 | 0.74 | -110 | 163 | 273 | 40 | 11% | 80% | 0.54 | 0.86
Marcel Dionne | 86-89 | 3.31 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.86 | -20 | -31 | -11 | -3 | 11% | 58% | 0.38 | 0.50
Marcel Dionne | 72-89 | 16.92 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 1.11 | 0.80 | -194 | 124 | 317 | 19 | 13% | 78% | 0.51 | 0.77

Dionne was an excellent power play scorer right from the beginning of his career almost to the end. I'd put him on the short list of best post-expansion PP forwards, behind Lemieux and Esposito and alongside Gretzky, Forsberg, and Sakic.

His even-strength record is interesting. From 1978-79 to 1984-85 his numbers are absolutely outstanding. This corresponds roughly with the Triple Crown line years, during which LA was a terrible team with an incredible first line. Dionne's numbers didn't get much of a boost from his goalies and defense, but Taylor and Simmer certainly helped. No doubt Dionne deserves much of the credit for the line's success, but it's worth considering that he may not deserve full credit for his great on-ice numbers in these years. He had some good years before this time, but not outstanding.
Dionne's playoff record is the main reason he hasn't been voted in already, but I won't go into that here.


Dionne had two over 120 point seasons prior to playing with Taylor & Simmer. I'd say those were better than good years. 1976-77 was good enough for first team all-star.

 

[MXD]

In alphabetical order.

Andy Bathgate
One of the all-time whiners. Rarely a play-off presence like a Fleming Mackell.

If you were to compare him to a guy who had playoffs success, there are some pretty good ones still available that were better player than Mackell... Y'know what I mean.

Frank Boucher
Gentleman, centered one of the greatest lines ever. Won where others whined.

If it's a comparison to Bathgate, I don't think that's appropriate (geez, they had a pretty good team with a 20-goal scorer on the 2nd line... The rangers of those days should actually have won more Cups than they did, but that's not the point...)

Bernard Geoffrion
Better and more important dynasty Canadiens exist.

...that still makes him a Top-10 in this round

Joe Malone
One of the NHA stars, somewhat underappreciated.

Hummm... I think I should came with the stat I saw somewhere : Joe Malone was the pro hockey leading scorer until Maurice Richard broke his record - even if we consider both western leagues as pro leagues. Lalonde was kindof the Trottier of his day : Malone was the Brett Hull.

Marcel Dionne
Mega talented but predictable. Never had good coaching.

If we're to forgive Dionne for bad coaching, I think we ought to do the same for Mr. Bathgate, who had even worst for his prime, even if it means getting Bathgate in this round. Which would be bad, but might be kindof unavoidable.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I like Malone, I doubt he'll be my number one though. When I think Malone, I think of a player somewhere in between Mike Bossy and Brett Hull, and appropriately he'll probably end up about half way between the two. Of the great pre-consolidation players I rank him behind Frank Nighbor, who is not yet up for voting (which is a shame IMO).

Paul Coffey is my top defenseman here. The defensive side of the game is lacking, but Coffey was a game breaker in a way that no other defenseman besides Orr was. I suspect that if you were to ask a collection of coaches/GMs/players that were around the game during the careers of the five d-men up for voting in this round which of them they would least want to face in their prime, the answer would be Coffey.

The offensive contributions of Pierre Pilote and Tim Horton can't be overlooked either. Pilote had five of the seven highest scoring seasons by a d-man in the pre-expansion portion of the sixties. He was the dominant offensive blueliner of the decade without sacrificing his defensive game (I guess I probably just made a case for Pilote > Coffey, haha). Taking into account the span of 1956-57 to 1967-68, Pilote scored 30% more points than the next best blueliner, who happens to be Tim Horton. Both of these players also had a Smythe-caliber performances on the '61 Hawks and '62 Leafs respectively.

Only two goaltenders in this round, and I had both of them close together on my original list. I think Tretiak's Soviet MVP record might give him the edge over Durnan here, and the fact that he was generally considered a generational goaltender. Durnan's peak is excellent though, and I really don't see much separating him and Dryden. If you had Dryden high on your list last round, you should probably give Durnan the same treatment (and if not, I'm very open to some arguments as to why). The two ex-Habs seem kind of like the Sakic/Yzerman of goaltenders in terms of comparability.

Frank Boucher might be the third or fourth best playmaker of all time. He was named to the 1st AST at center three years consecutively, a feat no other player not already on the list accomplished. He was one of his generation's most dominant playoff performers; his 1928 Cup-winning playoff with the Rangers ranks among the best of all time. Boucher led the way with seven goals and 10 points total in nine games. His linemate Bill Cook was second in playoff scoring with five points, half of Frank's total. No other player in the entire league had more than two playoff goals that year.

Over the course of Boucher's NHL playoff career (considering 1926-27 to 1936-37, excluding season with Ottawa and final two seasons where the Rangers didn't make the playoffs), he scored more playoff points than any other player in the league. On a per-game basis, he trails only Barry and Weiland amongst guys with at least 20 PO points, though they have the benefit of having played significantly fewer games. Over that same span he is also the regular season points leader, norrowly edging out Morenz for top spot.

Boucher was of course considered one of the most sportsmanlike players of his era (don't confuse this with being soft, Boucher wasn't), and won multiple Lady Byng's. The award may not mean much today, but the perception is that it was considered much more prestigious back in the 20's and 30's. I don't have a link to back that up with, so maybe somebody else can confirm that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Moving Things Forward

If you were to compare him to a guy who had playoffs success, there are some pretty good ones still available that were better player than Mackell... Y'know what I mean.


If it's a comparison to Bathgate, I don't think that's appropriate (geez, they had a pretty good team with a 20-goal scorer on the 2nd line... The rangers of those days should actually have won more Cups than they did, but that's not the point...)

...that still makes him a Top-10 in this round


Hummm... I think I should came with the stat I saw somewhere : Joe Malone was the pro hockey leading scorer until Maurice Richard broke his record - even if we consider both western leagues as pro leagues. Lalonde was kindof the Trottier of his day : Malone was the Brett Hull.



If we're to forgive Dionne for bad coaching, I think we ought to do the same for Mr. Bathgate, who had even worst for his prime, even if it means getting Bathgate in this round. Which would be bad, but might be kindof unavoidable.

The Mackell / Bathgate comparison reflects how each competed against the Canadiens(playoffs) and each other during the 1956-58 stretch. Will go into details later this weak. I understand your point.

1930's Rangers. Goaltending - Aitkenhead and Kerr not HHOFers. Bathgate era Rangers chose between two HHOFers Bower and Worsley. 1930's Rangers and 1950's Rangers played and practiced in the same building same conditions.

Joe Malone.You are actually building a case for Newsy Lalonde as a playmaker.Given the NHA and early NHL was very cheap/Spartan with assists. Still, Joe Malone lead the Quebec Bulldogs to two SCs.

Let's review the coaching scenario with Bathgate and Dionne. Boucher - average, Muzz Patrick weak, Watson and Pike bad coaching but with Harvey during the 1961-62 season followed by Imlach in Toronto and Abel in Detroit this was not the case. But Bathgate remained Bathgate except for the brief 1964 playoff spurt. Always the locker room lawyer who would disappear at critical times in the playoffs. The expansion coaching is not relevant.

Dionne never had the coaches like Bathgate did from Harvey on.

 

[overpass]

Dionne had two over 120 point seasons prior to playing with Taylor & Simmer. I'd say those were better than good years. 1976-77 was good enough for first team all-star.

Yes, you're right that he definitely had a couple of excellent years before 1978. When I said he wasn't outstanding before 1978, I was setting a high bar and comparing him to the players in this round, not in the league as a whole.

I think I was also looking at even-strength results when I said that, and he was a terrific power play scorer over this time. In 1974-75 I estimate that he was behind only Esposito and Orr in power play points, and in 1976-77 he led the league with 46 power play points, 10 ahead of his teammate Goring in second place. He also set a record with 10 SHG in 1974-75.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If you were to compare him to a guy who had playoffs success, there are some pretty good ones still available that were better player than Mackell... Y'know what I mean.


If it's a comparison to Bathgate, I don't think that's appropriate (geez, they had a pretty good team with a 20-goal scorer on the 2nd line... The rangers of those days should actually have won more Cups than they did, but that's not the point...)

...that still makes him a Top-10 in this round


Hummm... I think I should came with the stat I saw somewhere : Joe Malone was the pro hockey leading scorer until Maurice Richard broke his record - even if we consider both western leagues as pro leagues. Lalonde was kindof the Trottier of his day : Malone was the Brett Hull.



If we're to forgive Dionne for bad coaching, I think we ought to do the same for Mr. Bathgate, who had even worst for his prime, even if it means getting Bathgate in this round. Which would be bad, but might be kindof unavoidable.

I don't think it would be that bad. Bathgate did win a Hart Trophy, tied for the scoring title one year and was in the top 5 in assists and points 9 times each. He was also top 10 in goals scored 7 times.

 

[lextune]

Boucher was of course considered one of the most sportsmanlike players of his era (don't confuse this with being soft, Boucher wasn't), and won multiple Lady Byng's. The award may not mean much today, but the perception is that it was considered much more prestigious back in the 20's and 30's. I don't have a link to back that up with, so maybe somebody else can confirm that.

There is no doubt about it. Just look at the award's leading winners:
Frank Boucher - 7
Wayne Gretzky - 5
Red Kelly - 4
Pavel Datsyuk - 4

And not to get off topic too much here, but I still think the award means quite a bit today. A quick look at more recent winners shows the likes of Brett Hull, Ron Francis, Kariya, Sakic, Mogilny and Datsyuk.

 

[MXD]

1930's Rangers. Goaltending - Aitkenhead and Kerr not HHOFers. Bathgate era Rangers chose between two HHOFers Bower and Worsley. 1930's Rangers and 1950's Rangers played and practiced in the same building same conditions.



Let's review the coaching scenario with Bathgate and Dionne. Boucher - average, Muzz Patrick weak, Watson and Pike bad coaching but with Harvey during the 1961-62 season followed by Imlach in Toronto and Abel in Detroit this was not the case. But Bathgate remained Bathgate except for the brief 1964 playoff spurt. Always the locker room lawyer who would disappear at critical times in the playoffs. The expansion coaching is not relevant.

.

- Kerr was pretty decent. Actually, better than any goalie getting a starting job in Montreal, 'cept for a brief stint where Alec Connell was the starting netminder for the Maroons (and became one of the worst teams on-paper to win the Cup). I'd also venture he was superior to an Hainsworth in his very late 30ies.

 

[MXD]

I like Malone, I doubt he'll be my number one though. When I think Malone, I think of a player somewhere in between Mike Bossy and Brett Hull, and appropriately he'll probably end up about half way between the two. Of the great pre-consolidation players I rank him behind Frank Nighbor, who is not yet up for voting (which is a shame IMO).

Taking into account the span of 1956-57 to 1967-68, Pilote scored 30% more points than the next best blueliner, who happens to be Tim Horton. Both of these players also had a Smythe-caliber performances on the '61 Hawks and '62 Leafs respectively.

It seems I have the same problem with Horton (vs. Siebert) than you have with Malone (vs. Nighbor)... Both were dominant standout defensive D-Men whose offensive game was decent (without being really awesome), both were really tough guys who didn't really abused others, both had a CS performance...

Only two goaltenders in this round, and I had both of them close together on my original list. I think Tretiak's Soviet MVP record might give him the edge over Durnan here, and the fact that he was generally considered a generational goaltender. Durnan's peak is excellent though, and I really don't see much separating him and Dryden. If you had Dryden high on your list last round, you should probably give Durnan the same treatment (and if not, I'm very open to some arguments as to why). The two ex-Habs seem kind of like the Sakic/Yzerman of goaltenders in terms of comparability.

There were indeed close to each other. Durnan "relative" playoffs woes vs Dryden playoffs success were what separated them. I also considered Durnan to have better competition than Dryden. (In other words, Broda was better than Espo, Brimsek was better than Vachon, and so), hence why the gap between Durnan and Dryden being pretty low.

This said, Durnan isn't the only one to blame for the playoffs woes, and that's reflected in pretty much EVERY rankings of the reminder of the Punch Line. As few have said in a related topic, there isn't much, stats wise and even trait-wise, that separates Milt Schmidt from Elmer Lach, yet their respective ranking is kindof wide apart. The Habs also had two guys whose placement in a Top-100 would absolutely make sense on defense and another one (Glen Harmon) which saw only four guys get more AST berths than he did during the span of his career. (it's really not the big three, but a point could be made that the Habs had the best 1st d-men, the best 2nd d-men and the best 3rd d-men of the league during his whole tenure.)

 

[lextune]

- Joe Malone is the undisputed no.1 here.

Every description of Malone I've read makes me think of faster version Brett Hull, (not a bad thing). I have him third in this round as of now but could see him moving ahead of Durnan. Both of them sort of flashed, burned brightly, then were gone.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dryden / Durnan & Horton / Siebert

It seems I have the same problem with Horton (vs. Siebert) than you have with Malone (vs. Nighbor)... Both were dominant standout defensive D-Men whose offensive game was decent (without being really awesome), both were really tough guys who didn't really abused others, both had a CS performance...



There were indeed close to each other. Durnan "relative" playoffs woes vs Dryden playoffs success were what separated them. I also considered Durnan to have better competition than Dryden. (In other words, Broda was better than Espo, Brimsek was better than Vachon, and so).

Dryden's competition included Parent, Giacomin, Billy Smith, Cheevers. Durnan did not have to face defense generated offense like Dryden did - Bobby Orr era.

Horton had a better supporting cast on defense. For some reason I've tended to view Earl Seibert as a slightly better Harry Howell with better playoff performances and SCs. Howell also has a Norris, a trophy Horton never won yet Horton overall was a much better defenseman than Howell.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Every description of Malone I've read makes me think of faster version Brett Hull, (not a bad thing). I have him third in this round as of now but could see him moving ahead of Durnan. Both of them sort of flashed, burned brightly, then were gone.

I think you're underrating Malone's longevity. Remember that Malone had several elite years in the NHA before it became the NHL. By my count Malone had ten seasons which would be considered great, and a couple other decent ones spanning about 1909-1922. Durnan had just seven seasons total, of course all seven would be considered prime years.

 

[MXD]

Dryden's competition included Parent, Giacomin, Billy Smith, Cheevers. Durnan did not have to face defense generated offense like Dryden did - Bobby Orr era.

Humm... you're right for Parent. And that's tricky since Parent was so much of the short flash. All the other guys you mentionned are really, but really inferior to Broda and Brimsek. AS for the defense-generated offense... Well, Durnan's competition didn't face it either, and the first D-Men to score 20 goals since... (WHO?)
did it during Durnan's career. In a 50-games season. Actually, it might have been a first. And if Tommy Anderson actually did it during his Hart season, discount it, as it's not really sure whether he was a D the whole season. Too lazy to search, but he might have scored 20. He might not.

Horton had a better supporting cast on defense. For some reason I've tended to view Earl Seibert as a slightly better Harry Howell with better playoff performances and SCs. Howell also has a Norris, a trophy Horton never won yet Horton overall was a much better defenseman than Howell.

I don't want to comeback on Earl Seibert's case this time, as I feel it's slightly OT. I'm just preparing a list of names for (I hope) next round.

 

[MXD]

Every description of Malone I've read makes me think of faster version Brett Hull, (not a bad thing). I have him third in this round as of now but could see him moving ahead of Durnan. Both of them sort of flashed, burned brightly, then were gone.

Malone was the highest scorer of the history of the NHA and was the highest scoring pro player until Maurice Richard broke his record...

Screw it, the record holder was Newsy Lalonde with 455. Malone was in the 370ies or so, making him the... 2nd highest scoring pro until Richard came. (Then again : WTF Taylor is doing ahead of Lalonde?!?!?! East Coast Bias, my ****ing ass).

Either way, he had good longevity.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Rankings for this round:

1. Max Bentley: The best offensive option for this round. Two-time Art Ross Trophy winner was a dazzling, offensively-aggressive player who could beat you with goal scoring or playmaking ability. Forty-six points in 51 playoff games is a tremendous total for his time.

2. Bernie Geoffrion: Another outstanding post-season performer. Had eight straight post-seasons with 10 points - a remarkable total that's even more amazing considering he played in the O6. A two-time Art Ross Trophy winner who played a feisty, aggressive brand of hockey.

3. Chris Chelios: The best competitor in this round, Chelios was a feared played who won three Norris Trophies. Aggressive, mean and tough as nails, he dominated all aspects of the game, and did so while usually playing 30 minutes a night. Could carry his team on his back for extended periods of time.

4. Paul Coffey: A wonderfully unique player in the history of the game. Love him or loathe him, scouts are still looking for the next Coffey. They'll never find another like him. One of the top skaters and most creative players to ever play the game. Five 100-point seasons and a second place finish (behind Gretzky) in the scoring race.

5. Frank Mahovlich: He's not without his faults - he was a high-maintenance player whose personality was amplified by a dictator of a coach - but a top 50 without the Big M is incomplete at best and illegitimate at worst. A cog for five Stanley Cup champions who finished second in goals five times, and beat Bobby Hull for the first all-star team LW spot twice.

6. Brad Park: A tremendous all-round defenceman who would have probably won multiple Norris Trophies if not for the presence of Bobby Orr. Tough competitor and an excellent fighter who had a tremendous skill level. For my money, the best player without a Stanley Cup. (But 125 points in 161 post-season games is damn good).

7. Charlie Conacher: The Big Bomber was a power forward 50 years before the term was coined. A big, strong, hard-shooting, hard-hitting goal scorer who dominated the game. If you lead the league in goals five times, lead the league in points twice, score at a .75 PPG clip in the playoffs in the 1930s, and pick up five straight all-star nods, with Bill Cook and Dit Clapper as your competition, while playing the style Conacher played, you belong in the top 50. Period.

8. Marcel Dionne: Some might be surprised that he's on my list, given I'm a Dionne detractor. Reality is he belongs in the top 50. A fearless offensive dynamo. A tremendous playmaker whose goal-scoring abilities were underrated. His playoff record is underwhelming for a player of his calibre (45 points in 49 games would be great for the 1950s, or for a good NHL player, but for a guy of Dionne's ilk, playing post-expansion, I'd expect much, much more).

9. Andy Bathgate: The most consistent player for this round. Two players had at least 70 points eight straight years in the O6: Gordie Howe and Andy Bathgate. For years, he was it offensively for the Rangers. You stopped Bathgate, you stopped the Rangers. Playoff record doesn't look good on the surface, but remember: most years, he was a one-man show against the Montreal or Toronto dynasty. The only one I would classify as iffy would be 1964 - the year he won the Cup. The other year, in his prime, when he faced an opponent at the Rangers level, he had eight points in six games.

10. Pierre Pilote: A tough call between Pilote and Tim Horton, but I'll give Pilote the nod. A contemporary of Horton's, Pilote won three Norris Trophies to Horton's zero, and Pilote had five first-team all-star nods to Horton's three. One Cup, but 61 points in 86 games is tremendous for a pre-expansion defenceman. Excellent skill and tough as nails.

11. Tim Horton: The best defensive defenceman, and the strongest player, for this round falls just short. Again, Pilote did more. Still a tremendous player who merits strong consideration for this round. 16 points in 13 games in 62 should rate among the great post-season performances by a defenceman ever.

12. Frank Boucher: One of the best playmakers ever who was also a skilled, clean two-way pivot. Excellent playoff record for his time. But it's not his time yet.

13. Bill Durnan: Deserves consideration at this point, but so does Turk Broda, and frankly, Broda should be voted in ahead of Durnan. Six first-team all-star nods in eight years is tremendous.

14. Vyacheslav Tretiak: As stated before, a polarizing figure. Wouldn't be surprised if he's No. 1 or 2 for goalies on some lists, and No. 20 for goalies on others. Wouldn't be surprised if he's top 20 on some lists, and unranked on others.

15. Joe Malone: With all due respect: how the hell is Joe Malone an option before Dickie Moore?

 

[lextune]

You are right of course about Malone having more longevity than Durnan. I was probably selling him a little short with the "flashing" analogy.

....and I should further clarify as well that my comparison of him to Hull was exclusively in regards to playing style, (i.e. - I don't consider Hull a flash at all; finishing top ten in goals 8 times over a 14 year stretch, but that of course is a debate for another day....).

 

[lextune]

Every description of Malone I've read makes me think of faster version Brett Hull, (not a bad thing). I have him third in this round as of now but could see him moving ahead of Durnan. Both of them sort of flashed, burned brightly, then were gone.

Malone was the highest scorer of the history of the NHA...

An astonshing 179 goals in only 123 games.

And Brett is the third highest goal scorer in NHL history.

 

[MXD]

Rankings for this round:

15. Joe Malone: With all due respect: how the hell is Joe Malone an option before Dickie Moore?

There are many guys who deserves the same question being asked about them... and much more than Malone. I don't know, some folks here considers that our top-100 list needs to be different from every other that was made, so Bathgate gets ranked ahead of Moore inspite of the virtual impossibility for Moore to win the award considering the definition of the time.

And then : Oh no! No Cup Counting!

Then : Moore was passenger!!! He had Harvey, Richard, Geoffrion, Béliveau, Jacques Plante and Bob Turner to make him a better player!

Geez, Moore is basically Ted Lindsay with a better prime and worse knees... He was probably a worse fencer as well.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There are many guys who deserves the same question being asked about them... and much more than Malone. I don't know, some folks here considers that our top-100 list needs to be different from every other that was made, so Bathgate gets ranked ahead of Moore inspite of the virtual impossibility for Moore to win the award considering the definition of the time.

And then : Oh no! No Cup Counting!

Then : Moore was passenger!!! He had Harvey, Richard, Geoffrion, Béliveau, Jacques Plante and Bob Turner to make him a better player!

Geez, Moore is basically Ted Lindsay with a better prime and worse knees... He was probably a worse fencer as well.

I do have Moore ahead of Bathgate, but not by much. Moore definitely wasn't a passenger on those Cup wins - his post-season performance is a testament to that. (How good was Moore in the post-season? 14 points in 18 games in 68 for St. Louis, after sitting out for three seasons). And passengers don't set league scoring records that stand for six seasons.