Round 2, Vote 6 (2009 update)

[FissionFire]

Out of curiosity, if Henri Richard's game can't be appreciated by "bogus stats" why did the writers who did watch him year after year never give him much Hart consideration? Why did he have such a poor All-Star record relative to his contemporaries? I'd think it was because of Believeau but the writers twice voted Richard 2nd behind Jean so they didn't seem to have some bias against voting players from the same team into the 1/2 spot.

While Richard did lead the league twice in assists, don't try overstating it. Outside of those two 1sts he finished higher than 7th only once.

Why is Richard's pedestrian Hart record and average All-Star record enough to place him far above a player like Earl Seibert, who had more All-Star berths and a similar Hart record as a defenseman? I don't see how Richard can be highly ranked unless Seibert is right there with him.

One more thing.....is hockeyreferece correct that Henri Richard never scored a shorthanded goal in the final 12 seasons of his career (when the stat started being tracked)? For a player who was such a key part of the PK as I've been told and who played many minutes on it that seems like a statistical impossibility. Richard was only 27 in the first year it was tracked so it's not like he was well past his prime. It might be possible that his "prime" (1957-58 to 1962-63) is being remembered as the norm for his career. I can't believe that a player who was a primary PK option would go 12 years without a shorthanded goal. Maybe his role on the PK might be exaggerated?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tentative rankings (Makarov would be first if available):

1. Max Bentley - fantastic offensive performer and fantastic in the playoffs

2. Pierre Pilote - best dman left. I fear this list tends to underestimate dmen.

3. King Clancy - first truly dominant NHL defenseman

4. Henri Richard - comparible to Beliveau at even strength and always used to check the best guys of the opposition. A key player on TWO dynasties, and the only Top 100 player other than Beliveau on the 60s Habs dynasty.

5. Tim Horton - I'm worried that he might be getting underrated. Shouldn't be that far behind Pilote. The cornerstone of the best defense in the league when the Leafs were a dynasty team. Possibly the strongest defenseman ever, and the only guy in the league who could physically handle Gordie Howe. Offensively underrated, as he led the Leafs in playoff scoring the first year of the dynasty.

6. Turk Broda - the original "money goalie." A bit behind Durnan in the regular season, but ahead of him in the postseason.

7. Clint Benedict - the first truly elite NHL goaltender. Coinflip with Broda.

8. Bill Durnan - elite regular season performer and good (but not as good as Broda) in the playoffs. Definitely behind Broda, but not by much.

9. Dit Clapper - I used to have him closer to Clancy, but I'm wondering if he tends to be overrated a bit because he could play both forward and defense. He wasn't as dominating on D as Clancy, from accounts that I've read.

10. Boris Mikhailov - I hate putting him over Makarov and Firsov, but he's better than the other guys listed. Not that far behind Kharlamov in importance on the same line.

11. Earl Seibert - the guy I know the least about this round. I'll slot him here for now, but he's probably the guy on the list most prone to movement. Fantastic All-Star record, but what was the competition at the time?

12. Jari Kurri - not just a product of Gretzky, he was the perfect compliment. Still, I feel it's a round too early. Point totals definitely inflated by the 80s.

13. Peter Forsberg - one of the great "what if" players of all time. A great playoff performer, but lack of durability and elite seasons left him correctly ranked around #70 last time.

14. Dickie Moore - Peter Forsberg if Forsberg played for the greatest dynasty ever.

15. Andy Bathgate - we all know how I feel about guys who were better at accumulating stats than helping their team(s) win. I believe, he's the only such guy that is up for voting this time. I'd vote for him in a round or two, but not over any of these guys.

 

[MXD]

14. Dickie Moore - Peter Forsberg if Forsberg played for the greatest dynasty ever.

Moore made that team better, and part of reason why that team is considered the best ever is that Moore might be the 6th best player on that team, although he was, at the very worst, the 2nd best player in his prime (and YES, that includes Doug Harvey, and YES, Moore was better than Harvey if you consider his two Art Ross seasons). and the 4th best player of the team throughout the dynasty years, which isn't a bad feat considering the three guys ahead of him are like 6th, 8th and 11th.

I think the argument in regards of Ted Lindsay's Hart shares applies to Moore. If anything, Moore might just be the closer player, gamestyle wise, to Lindsay.

For the record, Peter Forsberg will probably be part of my Top-10. He'll just be below Moore by 3-4ish ranks.

I think we should take into consideration how other attempts at making a Top-100 turned out for Moore vs. Bathgate. Same thing (to a lesser extent...) for Henri Richard IMO.

 

[MXD]

12. Earl Seibert - the guy I know the least about this round. I'll slot him here for now, but he's probably the guy on the list most prone to movement.

No.99, No.9, No. 9, No. 77, No.2 and a guy that weared to much jersey numbers to list them here are the only guys with all star team berth streaks equiavalent or better than Seibert.

Those guys are respectively ranked 1st, 3rd, 9th, 10th, 6th and 5th in our Top-10.

That alone justifies having Seibert, at the very worst, in the Top-10. And higher than Clapper.

 

[Triffy]

I think last time around some of the guys (pappyline, Stonefly?) who saw him play said that Henri Richard wasn't anything special compared to Dave Keon. Norm Ullman's name was also in the mix. Now overpass provided useful information which definitely supports Henri's case.

 

[MXD]

I think last time around some of the guys (pappyline, Stonefly?) who saw him play said that Henri Richard wasn't anything special compared to Dave Keon. Norm Ullman's name was also in the mix. Now overpass provided useful information which definitely supports Henri's case.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Richard will make my Top-10 (but he'll be close, if he isn't in). He wasn't very far from Keon either.

 

[Sturminator]

The fact that Frank Nighbor's name is still not even up for consideration is an embarrassment to the process, which only allows for incremental progress from the original lists. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There are two goalies in this round (Durnan and Broda) who are better than Benedict. And there's another one (Bower) who is better than Benedict. Benedict warrants consideration at this point. He should not be voted in at this point.

I disagree -- Benedict dominant his era for longer and to a greater extent than Durnan and Broda ever did. I'm likely going to have Durnan and Broda in my top ten for this round, but Benedict will be #1 on my list.

Here's my case for Clint Benedict. I'll start by summarizing his accomplishments in chart form:

Year | Games | Wins | Shutouts | GAA | Other
1918 | 1st | 2nd | 1st | |
1919 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st |
1920 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Won Stanley Cup
1921 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Won Stanley Cup
1922 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st |
1923 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Won Stanley Cup
1924 | | 1st | 1st | 2nd |
1925 | 1st | | | |
1926 | 1st | 2nd | | |
1927 | | | 2nd | 1st |
1928 | 1st | 2nd | | |
1929 | | | | |
1390 | | | | |

In his thirteen year career, Clint Benedict led the NHL in the following categories: games played 9 times; shutouts 7 times; GAA 6 times; and wins 6 times. This level of statistical dominance is on par with that of Hasek, Durnan and Dryden. Benedict's record would be even better if you included his NHA seasons (the only reason I haven't done that myself is I don't have access to the data).

Admittedly I don't like using wins, shutouts or GAA (all strongly influenced by a goalie's team) when more accurate data is available. However, there's evidence that Benedict was not just a product of his team.

How do we know that Benedict wasn't a product of his team? Let's consider the 1925 season. Benedict was shipped away from Ottawa (who had won three Cups in the past five years). Ottawa fell from 1st in the league and 2nd in goals against, to 4th in the league in both points and goals against (in a six-team league with two expansion teams). Benedict was sent to the Montreal Maroons, one of the two expansion teams. Benedict's Maroons actually finished 3rd in the league in goals against; not only did they beat the Bruins and the established St. Patricks (Leafs), but they actually surrendered fewer goal's than Benedict's old team, the Senators! The Sens still had a great blueline featuring Clancy, Boucher and Hitchman, not to mention defensive forward Nighbor. Unless you think that playing behind a defense corp of Dunc Munro, Gerry Munro, Geroge Carroll and Frank Cain was the key to Benedict's success, it seems clear that Benedict was the key to the Sens' success.

In short: once Benedict was taken off a dynasty team (that retained the rest of their core players), the team's goals-against and win percentage suffered dramatically. Benedict led an expansion team with a weak blueline to a better defensive record (ie fewer goals against) than his former team.

Benedict was the best playoff performer of his era. In addition to win three Stanley Cups in the NHL, his GAA dropped by 0.46 in the playoffs, falling to under two goals per game. During the span of his career, Benedict was responsible for 30% of all shutouts in the playoffs!

Although there is a tendency to say that Benedict played long ago when goaltending was much different, it's worth emphasizing that Benedict was one of the most innovative and creative goalies of his era. Benedict is generally regarded as the first goalie to routinely fall to the ice to make a save - in fact, the NHL was forced to change the rules that required goalies to always remain standing, to accommodate Benedict's new style. Benedict was also the first goalie in NHL history to wear a mask, beating Plante by 30-something years.

Unfortunately there were few awards in Benedict's era. All-star teams were not introduced until 1931, the year after his retirement. The Hart trophy wasn't introduced until 1924 (towards the end of Benedict's peak) but he still finished 3rd in 1925 (behind Burch and Morenz).

In summary, Clint Benedict was the best goalie in the NHL's first decade. His statistical dominance is on par with Hasek, he was an elite playoff performer, and, as indicated by the 1924 trade, he was the key to his team's success.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Out of curiosity, if Henri Richard's game can't be appreciated by "bogus stats" why did the writers who did watch him year after year never give him much Hart consideration? Why did he have such a poor All-Star record relative to his contemporaries? I'd think it was because of Believeau but the writers twice voted Richard 2nd behind Jean so they didn't seem to have some bias against voting players from the same team into the 1/2 spot.

One would ask the same question about Ted Lindsay, when looking at Hart consideration right? I know you support him, and think he is far more than the sum of his statistics and awards.

Even though a few times he did get 2nd team selections behind Beliveau, I would say there definitely was a bias regarding selecting 2 members of the same team to a 1st and 2nd all star spot at the same position. How often has that happened in History really?

I remember you once saying that "Al Macinnis is a guy who has all the right awards, statistics, and selections, but I never saw the greatness when he was playing, so I rate him lower, despite these statistics". Would not the opposite ring true for a player whom you saw greatness from, but did not top the league? Particularly one of the greatest two way forwards ever to play?

While Richard did lead the league twice in assists, don't try overstating it. Outside of those two 1sts he finished higher than 7th only once.

Why is Richard's pedestrian Hart record and average All-Star record enough to place him far above a player like Earl Seibert, who had more All-Star berths and a similar Hart record as a defenseman? I don't see how Richard can be highly ranked unless Seibert is right there with him.

One more thing.....is hockeyreferece correct that Henri Richard never scored a shorthanded goal in the final 12 seasons of his career (when the stat started being tracked)? For a player who was such a key part of the PK as I've been told and who played many minutes on it that seems like a statistical impossibility. Richard was only 27 in the first year it was tracked so it's not like he was well past his prime. It might be possible that his "prime" (1957-58 to 1962-63) is being remembered as the norm for his career. I can't believe that a player who was a primary PK option would go 12 years without a shorthanded goal. Maybe his role on the PK might be exaggerated?

Henri Richard was always matched up against the opposing teams top line. That much is 100% certain. Regarding how much I saw him kill penalties, I cannot say with 100% proof anything other than I know he did play on the PK enough. He was not their primary PKer(The habs had other guys for that), But neither was Trottier or several other good defensive two way players.

In that era, Shorthanded goals were the sort of thing that was rare to begin with. People scored them when they were down a goal and needed a goal badly. When you were up a goal, as those Habs teams often were, you simply play it safe and keep. Between 1963-1969, the Habs averaged 4 shorthanded goals a year.

 

[overpass]

One more thing.....is hockeyreferece correct that Henri Richard never scored a shorthanded goal in the final 12 seasons of his career (when the stat started being tracked)? For a player who was such a key part of the PK as I've been told and who played many minutes on it that seems like a statistical impossibility. Richard was only 27 in the first year it was tracked so it's not like he was well past his prime. It might be possible that his "prime" (1957-58 to 1962-63) is being remembered as the norm for his career. I can't believe that a player who was a primary PK option would go 12 years without a shorthanded goal. Maybe his role on the PK might be exaggerated?

Where did you hear about Henri Richard as a top penalty killer? I've heard him described here as a top defensive forward, but he was never a regular on the penalty kill as far as I've heard. Montreal generally used their depth forwards like Don Marshall there.

As you said, the statistical record doesn't show much evidence of PK play on his part. The only points he ever scored in the regular season while shorthanded were two assists in 1962-63. Also, he was on the ice for only 7 PPGA from 1967-68 to the end of his career.

Regarding Moore vs Forsberg, I like Moore's peak but it was very short. Forsberg was an elite player for a little over a decade. Moore was only a top player for about 5 years, and most of his accomplishments come from his two big Art Ross years. Even in those two years he wasn't clearly the best on his (admittedly stacked) team: Doug Harvey was in his prime, Henri Richard matched him in points per game in the first year, and Beliveau in the second. Moore just played a couple more games than each. I'm not trying to tear down Moore too much, but I'd like a little more from a two year peak.

Forsberg's 2003 season is arguably better than either of Moore's peak years. He won the Hart, and led the league in points and plus-minus. His even-strength scoring that year was terrific - he scored 4.02 points per 60 minutes played at evens, the best mark since the NHL has tracked minutes played. Better than any of Jagr or Lemieux's seasons from 1998 on, better than Crosby or Ovechkin ever did - and that was in the middle of the dead puck era.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here is the raw data I have regarding Hart trophy data. Two disclaimers. First, this post isn't intended to be an argument for/against any player (though it can be used to support a position). Second, keep in mind that Hart trophy voting standards appear to have changed over time and are probably not directly comparable.

PLAYER | FIRST | SECOND | THIRD | FOURTH | FIFTH | TOTAL
Francis "King" Clancy | | | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5
Andy Bathgate | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 4
Max Bentley | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 3
Bill Durnan | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 3
Aubrey "Dit" Clapper | | 1 | 1 | | | 2
Henri Richard | | | | 2 | | 2
Earl Seibert | | | | 2 | | 2
Peter Forsberg | 1 | | | | | 1
Clint Benedict* | | | 1 | | | 1
Walter "Turk" Broda | | | | | 1 | 1
Richard "Dickie" Moore | | | | | 1 | 1
Tim Horton | | | | | | 0
Jari Kurri | | | | | | 0
Boris Mikhailov** | | | | | | 0
Pierre Pilote | | | | | | 0

* Played part of his career outside of the NHL, and part before the Hart was first awarded in 1923-24
** Played entire career outside of NHL

- Clancy's terrific Hart trophy record surprised me. His earliest season as a Hart finalist was 1926-27, meaning that it was after the NHL consolidated all of North America's talent. (Thus he wasn't racking up Hart trophy voters against only a portion of the world's hockey talent).
- Several players (Moore, Richard, Kurri) potentially suffer from vote-splitting with their other dynasty teammates.

And in the end, only focusing on PPG is going to overlook a huge part of Kurri's game. His stellar defensive play.

A while ago I made a post on players who routinely finished in the top ten in scoring & Selke trophy voting in the same year. Obviously I can only go back to 1977-78 (the first year the Selke was awarded) but Kurri was the best player by this standard. He had a remarkable six seasons in the top ten in scoring & Selke voting.

Francis (4) and Gilmour, Sakic and Forsberg (3 each) were the next closest players.

 

[lextune]

Still, it's very impressive that Henri Richard was (probably) the best player in the league at even-strength over a 12 year period.

Very impressive stat.. and just adds to my feelings on him.

Things like that are going to make a believer out of me, too.

Same here....

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Brilliant post on Clint Benedict, HO. Benedict dominated his position to a greater degree and for longer than anybody else up for voting. He is better than Durnan in the playoffs, and at worst his equal in the regular season. He is better than Broda in the regular season, and at worst his equal in the playoffs. In my mind, it is difficult to consider anybody besides Benedict as the top pre-Sawchuk/Plante/Hall era netminder. That period encompasses over half a century of hockey, and is enough to make Benedict a no-brainer for top spot in this round.

In the NHA, Benedict led the league in GAA in 1915, '16, and '17. I can provide a more detailed analysis on his pre-NHL career later on.

I am surprised Bentley didn't make the cut last round. He is my leading candidate for second spot in this round.

 

[MXD]

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:
Andy Bathgate
Clint Benedict
Max Bentley
Walter "Turk" Broda
Francis "King" Clancy
Aubrey "Dit" Clapper
Bill Durnan
Peter Forsberg
Tim Horton
Jari Kurri
Boris Mikhailov
Richard "Dickie" Moore
Pierre Pilote
Henri Richard
Earl Seibert

My list (original) + comments

1. Bill Durnan : Might have overrated him a little to begin with... But he should ahead of Broda and not really far from Dryden. Considering where Dryden ended up, and considering that Broda is available this round, I fail to see why he shouldn't be in contention, at the very worst, for the Top-3

2. Turk Broda : See Bill Durnan. Lesser, way lesser regular season goalie, but has a claim at being the 2nd best playoff goalie ever.

3. Dickie Moore : He's already penalized for not winning the Hart Memorial (and see FF's words about Lindsay, and consider that the same applies to Moore) by not being available for voting prior to this round. Career short by every standards, which should be the only thing hampering him. Might have to send him down a little, though.

4. King Clancy : I can conceive that Clancy's ranking is hurt a bit by the fact he had some great years prior to the merger (playing with a Top-75 guy and an arguable Top-100 helped him as well), but frankly, those who have beed advocating Nighbor's case... Why exactly should he get in ahead of Clancy?

5 : Earl Seibert : Getting higher and higher. Defensive stonewall, and underrated offensive contributor, and has would have had a serious claim at being the Connie Smythe winner on the weakest Stanley Cup winner, ever. (a five-goal performance in the playoffs is IMO more impressive than a 1,71 GAA in those same playoffs, especially considering era). Will be in the mix for no.1 in my final voting.

6 : Andy Bathgate : Going down fast in my rankings. Probably a Top-10. No matter what might be said about his '59 Hart, well, he still won it in the end. Seems to have more negatives than I actually thought.

7 : Pierre Pilote : It kinda sucks that he was a great d-men in not such a great era for d-men (as far as individual talent is concerned). Delivered in the playoffs, as supported by HO's document (was that you?). But some evidence that he wasn't exactly a defensive ace (wasn't bad, but wasn't, let's say, Seibert) makes it hard for me to rank him ahead of Clancy.

8 : Clint Benedict : Pre-merger+not the same competition than Durnan/Broda makes it hard to rank him ahead of them. Some who are giving some flak to Dickie Moore about playing on a stacked team should look carefuly at the Senators team, where the worst D-Men was Eddie Gerard or Lionel Hitchman. But still, he achieved a lot, and not always on great teams (later part of his career). EDIT : Euh, what exactly makes Benedict an equal to Broda in playoffs?

9 : Peter Forsberg : When he could brought it all, he brought it all. One would wish him to score more goals, but that's it, and if Milan Hejduk is scoring them, well, the team wins anyway. He should be close to Dickie Moore, but below Dickie Moore.

10 : Tim Horton : Might have overrated him, now that I consider everything. Considering the style that he played, longevity should definitely be considered when rating him.

11 : Boris Mikhailov : At least, he's getting closer to Kharlamov. Brought some rough n tumble to the russian game. And was effective for a very long time when compared to his russian contemporaries, which is IMO worth a lot when rating that was - let's say it - a digger. Worth mentionning that he had his best international year in 1979, when Kharlamov wasn't exactly what he was.

12 : Henri Richard : This one will probably take half of the discussions, so I'll leave it at those two thoughts : First, if considered the 5th best "Habs" of all time, it doesn't mean he was the 5th best player in a Habs jersey. It's just that he meant A LOT for A LONG time. Second, I think it would be a fair assessement not to rank him too far from Keon. (I had Keon 4 ranks below).

13 : Dit Clapper : Please, no comparisons to Red Kelly. Outperformed by Earl Seibert as a D-Men(for the years their careers spanned at D...) and extremely comparable to Cecil Dillon as a RW, inspite of the later being used with some guy history completely forgot (and Paul Thompson for very few years) and a guy only Stan Fischler considers a top-100 player ever. I like Dillon, but he's, what, Top-200 material?

14 : Max Bentley : Might have ranked him too low, but... I dont know, I'm kindof unimpressed, except by his stint as a Hawk. Will be higher than 14th, hopeful for Top-10, but comparisons about his similitudes to his brother hurts him.

15 : Jari Kurri : My bad, I was looking hard at my list when I wondered who was the guy I forgot. I had Kurri sandwiched between Makarov and Kennedy, but I underrated both of them, so he would be sandwiched between some guy named Jackson and some guy named Stewart, who isn't even the best Stewart on my list.

 

[MXD]

Defensemen:

Dit Clapper was voted to the first or second AST as a defenseman more often than as a winger, so I'm listing him here. The AST selections at forward were in 30-31 and 34-35, and the AST selections at D started in 38-39.

King Clancy started his NHL career in 1921-22, and all-star teams were first selected in 1930-31.

All-star team selections

Player |First AST |Second AST | Total
King Clancy |2 |2 |4
Dit Clapper |3 |3 |6
Tim Horton |3 |3 |6
Pierre Pilote |5 |3 |8
Earl Seibert |4 |6 |10

Norris voting

Season |First |Second |Third
1961-62 |Harvey | Pilote |Talbot
1962-63 | Pilote |Brewer |Horton
1963-64 | Pilote |Horton |Vasko
1964-65 | Pilote |Laperriere |Gadsby
1965-66 |Laperriere | Pilote |Stapleton
1966-67 |Howell | Pilote |Orr

Season |First |Second |Third
1962-63 |Pilote |Brewer | Horton
1963-64 |Pilote | Horton |Vasko
1967-68 |Orr |Tremblay | Horton
1968-69 |Orr | Horton |Green

Hart voting

Season |First |Second |Third |Fourth |Fifth
1926-27 |Gardiner |Cook |Frederickson |Irvin | Clancy
1928-29 |Worters |Bailey |Shore |Mantha | Clancy
1929-30 |Stewart |Hitchman |Weiland | Clancy |Boucher
1930-31 |Morenz |Shore | Clancy |Goodfellow |Stewart
1933-34 |Joliat |L. Conacher | Clancy |Seibert |Worters

Season |First |Second |Third |Fourth |Fifth
1933-34 |Joliat |L. Conacher |Clancy | Seibert |Worters
1943-44 |Pratt |Cowley |D. Bentley | Seibert |Carr

Season |First |Second |Third |Fourth |Fifth
1939-40 |Goodfellow |Apps | Clapper |Schmidt |Robinson
1940-41 |Cowley | Clapper |Apps |Howe |Hextall

Career regular season scoring compared to (somewhat) contemporary defensemen

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
King Clancy |1921-1937 |592 |136 |147 |283 |0.48 |914
Ebbie Goodfellow |1929-1937 |369 |107 |135 |242 |0.66 |390
Eddie Shore |1926-1937 |444 |94 |147 |241 |0.54 |945

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Dit Clapper |1927-1947 |833 |228 |246 |474 |0.57 |462
Ebbie Goodfellow |1929-1943 |557 |134 |190 |324 |0.58 |511
Flash Hollett |1933-1946 |562 |132 |181 |313 |0.56 |358

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Flash Hollett |1933-1946 |562 |132 |181 |313 |0.56 |358
Babe Pratt |1935-1946 |486 |79 |205 |284 |0.58 |438
Earl Seibert |1931-1946 |645 |89 |187 |276 |0.43 |746

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Red Kelly |1949-1967 |1197 |270 |517 |787 |0.66 |304
Bill Gadsby |1949-1966 |1090 |113 |408 |521 |0.48 |1357
Tim Horton |1949-1974 |1446 |115 |403 |518 |0.36 |1611

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Red Kelly |1955-1967 |788 |172 |334 |506 |0.64 |201
Pierre Pilote |1955-1969 |890 |80 |418 |498 |0.56 |1251
Tim Horton |1955-1969 |914 |92 |283 |375 |0.41 |1025

Thanks for the correction about Northcott, seventieslord. No comments about Goodfellow being listed as a defensemen? With players like Clapper and Goodfellow, I'm not really sure where to draw the line.

I think you just screwed Goodfellow's D and C years. Was a C, was then converted to a D in 35-36. (Barry's arrival, anyone?)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Tentative rankings (Makarov would be first if available):

1. Max Bentley - fantastic offensive performer and fantastic in the playoffs

2. Pierre Pilote - best dman left. I fear this list tends to underestimate dmen.

3. King Clancy - first truly dominant NHL defenseman

4. Henri Richard - comparible to Beliveau at even strength and always used to check the best guys of the opposition. A key player on TWO dynasties, and the only Top 100 player other than Beliveau on the 60s Habs dynasty.

5. Tim Horton - I'm worried that he might be getting underrated. Shouldn't be that far behind Pilote. The cornerstone of the best defense in the league when the Leafs were a dynasty team. Possibly the strongest defenseman ever, and the only guy in the league who could physically handle Gordie Howe. Offensively underrated, as he led the Leafs in playoff scoring the first year of the dynasty.

6. Turk Broda - the original "money goalie." A bit behind Durnan in the regular season, but ahead of him in the postseason.

7. Clint Benedict - the first truly elite NHL goaltender. Coinflip with Broda.

8. Bill Durnan - elite regular season performer and good (but not as good as Broda) in the playoffs. Definitely behind Broda, but not by much.

9. Dit Clapper - I used to have him closer to Clancy, but I'm wondering if he tends to be overrated a bit because he could play both forward and defense. He wasn't as dominating on D as Clancy, from accounts that I've read.

10. Boris Mikhailov - I hate putting him over Makarov and Firsov, but he's better than the other guys listed. Not that far behind Kharlamov in importance on the same line.

11. Earl Seibert - the guy I know the least about this round. I'll slot him here for now, but he's probably the guy on the list most prone to movement. Fantastic All-Star record, but what was the competition at the time?

12. Jari Kurri - not just a product of Gretzky, he was the perfect compliment. Still, I feel it's a round too early. Point totals definitely inflated by the 80s.

13. Peter Forsberg - one of the great "what if" players of all time. A great playoff performer, but lack of durability and elite seasons left him correctly ranked around #70 last time.

14. Dickie Moore - Peter Forsberg if Forsberg played for the greatest dynasty ever.

15. Andy Bathgate - we all know how I feel about guys who were better at accumulating stats than helping their team(s) win. I believe, he's the only such guy that is up for voting this time. I'd vote for him in a round or two, but not over any of these guys.

Dit Clapper didn't just play 2 positions, he was an all-star at 2 positions. He'll be Number 1 on my list.

I don't feel Bathgate should be penalized for playing on those mediocre Rangers teams. To me its amazing that he could be in the top 5 in assists for 9 years playing (RW) on a team with so little offense. As an example, in '56-'57 Bathgate had 50 assists while the leader amongst centers on the Rangers (Dave Creighton) had 21 assists. Bathgate led the team with 77 point, next closest was Andy Hebenton with 44 points.

 

[seventieslord]

No.99, No.9, No. 9, No. 77, No.2 and a guy that weared to much jersey numbers to list them here are the only guys with all star team berth streaks equiavalent or better than Seibert.

Those guys are respectively ranked 1st, 3rd, 9th, 10th, 6th and 5th in our Top-10.

That alone justifies having Seibert, at the very worst, in the Top-10. And higher than Clapper.

Seibert has to be higher than Clapper. How many more times would he have to beat him out for the all-star team to be rated higher? He beat him in voting four of 7 times that they were in direct competition (they were only 4 years apart in age) - in the three times Clapper beat Seibert, Seibert still made the all-star team. In the four times Seibert beat Clapper, Clapper was not on the all-star team. Then of course there were three seasons on top of that, in which Seibert was an all-star defenseman. It's 10-6 in total all-star team spots. 4-3 in first team spots. They are contemporaries. Both should be voted in now, but Seibert should definitely be ahead of Clapper.

The fact that Frank Nighbor's name is still not even up for consideration is an embarrassment to the process, which only allows for incremental progress from the original lists. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait?

It better be next round. Can't wait to see the flood of support that comes along with it. I'm sure it will be like last time, where he gets voted in immediately, in 1st place. Otherwise, it's an embarrassment.

 

[MXD]

Dit Clapper didn't just play 2 positions, he was an all-star at 2 positions. He'll be Number 1 on my list.

Comparison to Cecil Dillon is extremely relevant in this case.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Seibert has to be higher than Clapper. How many more times would he have to beat him out for the all-star team to be rated higher? He beat him in voting four of 7 times that they were in direct competition (they were only 4 years apart in age) - in the three times Clapper beat Seibert, Seibert still made the all-star team. In the four times Seibert beat Clapper, Clapper was not on the all-star team. Then of course there were three seasons on top of that, in which Seibert was an all-star defenseman. It's 10-6 in total all-star team spots. 4-3 in first team spots. They are contemporaries. Both should be voted in now, but Seibert should definitely be ahead of Clapper.



It better be next round. Can't wait to see the flood of support that comes along with it. I'm sure it will be like last time, where he gets voted in immediately, in 1st place. Otherwise, it's an embarrassment.

I'm not sure how it can be considered an embarrassment when no one voting ever saw him play.

 

[BM67]

Out of curiosity, if Henri Richard's game can't be appreciated by "bogus stats" why did the writers who did watch him year after year never give him much Hart consideration? Why did he have such a poor All-Star record relative to his contemporaries? I'd think it was because of Believeau but the writers twice voted Richard 2nd behind Jean so they didn't seem to have some bias against voting players from the same team into the 1/2 spot.

While Richard did lead the league twice in assists, don't try overstating it. Outside of those two 1sts he finished higher than 7th only once.

Why is Richard's pedestrian Hart record and average All-Star record enough to place him far above a player like Earl Seibert, who had more All-Star berths and a similar Hart record as a defenseman? I don't see how Richard can be highly ranked unless Seibert is right there with him.

One more thing.....is hockeyreferece correct that Henri Richard never scored a shorthanded goal in the final 12 seasons of his career (when the stat started being tracked)? For a player who was such a key part of the PK as I've been told and who played many minutes on it that seems like a statistical impossibility. Richard was only 27 in the first year it was tracked so it's not like he was well past his prime. It might be possible that his "prime" (1957-58 to 1962-63) is being remembered as the norm for his career. I can't believe that a player who was a primary PK option would go 12 years without a shorthanded goal. Maybe his role on the PK might be exaggerated?

Here is the breakdown of how many SHG the Canadiens scored over those 12 years.

Year|SHG
63-64|7
64-65|5
65-66|2
66-67|3
67-68|7
68-69|2
69-70|8
70-71|8
71-72|14
72-73|9
73-74|12

Henri wasn't the key PK guy over his entire career, or even over the majority of it, but he certainly was a key guy for much of it.

The story of when Gordie Howe tied the Rockets record for career goals in 63-64 includes the expectation that Henri was expected to kill the entire 2 minute penalty to Ferguson.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Comparison to Cecil Dillon is extremely relevant in this case.

Dillon was an all-star forward, not an all-star defenseman.

 

[seventieslord]

I disagree -- Benedict dominant his era for longer and to a greater extent than Durnan and Broda ever did. I'm likely going to have Durnan and Broda in my top ten for this round, but Benedict will be #1 on my list.

Here's my case for Clint Benedict. I'll start by summarizing his accomplishments in chart form:

Year | Games | Wins | Shutouts | GAA | Other
1918 | 1st | 2nd | 1st | |
1919 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st |
1920 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Won Stanley Cup
1921 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Won Stanley Cup
1922 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st |
1923 | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Won Stanley Cup
1924 | | 1st | 1st | 2nd |
1925 | 1st | | | |
1926 | 1st | 2nd | | |
1927 | | | 2nd | 1st |
1928 | 1st | 2nd | | |
1929 | | | | |
1390 | | | | |

In his thirteen year career, Clint Benedict led the NHL in the following categories: games played 9 times; shutouts 7 times; GAA 6 times; and wins 6 times. This level of statistical dominance is on par with that of Hasek, Durnan and Dryden. Benedict's record would be even better if you included his NHA seasons (the only reason I haven't done that myself is I don't have access to the data).

Admittedly I don't like using wins, shutouts or GAA (all strongly influenced by a goalie's team) when more accurate data is available. However, there's evidence that Benedict was not just a product of his team.

How do we know that Benedict wasn't a product of his team? Let's consider the 1925 season. Benedict was shipped away from Ottawa (who had won three Cups in the past five years). Ottawa fell from 1st in the league and 2nd in goals against, to 4th in the league in both points and goals against (in a six-team league with two expansion teams). Benedict was sent to the Montreal Maroons, one of the two expansion teams. Benedict's Maroons actually finished 3rd in the league in goals against; not only did they beat the Bruins and the established St. Patricks (Leafs), but they actually surrendered fewer goal's than Benedict's old team, the Senators! The Sens still had a great blueline featuring Clancy, Boucher and Hitchman, not to mention defensive forward Nighbor. Unless you think that playing behind a defense corp of Dunc Munro, Gerry Munro, Geroge Carroll and Frank Cain was the key to Benedict's success, it seems clear that Benedict was the key to the Sens' success.

In short: once Benedict was taken off a dynasty team (that retained the rest of their core players), the team's goals-against and win percentage suffered dramatically. Benedict led an expansion team with a weak blueline to a better defensive record (ie fewer goals against) than his former team.

Benedict was the best playoff performer of his era. In addition to win three Stanley Cups in the NHL, his GAA dropped by 0.46 in the playoffs, falling to under two goals per game. During the span of his career, Benedict was responsible for 30% of all shutouts in the playoffs!

Although there is a tendency to say that Benedict played long ago when goaltending was much different, it's worth emphasizing that Benedict was one of the most innovative and creative goalies of his era. Benedict is generally regarded as the first goalie to routinely fall to the ice to make a save - in fact, the NHL was forced to change the rules that required goalies to always remain standing, to accommodate Benedict's new style. Benedict was also the first goalie in NHL history to wear a mask, beating Plante by 30-something years.

Unfortunately there were few awards in Benedict's era. All-star teams were not introduced until 1931, the year after his retirement. The Hart trophy wasn't introduced until 1924 (towards the end of Benedict's peak) but he still finished 3rd in 1925 (behind Burch and Morenz).

In summary, Clint Benedict was the best goalie in the NHL's first decade. His statistical dominance is on par with Hasek, he was an elite playoff performer, and, as indicated by the 1924 trade, he was the key to his team's success.

Nice stuff!

As you mentioned, his NHA stats would only further this case.

When you consider that his statistical dominance (in mostly team-dependent stats) is somewhere around the #1 and #7 goalies, and then discount slightly for the lack of further stats to support his individual greatness, right here is where he belongs. First this round.

Forsberg's 2003 season is arguably better than either of Moore's peak years. He won the Hart, and led the league in points and plus-minus. His even-strength scoring that year was terrific - he scored 4.02 points per 60 minutes played at evens, the best mark since the NHL has tracked minutes played. Better than any of Jagr or Lemieux's seasons from 1998 on, better than Crosby or Ovechkin ever did - and that was in the middle of the dead puck era.

Wow, very interesting!

4. King Clancy : I can conceive that Clancy's ranking is hurt a bit by the fact he had some great years prior to the merger (playing with a Top-75 guy and an arguable Top-100 helped him as well), but frankly, those who have beed advocating Nighbor's case... Why exactly should he get in ahead of Clancy?

He shouldn't, necessarily. But both should be voted in, highly, in this very round. And then after that we could worry about how much higher Nighbor should have really been. Unfortunately, he will likely be only 61st on this list when all is said and done.

He was a Bobby Clarke/Marcel Dionne-level playmaker but also a Max Bentley/Michel Goulet-level goalscorer. He was arguably the best defensive forward ever, relative to his era. He was in a class by himself.

Like really, people, is it so hard to believe that even four players (8% of 50) who peaked between 1893 and 1926, a period that, time-wise, represents 32% of the history of Stanley Cup hockey to date, are among the 50 most significant of all-time?

Dit Clapper didn't just play 2 positions, he was an all-star at 2 positions. He'll be Number 1 on my list.
.

He wasn't as dominant a defenseman as Clancy or Seibert, though. His time at forward doesn't make up that gap.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

To me its amazing that he could be in the top 5 in assists for 9 years playing (RW) on a team with so little offense. As an example, in '56-'57 Bathgate had 50 assists while the leader amongst centers on the Rangers (Dave Creighton) had 21 assists. Bathgate led the team with 77 point, next closest was Andy Hebenton with 44 points.

I'll admit that in the last edition of the Top 100 project, I didn't appropriately lower Bathgate's ranking due to some weak playoff performances. With that said, Bathgate scored an enormous amount of points with virtually no help.

Bathgate finished in the top five in scoring nine times in his career -- third best all time. Only Howe and Gretzky beat that! Only Lemieux, Mikita and Richard tie that.

The most impressive thing is that Bathgate accomplished this playing on a weak team with (what appears to be) basically no offensive help from his teammates. Five times, Bathgate cracked the top five in scoring without any other teammate making it into the top ten. Even when he had a teammate join him, they were basically one-year wonders (Dave Creighton, Red Sullivan, Andy Hebenton) or a quality defensive forward having a career year (Dean Prentice). No player during the Original Six era scored more with less help.

7 : Pierre Pilote : It kinda sucks that he was a great d-men in not such a great era for d-men (as far as individual talent is concerned). Delivered in the playoffs, as supported by HO's document (was that you?). But some evidence that he wasn't exactly a defensive ace (wasn't bad, but wasn't, let's say, Seibert) makes it hard for me to rank him ahead of Clancy.

Pilote absolutely delivered in the playoffs, probably more than any other Blackhawk during the sixties.

Despite winning only one Stanley Cup, Pilote was an elite playoff performer. He won the retro Conn Smythe in 1961 and led the playoffs in scoring (only the second defenseman to ever do so). Pilote led all defensemen in playoff scoring three times (1961, 1963 and 1964) and was runner-up three more times (1962, 1965 and 1967). In fact, from 1961 to 1967, Pilote outscored all other defensemen in the playoffs by a wide margin. Pilote’s 53 points in 61 games easily beats Tim Horton (35 in 63), J.C. Tremblay (32 in 56) and Allan Stanley (23 in 60). Furthermore, from 1961 to 1967, Pilote had more assists than any player (forward or defense) in the league and only Hull, Howe, Mikita, and Ullman scored more points in total.

My understanding is that Pilote was good & solid defensively, but not elite. I wondered if Pilote became more of a risk-taker during the playoffs (trading defense for offense) but I haven't found anything indicating that this was the case. Can anybody who was around during the sixties comment on this?

 

[MXD]

Dillon was an all-star forward, not an all-star defenseman.

That's the thing...
As a forward, Clapper ranks IMO slightly below Dillon (and his stint a F spanned pretty much the whole Dillon's career). And considers that Dillon scored much of his goals while playing second fiddle to Bill Cook.

Then, Clapper was outperformed by Seibert during their relative stint at D... and that doesn't take in consideration that Seibert was an elite D before Clapper was switched. (and more an elite D than Clapper being an elite winger, I might add). Unless you think two all star berths in 41-42 fills a gap between 200th and 60th, go ahead, but please, insert Jack Crawford in your list next time.

 

[seventieslord]

[/B]

I'm not sure how it can be considered an embarrassment when no one voting ever saw him play.

what's your point? The average voter here saw roughly 25% of the eventual top-100 players, play.

We all read, we all look at the stats. It's not hard to come to certain conclusions. Nighbor was a far more significant player to his era than Kurri, Bathgate, Bentley, Forsberg, Moore, Richard, or Mikhailov.

He has everything you could possibly be looking for - goalscoring, playmaking, clean play, outstanding defense, contribution to team success, peak, longevity, great quotes about his standard of play.