Round 2, Vote 8 (2009 update)

[VMBM]

Hold on their partner, that comment wasn't intended to degarde Firsov. He may very well be my number two choice behind Nighbor in this round. My intention was to point out that "the USSR's best was competitive with Canada's best" argument can't really be applied to Firsov like it can be to those who came after him. It makes him harder to judge.

Bolded: This is important to take note of. It seems to indicate that a declining Firsov was at least as good as or better than young versions of Kharlamov and Mikhailov. This isn't the most revealing observation, but it's still helpful to Firsov's case.

Fair enough. But sometimes one gets the impression that to many Firsov is a total mystery man (a la Vsevolod Bobrov), who somehow cannot be judged, because he didn't face the elite NHLers. Yet his and Mikhailov's, Kharlamov's, Maltsev's etc. careers overlapped, and it was obvious that Firsov - unlike many other top players of the '60s - could still hang with the best young players and was still 'da man' for 2-3 years, after the new generation, so to speak, had arrived.

BTW, my strong feeling about Firsov's superiority is mostly due to what the old Finnish players say. The guys who played against both Firsov and Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Petrov etc. say almost without exception that Firsov was the best.

 

[nik jr]

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-always-believe-your-lying-eyes.html

in the 2008 top 100 debate, overpass posted some notes from some of milt dunnell's columns from the '50s.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=13042383&postcount=155

7. The Vezina Trophy was a big deal then, with a cash prize, and was viewed similarly to the Art Ross, as a race to be won by a goalie. Goalies would give credit to their teammates for helping them, but in general, the Vezina winner was considered to be the best goalie. Milt Dunnell wrote a column on this complaining that the 1st team all star goalie position simply went to the Vezina winner every year.

Canadiens Fan also posted an excerpt of a book on plante that showed how much the vezina meant to goalies.

 

[seventieslord]

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-always-believe-your-lying-eyes.html

Hmm. Funny thing is, I read that too, but I must have forgotten the part about the entire 1970s having matching FTAS and Vezina winners.

Regardless, Dryden was stopping the highest percentage of his shots, year in year out, so I have no problem saying he was the best at that time.

 

[overpass]

When comparing save percentages for Dryden and Parent, remember that Dryden had a significant advantage in that he faced fewer power plays. Parent would have had a harder time keeping a high save percentage, and had a higher workload as a result.

That should be obvious to anyone familiar with their teams, but I'll put some numbers to that statement.

Philadelphia - times shorthanded, (league rank)
1967-68 - 290 (1)
1968-69 - 286 (4)
1969-70 - 311 (2)
1970-71 - 305 (4)
1973-74 - 422 (1)
1974-75 - 466 (1)
1975-76 - 480 (1)
1976-77 - 326 (1)
1977-78 - 340 (1)
1978-79 - 344 (1)

Montreal - times shorthanded, (league rank)
1971-72 - 245 (12 of 14)
1972-73 - 235 (15 of 16)
1974-75 - 314 (10 of 18)
1975-76 - 290 (14 of 18)
1976-77 - 231 (16 of 18)
1977-78 - 211 (17 of 18)
1978-79 - 213 (16 of 17)

 

[pitseleh]

Wow, that's basically 50% more PPs a season that Parent had to face. Does anyone have the SV% numbers handy for the seasons where they both played so we can see if that would have had a meaningful impact on their relative rank?

 

[Spitfire11]

When comparing save percentages for Dryden and Parent, remember that Dryden had a significant advantage in that he faced fewer power plays. Parent would have had a harder time keeping a high save percentage, and had a higher workload as a result.

That should be obvious to anyone familiar with their teams, but I'll put some numbers to that statement.

Philadelphia - times shorthanded, (league rank)
1967-68 - 290 (1)
1968-69 - 286 (4)
1969-70 - 311 (2)
1970-71 - 305 (4)
1973-74 - 422 (1)
1974-75 - 466 (1)
1975-76 - 480 (1)
1976-77 - 326 (1)
1977-78 - 340 (1)
1978-79 - 344 (1)

Montreal - times shorthanded, (league rank)
1971-72 - 245 (12 of 14)
1972-73 - 235 (15 of 16)
1974-75 - 314 (10 of 18)
1975-76 - 290 (14 of 18)
1976-77 - 231 (16 of 18)
1977-78 - 211 (17 of 18)
1978-79 - 213 (16 of 17)

That's a very interesting statsitic I haven't seen brought up before. Obviously it would have a big effect on the numbers.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Parent probably had the best two-year peak of any goalie in the history of the sport. Back-to-back first-team all-star births, Stanley Cups and Conn Smythe trophies. He set a wins record that stood for three decades. (He almost certainly would have hit 50 wins twice if the league used current tie-breaking procedures. He might have hit 50 wins in 74 if the league had regular season overtime). I believe he was the last goalie prior to Hasek to have a GAA below 2.0.

And based on two absolutely incredible season, with awards, accolades, records, respect and acclaim, he has to be considered at some point.

My concern with Parent has always been that he doesn't have anything else beyond those two seasons that screams "top 75 player." Leading the WHA in scoring doesn't do much for me. Prior to that, his career high for wins was 17. After 75, he has second and fourth place finishes for wins, but he wasn't the same dominant, unbeatable, intimidating Parent. He was a really good goaltender, but there are lots of goalies who won't be considering who were better than really good goaltenders.

He ran into back problems which hindered his career after 75, and then he suffered the unfortunate eye injury. But he was also 33 at the time (almost 34), you could tell he wasn't the same goalie, and you had to wonder how much he had left.

Two-year run gets him up for consideration. I understand that. And he has to be in the top 100. But the question we have to ask is how much worth do we give to tw-years of dominance, and seven to 10 years of good to really good hockey?

 

[seventieslord]

Wow, that is quite interesting. I think The Contrarian Goaltender had a method for estimating even strength save percentages for seasons before you could get the stat broken down. You should check his blog for this at http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com, as it came out before all the other years became available. If you use his method and all the known numbers, a full career comparison of Dryden and Parent (and for that matter, Esposito) would now be possible, and this would give us a better picture of who was outperforming whom.

Dryden did have dominant figures this whole time so I am not sure he'd end up below those guys, but there's no doubt that the gap would get a lot slimmer.

I know I'll need to post those 1972-1975 numbers from Tremblay's book before any of you can do this, though.

 

[lextune]

I believe he was the last goalie prior to Hasek to have a GAA below 2.0.

You are correct.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's a quick comparison of all four defensemen.

Norris trophy voting

Player | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | TOP FIVE
Bill Gadsby* | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2* | 1 | 8*
Borje Salming | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7
Scott Stevens | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7
Al MacInnis | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6

Looking at those numbers, I find it difficult to see why anyone is voting Salming over Scott Stevens. Their Norris record is basically the same; Stevens' competition was at least as good as Salming's. On top of that, Scott Stevens is one of the great playoff performers and leaders of all time.

I find it difficult to see Gadsby over Stevens for similar reasons, but at least that can be justified by the fact that he was stuck behind Harvey and Kelly.

 

[BM67]

Looking at those numbers, I find it difficult to see why anyone is voting Salming over Scott Stevens. Their Norris record is basically the same; Stevens' competition was at least as good as Salming's. On top of that, Scott Stevens is one of the great playoff performers and leaders of all time.

I find it difficult to see Gadsby over Stevens for similar reasons, but at least that can be justified by the fact that he was stuck behind Harvey and Kelly.

Salming does have 6 years in Sweden, 3 World Championships, and 3 Canada Cups to add to his resume.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Top 10 not added yet:

1. Busher Jackson
2. Toe Blake
3. Doug Bentley
4. Alex Delvecchio
5. Chuck Gardiner
6. Gilbert Perreault
7. Johnny Bucyk
8. Sid Abel
9. Ron Francis
10. Yvon Cournoyer

 

[pappyline]

Looking at those numbers, I find it difficult to see why anyone is voting Salming over Scott Stevens. Their Norris record is basically the same; Stevens' competition was at least as good as Salming's. On top of that, Scott Stevens is one of the great playoff performers and leaders of all time.

I find it difficult to see Gadsby over Stevens for similar reasons, but at least that can be justified by the fact that he was stuck behind Harvey and Kelly.

For me its Gadsby easily. i not only have him #1 of the 4 D, i have him #1 overall. Most Norris nominations of the 4 despite playing for sad sack teams most of his career. 8+ years for the absolutely horrible Blackhawks. he was literally their franchise player. Team captain & twice an AS for that team. In 53-54 his 41pts were only one behind the team leader. Moved on to the Rangers who weren't much better. Finished with the Wings where he was an important player in a couple of long playoff runs.

 

[pappyline]

Top 10 not added yet:

1. Busher Jackson
2. Toe Blake
3. Doug Bentley
4. Alex Delvecchio
5. Chuck Gardiner
6. Gilbert Perreault
7. Johnny Bucyk
8. Sid Abel
9. Ron Francis
10. Yvon Cournoyer

Absolutely agree with your top 5 with a slightly different order. Starting to wonder if they will even come up for vote. Too bad they are not Russian.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since this round is pretty dead compared to the last ones, I figure I'll post what we have so far in the Top 70 to see if there is a trend of over- or under-representing positions or eras.

Section | C | LW | RW | D | G | R
1-10|3|1|2|4|0|0
11-20|3|0|1|3|3|0
21-30|4|2|0|1|2|1
31-40|4|1|1|2|2|0
41-50|3|1|2|3|1|0
51-60|2|0|1|4|3|0
61-70|2|3|2|3|0|0
Total|21|8|9|20|11|1

38 forwards, 20 defensemen, 11 goalies (and a rover), basically a 4-2-1 ratio. Are we slightly overrating forwards?


Here it is by era of the player's prime.

Section| Pre-WW2 | Original 6 | post-expansion | post-Iron Curtain | prime in USSR/Europe
1-10|1|5|4|0|0
11-20|1|3|4|2|0
21-30|2|3|4|1|0
31-40|1|2|2|3|2
41-50|3|2|4|0|1
51-60|4|6|0|0|0
61-70|3|3|1|1|2
Total|15|24|19|7|5

Original 6 is 1942-1967 and Post-Expansion is the high scoring 1967-1993 phase. Post-Iron Curtain is basically the modern era with the Europeans in the NHL.

Only tough call was Syl Apps, who I gave to the O6 era. As is usual on these lists, the 06 era (1949-1967) has the most representation. Note that if you add the number of Soviets to the post-expansion North Americans (from 1967-1993 or so), you get the exact same number of players as the O6 era (24), albeit over a longer time frame.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Since this round is pretty dead compared to the last ones, I figure I'll post what we have so far in the Top 70 to see if there is a trend of over- or under-representing positions or eras.

Section | C | LW | RW | D | G | R
1-10|3|1|2|4|0|0
11-20|3|0|1|3|3|0
21-30|4|2|0|1|2|1
31-40|4|1|1|2|2|0
41-50|3|1|2|3|1|0
51-60|2|0|1|4|3|0
61-70|2|3|2|3|0|0
Total|21|8|9|20|11|1

38 forwards, 20 defensemen, 11 goalies (and a rover), basically a 4-2-1 ratio. Are we slightly overrating forwards?


Here it is by era of the player's prime.

Section| Pre-WW2 | Original 6 | post-expansion | post-Iron Curtain | prime in USSR/Europe
1-10|1|5|4|0|0
11-20|1|3|4|2|0
21-30|2|3|4|1|0
31-40|1|2|2|3|2
41-50|3|2|4|0|1
51-60|4|6|0|0|0
61-70|3|3|1|1|2
Total|15|24|19|7|5

Original 6 is 1942-1967 and Post-Expansion is the high scoring 1967-1993 phase. Post-Iron Curtain is basically the modern era with the Europeans in the NHL.

Only tough call was Syl Apps, who I gave to the O6 era. As is usual on these lists, the 06 era (1949-1967) has the most representation. Note that if you add the number of Soviets to the post-expansion North Americans (from 1967-1993 or so), you get the exact same number of players as the O6 era (24), albeit over a longer time frame.

Looks like the Original 6 era is the Golden Age of hockey (at least NHL hockey). I can buy into that.

But the if we take the top 50 only, the post-expansion era wins out, 18-15. Perhaps that is due to it being the real "offensive" years (or is it the lack of defense years?).

 

[Spitfire11]

I guess I’ll make somewhat of a case for Bill Cowley since he doesn’t seem to be getting much positive mention.

-4 times led the league in points per game which ties him with Stan Mikita for 5th all-time behind just Gretzky(11), Howe(7), Lemieux(7) and Esposito(5)

-5 times he led the league in assists per game which ties him with Mario Lemieux for 3rd all-time behind just Gretzky(12) and Orr(6)

-After breaking Frank Boucher’s previous record, Cowley owned the assists per game record until Bobby Orr.

-Everyone here seems to love these top-10 and top-5 finishes, Cowley finished 6 times in the top 5 points and 5 times in the top-3 in assists. Even goals in finished 5 times in the top 10.

-His Hart trophy in ’41 he beat out Clapper and Apps who are both already voted in, as well as Syd Howe and Bryan Hextall who are both HOFers. His ’43 Hart trophy was won over Apps, D Bentley, and Syd Howe. 1944 he was runner-up to Pratt by a mere 3 points, both were well a head of the rest.

-He was the Bruins leading scorer in their ’39 Cup winning playoff run.

-It’s not like the war years were completely void of talent. 1943 which is the first year really affected, still had 8 of it’s top 10 scorers filled by HOFers. ’44 saw a significant drop, mainly due to the goaltenders in the league but still had good talent including Maurice Richard, Lach, Seibert, D Bentley, Syd Howe, Durnan, Bouchard, Hextall, and Blake among others. Even disregarding these two years he had a very accomplished career.

 

[MXD]

Top 10 not added yet:

1. Busher Jackson
2. Toe Blake
3. Doug Bentley
4. Alex Delvecchio
5. Chuck Gardiner
6. Gilbert Perreault
7. Johnny Bucyk
8. Sid Abel
9. Ron Francis
10. Yvon Cournoyer

Mines...
1- Sergei Fedorov
2- Serge Savard
3- Doug Bentley
4- Busher Jackson
5- Black Jack Stewart
6- Ebbie Goodfellow
7- Norm Ullman
8- Chuck Gardiner
9- Chris Pronger
10- Alex Delvecchio

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Both have two 1st AST berth in completely non-war years.
However, one had the benefit of playing "behind" Milt Schmidt while the other played ahead of Billy Reay; one was, by all account, a floater, while the other is considered a 2-way center. Lach was also sorta better in the playoffs.

It's the right time for Lach to be available for voting, but as I said slightly later, I doubt he'll be in my top-10.

I've seen a lot of people call Cowley a floater, but I've never read this anywhere myself. I haven't really heard much at all regarding Cowley's overall game. I wouldn't say playing behind Schmidt was a benefit as far as personal accomplishments go. Back in the days of first line centers getting the lion's share of the ice time, having two of them on one team would lower their personal stats I would think, though obviously the team benefitted.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Now that I figured out how to make tables, I'm going to keep using this new-found power and show the representation so far of each dynasty (and modern quasi-dynasties):

Rank | Player | Team | Cups in timeframe
51|King Clancy|1919-27 Senators|2
53|Clint Benedict|1919-27 Senators|4
64|Sprague Cleghorn|1919-27 Senators|2
67|Cy Denneny|1919-27 Senators|4
??|Frank Nighbor|1919-27 Senators|4
|||
38|Syl Apps|1947-51 Maple Leafs|2
57|Max Bentley|1947-51 Maple Leafs|2
59|Turk Broda|1947-51 Maple Leafs|4
70|Ted Kennedy|1947-51 Maple Leafs|4
|||
3|Gordie Howe|1949-55 Red Wings|4
16|Red Kelly|1949-55 Red Wings|4
24|Terry Sawchuk|1949-55 Red Wings|3
30|Ted Lindsay|1949-55 Red Wings|4
??|Sid Abel|1949-55 Red Wings|2
??|Alex Delvecchio|1949-55 Red Wings|3
??|Black Jack Stewart|1949-55 Red Wings|1
|||
6|Doug Harvey|1956-60 Canadiens|5
7|Jean Beliveau|1956-60 Canadiens|5
9|Maurice Richard|1956-60 Canadiens|5
13|Jacques Plante|1956-60 Canadiens|5
43|Bernard Geoffrion|1956-60 Canadiens|5
55|Henri Richard|1956-60 Canadiens|5
63|Dickie Moore|1956-60 Canadiens|5
|||
16|Red Kelly|1961-67 Maple Leafs|4
49|Frank Mahovlich|1961-67 Maple Leafs|4
56|Andy Bathgate|1961-67 Maple Leafs|1
62|Tim Horton|1961-67 Maple Leafs|4
??|Johnny Bower|1961-67 Maple Leafs|4
??|Dave Keon|1961-67 Maple Leafs|4
|||
7|Jean Beliveau|1964-69 Canadiens|4
55| Henri Richard|1964-69 Canadiens|4
??|Serge Savard|1964-69 Canadiens|1
??|Yvan Cournoyer|1964-69 Canadiens|4
|||
19|Guy Lafleur|1975-79 Canadiens|4
31|Larry Robinson|1975-79 Canadiens|4
39|Ken Dryden|1975-79 Canadiens|4
??|Serge Savard|1975-79 Canadiens|4
??|Yvan Cournoyer|1975-79 Canadiens|4
??|Bob Gainey|1975-79 Canadiens|4
|||
18|Denis Potvin|1980-83 Islanders|4
26|Bryan Trottier|1980-83 Islanders|4
29|Mike Bossy|1980-83 Islanders|4
??|Billy Smith|1980-83 Islanders|4
|||
1|Wayne Gretzky|1984-90 Oilers|4
22|Mark Messier|1984-90 Oilers|5
46|Paul Coffey|1984-90 Oilers|3
69|Jari Kurri|1984-90 Oilers|5
??|Grant Fuhr|1984-90 Oilers|5
|||
4|Mario Lemieux|1991-92 Penguins|2
23|Jaromir Jagr|1991-92 Penguins|2
26|Bryan Trottier|1991-92 Penguins|2
46|Paul Coffey|1991-92 Penguins|1
??|Ron Francis|1991-92 Penguins|2
|||
37|Martin Brodeur|1995-03 Devils|3
??|Scott Stevens|1995-03 Devils|3
|||
10|Raymond Bourque|1996-01 Avalanche|1
14|Patrick Roy|1996-01 Avalanche|2
32|Joe Sakic|1996-01 Avalanche|2
65|Peter Forsberg|1996-01 Avalanche|2
|||
12|Dominik Hasek|1997-02 Red Wings|1
17|Nicklas Lidstrom|1997-02 Red Wings|3
33|Slava Fetisov|1997-02 Red Wings|2
36|Steve Yzerman|1997-02 Red Wings|3
41|Chris Chelios|1997-02 Red Wings|1
??|Brett Hull|1997-02 Red Wings|1
??|Sergei Fedorov|1997-02 Red Wings|3

I included every player who made the list last year or who I think has a chance to make it based on who I see voters talking about.

_____

Now the argument:

As noted earlier, the 60s Canadiens and dead puck era Devils are notable for their lack of star power compared to their team success. This is enough for me to give the undisputed leaders on the teams (Beliveau and Stevens) a bit of a boost. The undisputed leader of a team getting his teammates to buy into a team concept that leads to multiple championships absolutely makes him a better hockey player in my opinion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I originally had Bernie Parent well above Bower and Brimsek on my list, but I just can't justify having him over either of them now, given that that his career outside of the two year peak pales in comparison.

The two Smythes are amazing, but Brimsek and Bower were both very important members of multiple championships themselves.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I originally had Bernie Parent well above Bower and Brimsek on my list, but I just can't justify having him over either of them now, given that that his career outside of the two year peak pales in comparison.

The two Smythes are amazing, but Brimsek and Bower were both very important members of multiple championships themselves.

Agreed.

I don't think they should be in the same voting group. I had Bower #1 here and Parent #15.

 

[seventieslord]

Mines...
1- Sergei Fedorov
2- Serge Savard
3- Doug Bentley
4- Busher Jackson
5- Black Jack Stewart
6- Ebbie Goodfellow
7- Norm Ullman
8- Chuck Gardiner
9- Chris Pronger
10- Alex Delvecchio

Nice to see Ullman and Goodfellow there. Too bad Ullman is life and death to make the list at all, and Goodfellow won't come up for discussion. Maybe next time, though.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

_____

Now the argument:

As noted earlier, the 60s Canadiens and dead puck era Devils are notable for their lack of star power compared to their team success. This is enough for me to give the undisputed leaders on the teams (Beliveau and Stevens) a bit of a boost. The undisputed leader of a team getting his teammates to buy into a team concept that leads to multiple championships absolutely makes him a better hockey player in my opinion.

I'll have Stevens over MacInnis and Salming, and probably neck-and-neck with Gadsby. I've actually been sold on MacInnis to an extent in here, though I still feel the numbers betray reality a little bit. The fact that the Blues, a pretty decent club during his time there, seemed to be noticeably weakened without him in the line-up helped to sway me. Of course the downside is that he was on the sidelines, which is a negative, not a positive.

I think Stevens will be like a Cam Neely in another few years. Once we've had time to reflect, and are still searching for the next Scott Stevens in every draft, we'll better appreciate what he brought to the game. Even now, five years after his last game, it's becoming apparent that he was the last of his breed. The defenseman who was feared by his opponents due to the physical carnage he could impose upon them, and do so while staying within the rules of the game. The (unfortunate) direction the game has taken post-lockout has probably ended the likelihood of us getting to enjoy somebody else dominate in Stevens-like fashion for the forseeable future.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Looking at those numbers, I find it difficult to see why anyone is voting Salming over Scott Stevens. Their Norris record is basically the same; Stevens' competition was at least as good as Salming's. On top of that, Scott Stevens is one of the great playoff performers and leaders of all time.

Here are the finalists (top five) in Norris voting in each of the seven years Salming was a finalist:

- Potvin, Lapointe x5
- Robinson, Savard x4
- Park x3
- Orr x2
- Ashbee, Bourque, Howe, Schoenfeld, White x1

Same thing for Stevens:

- Bourque x5
- Leetch x4
- Blake, Lidstrom x2
- Chelios, Coffey, Housley, Konstantinov, Langway, Lowe, MacInnis, McCrimmon, Murphy, Niedermayer, Ozolinsh, Pronger, Suter, Wilson, Zubov x1

Close, but I think Salming faced somewhat tougher competition (based on eyeballing it). Stevens was clearly superior in the playoffs, but Salming had one of the greatest international careers of any NHL star. It's a really close call.