Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (Part 2)

[Michael Farkas]

Oduya, despite his best efforts, yes...Hammer was the lock down man of record. Keith was a little messy defensively early in his career...

 

[ted2019]

Oduya, despite his best efforts, yes...Hammer was the lock down man of record. Keith was a little messy defensively early in his career...

The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.

 

[buffalowing88]

The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.

He was such a rock for them. Seabrook and Keith got all the attention, and for the most party they earned it, but he's the type of player that multiple-cup winners have.

 

[buffalowing88]

Similar thing happened with Hedman. He never got 1st PP time because we always tried to force a RHS on the top PP to feed Stamkos. He gets top PP time, suddenly he's a lock for 60+ points a year.

One thing that holds Keith back *a bit*, is he's a pretty bad goalscorer. He has 3 seasons with double-digit goals total, with 14, 12, and 10 being his highest. It's not a huge knock in my book - he's a great puck mover and a great skater, but he really has a muffin shot.

I feel like he didn't bother working on his shot. He worked a ton on his skating and you can see the improvements from one year to the next. His awareness was always great. The shot was always lacking though.

 

[Theokritos]

Firsov is the topic of discussion but it matters for all Soviet League players from start to finish of the SPOTY.

It wasn't brought up in the cases of the Soviet players voted in so far, was it?

1972 Summit Series. Firsov LW/C generously would have been a third probably fourth liner.

Soviet Best Player voting suggests Firsov was widely considered the second best center behind Maltsev in the season just prior to the Summit Series, ahead of Petrov and Shadrin. And if even a way-past-prime Starshinov got the opportunity to play on a top line (with Kharlamov and Maltsev in Game 2 of the Summit Series), then Firsov would have gotten the same.

But regardless where he would have played, your claim was that Firsov was left out because he didn't impress against Canadian players in 1969. The reality is that Firsov's omission was not based on athletic merit at all. He was dropped from the national team after a successful performance at the 1972 Olympics, even before the 1972 World Championship, not just before the Summit.

But was Firsov really left out of the 1972 Summit squad in the first place? Various NA newspapers mentioned that he was named to the squad and different reasons are given as to why he didn't play. So what was going on there? From what Firsov himself has stated later on, his dispute with Bobrov prompted him to decline the chance to play. It appears the Soviets were hoping until the beginning of the Moscow leg that he would change his mind. They didn't have any reason to think he wouldn't be good enough, that claim really doesn't hold any water.

What remains as the case against Firsov is that he didn't prove himself against NHL calibre Canadians. That claim is true and any reasonable downranking of Firsov has to be based on it. I won't dispute that it is a valid argument that can be made.

The counter argument is that Firsov is close enough chronologically to Kharlamov and other players we ho did proof themselves against Team Canada 1972 etc. In some cases the primes even overlap. Firsov's prime lasted until 1971, Kharlamov's arguably started in 1969.

It will be up to the individual voters to decide how much weight each of the two factors (lack of resume against NHL opponents, overlap with Kharlamov & Co) carries.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It wasn't brought up in the cases of the Soviet players voted in so far, was it?



Soviet Best Player voting suggests Firsov was widely considered the second best center behind Maltsev in the season just prior to the Summit Series, ahead of Petrov and Shadrin. And if even a way-past-prime Starshinov got the opportunity to play on a top line (with Kharlamov and Maltsev in Game 2 of the Summit Series), then Firsov would have gotten the same.

But regardless where he would have played, your claim was that Firsov was left out because he didn't impress against Canadian players in 1969. The reality is that Firsov's omission was not based on athletic merit at all. He was dropped from the national team after a successful performance at the 1972 Olympics, even before the 1972 World Championship, not just before the Summit.

But was Firsov really left out of the 1972 Summit squad in the first place? Various NA newspapers mentioned that he was named to the squad and different reasons are given as to why he didn't play. So what was going on there? From what Firsov himself has stated later on, his dispute with Bobrov prompted him to decline the chance to play. It appears the Soviets were hoping until the beginning of the Moscow leg that he would change his mind. They didn't have any reason to think he wouldn't be good enough, that claim really doesn't hold any water.

What remains as the case against Firsov is that he didn't prove himself against NHL calibre Canadians. That claim is true and any reasonable downranking of Firsov has to be based on it. I won't dispute that it is a valid argument that can be made.

The counter argument is that Firsov is close enough chronologically to Kharlamov and other players we ho did proof themselves against Team Canada 1972 etc. In some cases the primes even overlap. Firsov's prime lasted until 1971, Kharlamov's arguably started in 1969.

It will be up to the individual voters to decide how much weight each of the two factors (lack of resume against NHL opponents, overlap with Kharlamov & Co) carries.

Misrepresenting my point once more. Which is. 1969 was the only chance Firsov and other 1972 Summit Series Soviet players had to face Canadian pros or future pros under the new 1969 IIHF rules. Firsov did not impress, neither did the Soviets on the Canadian tour, going 4-4, including a 9-3 loss, in their final gameagainst a Junior Canadiens Alumni team.

1970 to 1972 Canada did not participate in the WHC or Olympic Ice Hockey events so like other Soviet players, Firsov did not face Canada. Firsov may have looked good against other nations but appearantly not good enough to sway Soviet decision makers.

Bottom line is that you now admit ther are newspaper reports that it was Firsov's choice not to play in 1972 against Canada in the Summit Series.

No athletic merit? You just posted the athletic merit argument I was suggesting.

Starshinov got a chance in game 2 between Kharlamov and Maltsev. Non-factor in a Soviet loss on an NHL sized rink.

You now admit that the Soviets were hoping until the start of the Moscow leg that Firsov might play. The bigger International sized rink would favour Firsov.

Seems that the Soviet clearly recognized that Firsov would have difficulties with forechecking on the smaller rink. Prime example of athletic merit that you deny.

 

[Theokritos]

1969 was the only chance Firsov and other 1972 Summit Series Soviet players had to face Canadian pros or future pros under the new 1969 IIHF rules. Firsov did not impress, neither did the Soviets on the Canadian tour, going 4-4, including a 9-3 loss, in their final gameagainst a Junior Canadiens Alumni team.

1970 to 1972 Canada did not participate in the WHC or Olympic Ice Hockey events so like other Soviet players, Firsov did not face Canada. Firsov may have looked good against other nations but appearantly not good enough to sway Soviet decision makers.

I've countered this points before.

Bottom line is that you now admit ther are newspaper reports that it was Firsov's choice not to play in 1972 against Canada in the Summit Series.

I've mentioned it several times in past discussions. What does it have to do with "admitting" since it actually supports my argument and hurts yours?

No athletic merit? You just posted the athletic merit argument I was suggesting.

Your athletic merit argument was that Firsov didn't make the 1972 Summit squad due to his performance. And that is patently false.

Starshinov got a chance in game 2 between Kharlamov and Maltsev. Non-factor in a Soviet loss on an NHL sized rink.

So? Unlike Firsov, Starshinov was way past his prime by 1972, as Best Player voting results show.

You now admit that the Soviets were hoping until the start of the Moscow leg that Firsov might play. The bigger International sized rink would favour Firsov. Sems that the Soviet clearly recognized that Firsov would have difficulties with forechecking on the smaller rink.

Talk about a misportrayal. The last sentence is a pure addition, not to say fabrication, on your part. The Soviets were hoping Firsov would play in the Series, period. Since the Moscow leg was later, of course they kept hoping he would change his mind until it was too late, that is: until the second leg was under way. Nowhere is rink size mentioned.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rink size is never mentioned in such stories since the reporters respected the readers knowledge.

No reason to mention that the Montreal Forum was a standard NHL rink or that the Moscow venue was a standard International rink.

Regardless, Firsov chose not to participate. His actions speak louder than your words.

 

[Theokritos]

Rink size is never mentioned in such stories since the reporters respected the readers knowledge.

No reason to mention that the Montreal Forum was a standard NHL rink or that the Moscow venue was a standard International rink.

Speculation on your part, once again.

Regardless, Firsov chose not to participate. His actions speak louder than your words.

Your posts and arguments respectively pseudo arguments speaker louder than words. I'll leave it at that.

 

[wetcoast]

Firsov is the topic of discussion but it matters for all Soviet League players from start to finish of the SPOTY.

1972 Summit Series. Firsov LW/C generously would have been a third probably fourth liner.

It also doesn't matter as he didn't play.

What we do have is Firsov playing against relatively very weak competition compared to other wingers and soviet players who aren't even up for discussion yet.

If he comes up then we can look into his case more closely but alot of his push seems to be coming from the ADT guys (and the non NHL European players project looking back on it) where he went 68th and Fedorov went 81st but wingers seem to be at a premium in that draft and it's debatable (very much so) if Firsov is even a top 120 player of all time, if we are indeed going to give every player the benefit of doubt, which would only be fair, right?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Keith also didn't match up against the opponent's top line. Not a shutdown guy.

i can assure you that in those three playoff series, the sedins faced a steady diet of keith and seabrook.

 

[Dingo]

The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.

That style of defenseman is always undervalued. give me Hjalmarsson, Ohlund, Foote, Daneyko, Ryan Suter, Desjardins.... keep your highlight reel hits, booming slappers and out of position hits.

 

[sr edler]

Keith was a little messy defensively early in his career...

You can say he was a chihuahua on skates, it's okay.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I know that Phil and Clarke won the Hart but seriously no one ever thought they were better players than Orr from the 71-75 time period you mention.

Orr was not without his detractors:

While Orr's quality is undeniable, his indispensability is not. With Orr in the Bruins’ line‐up, abetted by the prolific Phil Esposito, Boston failed to win the Stanley Cup in 1973, 1974 and 1975. Orr has conned experts with his scoring leadership. In fact, as defenseman he is, at best, just average.

“Even with Orr,” says the Montreal Gazette's respected hockey analyst, Al Strachan, “the Bruins’ style has not been that successful. It does no good to blast the lowly teams out of the arena if you lose the close games to the good teams. Last year, the Bruins outscored their opponents by 100 goals, but won only 40 of 80 games.”

During the 1974‐75 season, while Orr played in 80 games, he could not even lift the Bruins past the five‐year‐old Buffalo Sabres. He was virtually impotent as the Bruins were wiped out of the playoffs in three games by the militantly mediocre. Chicago Black Hawks.

Fred Shero, the Philadelphia coach, has said that Orr's style would disquallfy him for the Flyers. Orr is too much the individualist, too little the team player.

Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

 

[Theokritos]

Orr was not without his detractors:



Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

You should give the author of the "contemporary account" a name. It's Stan Fischler.

 

[MXD]

... yeah, I don't exactly know what this one was expecting to achieve by intentionally leaving out the name of the writer.

 

[Nick Hansen]

The Hawks really miss Hjalmarsson and when he got traded, the downfall for the Hawks started.

I agree that Hjalmarsson was a vital piece of the dynasty but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The downfall started when Keith had aged and Toews had a drop in his play.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You should give the author of the "contemporary account" a name. It's Stan Fischler.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You should give the author of the "contemporary account" a name. It's Stan Fischler.

Contemporary accounts have been emphasized in the project. I provided one that includes opinions from a head coach and two long time sports writers.

If it is disregarded, this surprises me not at all.

 

[Midnight Judges]

... yeah, I don't exactly know what this one was expecting to achieve by intentionally leaving out the name of the writer.

Nothing. I didn't leave out the name intentionally because that would be pointless.

I intentionally provided you all with the link which has the name of the author and the names of everyone quoted.

[MOD]

 

[Theokritos]

Contemporary accounts have been emphasized in the project. I provided one that includes opinions from a head coach and two long time sports writers.

If it is disregarded, this surprises me not at all.

Then quote Strachan and Shero on their own. Their opinions are interesting. And if you quote Fischler, quote him by name too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he didn't know Stan Fischler has zero credibility on this subforum, in part, but not limited to, his massive hate-on for Bobby Orr.

But it's tough when Fischler is presented as generic "contemporary observer."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he didn't know Stan Fischler has zero credibility on this subforum, in part, but not limited to, his massive hate-on for Bobby Orr.

But it's tough when Fischler is presented as generic "contemporary observer."

Is that generic or geriatric?

He's older than Don Cherry.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Thornton made my top 100 personally...I'm not really expecting to see him though...

I have him ahead of Frank Mahovlich in mine.

 

[DannyGallivan]

No russians in the top 10? loool what joke of a list. People here think that canadians are the only ones who know how to play hockey.

You're right. We should have legislated a version of employment equity and had a couple of token Russians. But then, we'd need even more Americans to reflect the current NHL.