5th Greatest all time

[K Fleur]

We are starting to reach a real level of homer absurdity when a playoff run(hell not even the whole run just 9 games ) that saw a player who was 4th in scoring on his own team is being presented as "more impressive than anything" Sidney Crosby did in his playoff career.

Stuff like that takes a mostly well written, and researched(atleast on one end) post and just turns it into something eye roll inducing.

 

[Staniowski]

People definitely should evaluate player longevity within the context of their eras.

I did a quick comparison of player ages during their final elite season (identified by taking the last time a player received any year-end AST votes). Of 35 Hall of Famers born between 1948 and 1960, here are the only ones who had their final season with AST votes at age 34 or older:

Brad Park, 35
Larry Robinson, 36
Denis Potvin, 34
Mark Howe, 36
Joe Mullen, 34
Ray Bourque, 40

That's only six players, including four of the top 11 defencemen of all-time according to HOH. Twenty-one of the 35 in this group received their last AST votes at age 31 or younger.

From 1961 to 1970, 31 HoFers were born. Here's the list of everyone who did not have their final season with AST votes at age 34 or older:

Denis Savard, 26
Dale Hawerchuk, 24
Pat LaFontaine, 27
Cam Neely, 28
Joe Nieuwendyk, 31

(End of list)

Not only that, but the majority of the players in this group (17 out of 31) had their last season with AST votes at age 37 or older, which is ahead of everybody on the list above except for Bourque (and even that isn't too surprising given that Bourque's date of birth is December 28, 1960). For whatever reason, elite longevity improved massively for players born in 1961 or later. I don't know how much was related to conditioning per se, but these patterns are obviously far too universal to point the blame at any individual players in particular. I think if you aren't taking that into account you are going to end up underrating players born in the 1950s (e.g. Lafleur, Potvin, Makarov and Fetisov).

Re: Longevity

There are multiple factors, certainly.

But a big factor when comparing the '80s and the '90s is offensive hockey vs defensive hockey.

For most older players, it's easier to survive (and thrive) when there is more defense being played. There's more team support on the ice, less exposure of declining skating, more of a premium on savvy play, etc.

In the offensive hockey of the '80s, older players' weaknesses were more exposed.

 

[Dingo]

I don't think Lafleur was actually better at his peak in the playoffs, although I know I'm practically on an island on this one. I can see that viewpoint, mainly because Lafleur was THE offensive lynchpin on a dynasty. So it's a matter of knowing that Lafleur could THE dominant offensive star on a dynasty, whereas there is uncertainty as to whether Jagr could. There is also uncertainty as to whether Lafleur could have carried a weak defense and rotating goalies to the playoffs each and every year, even big upsets (#2 & #1 seed) a couple years in a row... but I certainly understand why that is held is less esteem as what Lafleur did, although it was pretty important to a near-bankrupt team that may have been on the verge of moving to Kansas City without the extra playoff revenue each year. When looking at individual performance of each player in their playoff primes, in the context of the strength of ones team and that of the opposition (particularly defensively), I don't see an edge for Lafleur.

The main arguments for Jagr being to carry the load offensively on a powerhouse team:

* He had it all as far as the eye test: size, strength, reach, speed, skill, shot, etc.
* His peak/prime offensive production is only eclipsed by Gretzky, Lemieux, and Howe (one can make arguments for his peak being at/above Howe based on era, and below Espo if you ignore era/Orr).
* His performance during his playoff prime ('92-'08) is actually excellent on a per-game basis, but outside of '92, '93 and perhaps '96 (the first two of which were fringe years of his playoff prime) his team was never of Cup-contending quality.
* His playoff performance is only strengthened by each study I've done or seen others do: How he performed against strong defensive teams compared to weak ones, consistency in having few bad series (he had very few, esp. outside of two in '01 & '06 where he was severely injured), his plus-minus (esp. compared to that of the team w/o him on ice), and clutch play (as was clearly shown by someone else's recent study on the main forum of goals/points that were game-tying or go ahead goals in 3rd period or OT ).
* When Mario was injured in '92 playoffs, it was he (along with Francis) that carried the load offensively against strong overall/defensive teams and scored several key goals, many in spectacular fashion.

I previously replied to someone that claimed Jagr never had a playoff like Crosby's 2008 playoffs, and did so with Jagr's own 2008 playoffs at age 36. Jagr turned 20 just a couple months prior to the '92 playoffs (Crosby was 20, going on 21 in the 2008 playoffs), so let's look at how he did with Mario out and just after Mario returned:

vs. NYR (no Lemieux... #1 seed Rangers with #4 defense in NHL have momentum after injuring Lemieux and winning game 2)
Game 3 : 2 assists... as Pens go down 2-1 in series
Game 4: 1 assist... a primary assist to tie the game with < 9 min. left, which Pens won in OT
Game 5: 2 goals... one a penalty shot, the other the GWG with < 6 min. left in 3-2 win
Game 6: 1 goal... to put the Pens ahead for good past the game's midway point in series-clincher

vs. BOS (consistently good, experience Bruins team w/ Bourque)
Game 1: 1 goal... in OT
Game 2: 1 goal, 2 assists... one assist tied game, the goal gave Pens lead for good
Game 3: 3 assists
Game 4: 1 goal... first goal of game, Pens never gave up lead

vs. CHI (had won 11 in a row leading up to SCF, #2 defense in NHL)
Game 1: 1 goal... skates through most of team with everyone in the same zone for "the greatest goal I ever saw" according to Lemieux, ties game with < 5 min left, Pens win in final seconds

During that stretch, Jagr was 9-7-8-15 (+6)... against the #1 seed & #4 defense with Messier... Bourque's Bruins... and the #2 defensive team that had won 11 straight playoff games. These weren't garbage goals or meaningless points. These were often spectacular goals... often goals few other players were capable of scoring... at crucial times... in games and series where the momentum could swing at any time... mostly against tough defenses and quality teams with legendary players. Yeah, I think that's more impressive than what Crosby did in 2008 or at any time in his playoff career, frankly.

Somehow we should believe that a player that... :

* was capable of that sort of leading performance, shortly after turning 20 and in his second year after coming to America
* had consistently great numbers in the playoffs (incl. plus-minus data) throughout his playoff peak/prime
* ended his playoff prime (before going to Russia) by, at age 35, enabling Nylander to have the highest PPG in playoffs in 2007 then himself having the highest playoff PPG in 2008 at age 36...

would be incapable of leading a great team to success? Furthermore, we should believe he wasn't even a very good playoff player? To me, that's what listening to a false narrative created by others and/or creating one's own false narrative, along with putting extremely high value on the opinions of fellow fans, sportwriters, etc. can do. It can lead you to ignore the objective evidence that's right in front of you.

I think Jagr was a very good playoff performer, his short run in NYR was unreal. Lafleur lead the playoffs in scoring 3 times in a row. It’s just what was done vs what could’ve been done. I’m a Forsberg/Bure what if/obvious talent kinda guy, and I would rank Jagr higher than Lafleur were I into that, but, it’s just so hard to argue against Lafleur here.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think Lafleur was actually better at his peak in the playoffs, although I know I'm practically on an island on this one. I can see that viewpoint, mainly because Lafleur was THE offensive lynchpin on a dynasty. So it's a matter of knowing that Lafleur could THE dominant offensive star on a dynasty, whereas there is uncertainty as to whether Jagr could. There is also uncertainty as to whether Lafleur could have carried a weak defense and rotating goalies to the playoffs each and every year, even big upsets (#2 & #1 seed) a couple years in a row... but I certainly understand why that is held is less esteem as what Lafleur did, although it was pretty important to a near-bankrupt team that may have been on the verge of moving to Kansas City without the extra playoff revenue each year. When looking at individual performance of each player in their playoff primes, in the context of the strength of ones team and that of the opposition (particularly defensively), I don't see an edge for Lafleur.

The main arguments for Jagr being to carry the load offensively on a powerhouse team:

* He had it all as far as the eye test: size, strength, reach, speed, skill, shot, etc.
* His peak/prime offensive production is only eclipsed by Gretzky, Lemieux, and Howe (one can make arguments for his peak being at/above Howe based on era, and below Espo if you ignore era/Orr).
* His performance during his playoff prime ('92-'08) is actually excellent on a per-game basis, but outside of '92, '93 and perhaps '96 (the first two of which were fringe years of his playoff prime) his team was never of Cup-contending quality.
* His playoff performance is only strengthened by each study I've done or seen others do: How he performed against strong defensive teams compared to weak ones, consistency in having few bad series (he had very few, esp. outside of two in '01 & '06 where he was severely injured), his plus-minus (esp. compared to that of the team w/o him on ice), and clutch play (as was clearly shown by someone else's recent study on the main forum of goals/points that were game-tying or go ahead goals in 3rd period or OT ).
* When Mario was injured in '92 playoffs, it was he (along with Francis) that carried the load offensively against strong overall/defensive teams and scored several key goals, many in spectacular fashion.

I previously replied to someone that claimed Jagr never had a playoff like Crosby's 2008 playoffs, and did so with Jagr's own 2008 playoffs at age 36. Jagr turned 20 just a couple months prior to the '92 playoffs (Crosby was 20, going on 21 in the 2008 playoffs), so let's look at how he did with Mario out and just after Mario returned:

vs. NYR (no Lemieux... #1 seed Rangers with #4 defense in NHL have momentum after injuring Lemieux and winning game 2)
Game 3 : 2 assists... as Pens go down 2-1 in series
Game 4: 1 assist... a primary assist to tie the game with < 9 min. left, which Pens won in OT
Game 5: 2 goals... one a penalty shot, the other the GWG with < 6 min. left in 3-2 win
Game 6: 1 goal... to put the Pens ahead for good past the game's midway point in series-clincher

vs. BOS (consistently good, experience Bruins team w/ Bourque)
Game 1: 1 goal... in OT
Game 2: 1 goal, 2 assists... one assist tied game, the goal gave Pens lead for good
Game 3: 3 assists
Game 4: 1 goal... first goal of game, Pens never gave up lead

vs. CHI (had won 11 in a row leading up to SCF, #2 defense in NHL)
Game 1: 1 goal... skates through most of team with everyone in the same zone for "the greatest goal I ever saw" according to Lemieux, ties game with < 5 min left, Pens win in final seconds

During that stretch, Jagr was 9-7-8-15 (+6)... against the #1 seed & #4 defense with Messier... Bourque's Bruins... and the #2 defensive team that had won 11 straight playoff games. These weren't garbage goals or meaningless points. These were often spectacular goals... often goals few other players were capable of scoring... at crucial times... in games and series where the momentum could swing at any time... mostly against tough defenses and quality teams with legendary players. Yeah, I think that's more impressive than what Crosby did in 2008 or at any time in his playoff career, frankly.

Somehow we should believe that a player that... :

* was capable of that sort of leading performance, shortly after turning 20 and in his second year after coming to America
* had consistently great numbers in the playoffs (incl. plus-minus data) throughout his playoff peak/prime
* ended his playoff prime (before going to Russia) by, at age 35, enabling Nylander to have the highest PPG in playoffs in 2007 then himself having the highest playoff PPG in 2008 at age 36...

would be incapable of leading a great team to success? Furthermore, we should believe he wasn't even a very good playoff player? To me, that's what listening to a false narrative created by others and/or creating one's own false narrative, along with putting extremely high value on the opinions of fellow fans, sportwriters, etc. can do. It can lead you to ignore the objective evidence that's right in front of you.

Excellent post. Agree with all points!

 

[wetcoast]

The ironic thing is, those of us who tend to view the O6 era in a more favourable light also seem to be the least likely to lean heavily on trophy and top 10 counting as means of making our case..

That hasn't been my experience reading the project and threads but if posters aren't using these metrics what exactly are they using then?

If anything, it's the pro-modern player croud that treats these awards and precise scoring placements as sacred cows, but accordingly need a good explanation for why certain modern guys have fewer of them than certain oldtimers.

I agree with the problem with using awards as sacred cows and I'm a huge believer in context and double checking and critiquing award winners and voting.

IMO the guys in the mix for an award get as much credit as the guy who won the award many times.

I think though that its is a fair point to bring up awards and scoring finishes ect... as starting points of discussion and then hash it out contextually.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think Jagr was a very good playoff performer, his short run in NYR was unreal. Lafleur lead the playoffs in scoring 3 times in a row. It’s just what was done vs what could’ve been done. I’m a Forsberg/Bure what if/obvious talent kinda guy, and I would rank Jagr higher than Lafleur were I into that, but, it’s just so hard to argue against Lafleur here.

I don't really have a problem with someone ranking Lafleur ahead of Jagr in playoffs, even though it may not be my exact conclusion, as to me it's well within any margin of error between the two. Those that say Lafleur has a massive edge in that area... we probably have to agree to disagree in that case. That's also another reason I think it's important to examine individual series, because the strength of competition can vary so much and it's interesting to see which players really step up (relative to others) against more top flight competition, and those that tend to crumble.

I'm not ranking Jagr ahead of anyone primarily based on eye test or talent. In my view, what's most important isn't what you see or think you see with your eyes... or the opinions of fans (even well-educated fans) or sportswriters (even if engraved into trophies of some kind)... it's what the data says actually happened. Bure was great to watch, but the data doesn't really suggest an all-time great.

Forsberg was incredible when healthy. Of course, he and Sakic were both playoff beasts. Obviously Sakic stands out for having such great Cup runs, but also for being unusually tough against the stronger defensive opponents in the playoffs. Forsberg stands out for having a much better plus-minus than Sakic, and also for having an extremely low number of bad series. I wouldn't hesitate to take either over Crosby in the playoffs. A healthy regular-season Lindros and a healthy playoff Forsberg, combined into one player, would be tough to beat. Unfortunately, there aren't many that can endure the physical styles which they played, and whether it was that or an inherent proneness to injury that curtailed their careers, the injuries caught up with them eventually.

 

[buffalowing88]

Pro athletes of any era made their money by being at the top of their game which has nothing to do with anything here. If anything, the athletes today deal with way more stress and pressure than in any prior era which again makes them more vulnerable to any sort of escape desire/addiction.

Plus, where there's a lot of money, there's a lot of coke.

Of course, the public demands their athletes to be pristine clean. So what do they do. Keep it hidden. And if anything leaks, it's an aberration, misunderstanding, whatever.

It's not a hearsay to acknowledge the whole league is on all sorts of pills. Has been for decades. Uppers, downers, you name it. Basically, the combination of stress, incessant competition within your team, and grueling travel schedule call for it. Plus, of course, having to play with injuries at crucial times (plenty of pain killers are addictive).

It's not just Kuznetsov. What about Hudler? As far as we know, and we haven't been told that much given that athletes need to appear pristine clean, he coked his brain off. He required a line right on an airplane and asked the staff where he could puff away some wack.

What about Svatos?

From that article you probably failed to grasp:

Didn't fail to grasp it... but I was definitely of the opinion that people didn't need to be called out. I just don't feel comfortable discussing players and their personal issues outright. It doesn't serve anyone but yourself in posting that.

 

[buffalowing88]

If we want to really become that board that just names players who do or did coke while playing, I'm happy to name a few Sabres and Leafs players that dabbled back when I would party over there, but really, it does not good. This is a distraction from the thread's purpose.

 

[danincanada]

The ironic thing is, those of us who tend to view the O6 era in a more favourable light also seem to be the least likely to lean heavily on trophy and top 10 counting as means of making our case.

If anything, it's the pro-modern player croud that treats these awards and precise scoring placements as sacred cows, but accordingly need a good explanation for why certain modern guys have fewer of them than certain oldtimers.

Then you have what may be the best example of all of how this section actually values the superstars of the o6 more even though it shouldn't, is the Lidstrom/Harvey comparison. I don't just harp on this example because I'm a Red Wings fan but also because it best displays what I've been saying all along. Another good one will be Ovi/Hull after Ovi retires.

Lidstrom has the same amount of Norris', a longer career, was clearly more productively offensively, and has an additional all-star nomination yet he's ranked behind Harvey by most in this history section. Then step back and see that Harvey had little competition after Kelly stopped being an all-star as a defenseman after '56-57 (very early in Harvey's reign), and he basically faced only Canadian talent to get his accomplishments. Peer to peer Lidstrom probably wins this one and once you factor in the other context it really shouldn't be that close.

If anyone actually believes hockey hasn't grown immensely as a sport since the O6 and that that doesn't impact these peer to peer comparisons you do across vastly different eras then maybe you can't be helped. You've been reminded enough times that it should sink in as a reality - it doesn't take much reflection to understand the concept and admit it makes a lot more sense than the opposite. And some here claim they've already factored it in yet those same posters rarely ever bring it up unless somone on that side of the debate brings it up so I call bull on those claims.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Bobby Hull 5th greatest

 

[danincanada]

There is a very strong possibility that the talent pool is roughly the same per team now as it was decades ago. Maybe even less.

Several countries have fallen off dramatically and the cost is becoming prohibitive.

You received a bunch of likes for this comment but could you have been anymore vague? How many decades ago are you talking about??? Are you talking about the 90's again, because no one here is really talking about the 90's and comparing it with after. If we are talking about comparison the O6 with later, then even if the talent pool was the same per team we're still talking about 5X more. That would surely have an impact on how many truly elite players are in the league, and that would impact the compeition at the top.

The likes just show how partial some posters are on this topic. Doesn't matter what the point is, or if it lacks clarity, as long as it's supposed to support their view. It's kind of sad.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That hasn't been my experience reading the project and threads but if posters aren't using these metrics what exactly are they using then?



I agree with the problem with using awards as sacred cows and I'm a huge believer in context and double checking and critiquing award winners and voting.

IMO the guys in the mix for an award get as much credit as the guy who won the award many times.

I think though that its is a fair point to bring up awards and scoring finishes ect... as starting points of discussion and then hash it out contextually.

Posters do use metrics like scoring placements and award winners to inform their opinions, but not all to the same extent. Some treat them as absolutes..."the guy who finished 3rd in scoring was better than the guy who finished 6th". Others less so..."they were both good scorers, a few points difference over a full season is just random statistical noise". Same with awards. At the end of the day, award winners are just the average of a small group of people's opinions that particular year. Was the Norris winner actually better than the runner-up? Sometimes yes, sometimes maybe not. It's not really a question with a clearly defined answer. But some people consider it an infallible indicator that yes, player A was better than player B, case closed.

I think we're generally in agreement on this. Where we seem to differ is on why certain eras should have these things automatically discounted based purely on the time period they occurred in, absent of other context. Maybe it was easier to win a Norris in 1955 than 1995, maybe it wasn't. The year on the calendar doesn't tell me much, a closer examination is required. For others, the year on the calendar is in and of itself a piece of evidence, and all other conclusions will be worked towards under this premise. Needless to say, I disagree with that approach.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You received a bunch of likes for this comment but could you have been anymore vague? How many decades ago are you talking about??? Are you talking about the 90's again, because no one here is really talking about the 90's and comparing it with after. If we are talking about comparison the O6 with later, then even if the talent pool was the same per team we're still talking about 5X more. That would surely have an impact on how many truly elite players are in the league, and that would impact the compeition at the top.

The likes just show how partial some posters are on this topic. Doesn't matter what the point is, or if it lacks clarity, as long as it's supposed to support their view. It's kind of sad.

His comments summed up what has been posted here many times before, including in threads in which you were active.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Then you have what may be the best example of all of how this section actually values the superstars of the o6 more even though it shouldn't, is the Lidstrom/Harvey comparison. I don't just harp on this example because I'm a Red Wings fan but also because it best displays what I've been saying all along. Another good one will be Ovi/Hull after Ovi retires.

Lidstrom has the same amount of Norris', a longer career, was clearly more productively offensively, and has an additional all-star nomination yet he's ranked behind Harvey by most in this history section. Then step back and see that Harvey had little competition after Kelly stopped being an all-star as a defenseman after '56-57 (very early in Harvey's reign), and he basically faced only Canadian talent to get his accomplishments. Peer to peer Lidstrom probably wins this one and once you factor in the other context it really shouldn't be that close.

If anyone actually believes hockey hasn't grown immensely as a sport since the O6 and that that doesn't impact these peer to peer comparisons you do across vastly different eras then maybe you can't be helped. You've been reminded enough times that it should sink in as a reality - it doesn't take much reflection to understand the concept and admit it makes a lot more sense than the opposite. And some here claim they've already factored it in yet those same posters rarely ever bring it up unless somone on that side of the debate brings it up so I call bull on those claims.

See, case and point. You seem to weigh Norris Trophies and all-star teams very heavily, so to you it makes little sense why a guy with more is generally rated below a guy with less. Whereas to me, one extra all-star selection among guys with 8 or 10 of them is inconsequential. It's like saying the guy with 54 goals is a better scorer than the guy with 51. It's splitting hairs to me, but maybe to others those 3 goals really do matter.

So sure, explain why Lidstrom's Norris Trophies and such were tougher to win than Harvey's, go right ahead. Doesn't make much of an impact on me, my opinion of those players isn't tied at the hip with whose name popped out of the envelope on awards night. You may think the whole source of your frustration towards the Pro-Original Six crowd is based on them not giving modern players extra credit for their awards and scoring placements, or giving O6 guys equal credit, but I think maybe you need to realize that awards in general just aren't taken as seriously by some others as they are by you.

 

[danincanada]

His comments summed up what has been posted here many times before, including in threads in which you were active.

Like usual, he's probably comparing the early 90's talent pool with todays. Not what we ware talking about here but it's a good tangent to get away from the real point.

 

[danincanada]

See, case and point. You seem to weigh Norris Trophies and all-star teams very heavily, so to you it makes little sense why a guy with more is generally rated below a guy with less. Whereas to me, one extra all-star selection among guys with 8 or 10 of them is inconsequential. It's like saying the guy with 54 goals is a better scorer than the guy with 51. It's splitting hairs to me, but maybe to others those 3 goals really do matter.

So sure, explain why Lidstrom's Norris Trophies and such were tougher to win than Harvey's, go right ahead. Doesn't make much of an impact on me, my opinion of those players isn't tied at the hip with whose name popped out of the envelope on awards night. You may think the whole source of your frustration towards the Pro-Original Six crowd is based on them not giving modern players extra credit for their awards and scoring placements, or giving O6 guys equal credit, but I think maybe you need to realize that awards in general just aren't taken as seriously by some others as they are by you.

No one should be using one single metric/trophy counting in any comparison and I think most here are better than that. It's interesting that you claim that's all the "other side" does but how many times do we see regulars post these silly cross era comparisons displaying an 06 player should be ranked higher because they had more all-star nominations or generally dominated their peers more than a modern day player? It happend in this very thread with Crosby/Beliveau and it happens often but I've never seen you complain. Then someone points out that it's not apples to apples because it really isn't.

It is similar to using Fetisov's dominance over his peers in the RSL and saying he must be better than his NHL counterpart at the time because of it. Domestic-talent driven leagues generally shouldn't hold the same value as an international league and everyone should realize why, and that's essentially what the 06 was. Just cause it was fed by Canada, and was the best league in the world at the time with most of the best players doesn't mean it's equal to what came later when other nations joined. That would lack so much context. It matters and we've witnessed how the league changed over time so where's the argument against it? When it was all Canadians they won all the awards but the Europeans and Americans eventually produced elite players as well and they added to the amount of competition for awards, accolades, and the reputations players have. Again, how could anyone even try to deny this?

Lidstrom's Norris' were generally tougher than Harvey's. Here are a couple reasons why:

- As I've stated a thousand times, Harvey had Kelly to compete with until '56-57 (only Harvey's 3rd Norris) and then Kelly seemingly dropped out of the picture and later was turned into a centre. Apart from that, who was his competition to be the best at his position? It was pre-baby boom Canada feeding the league and that was it so, knowing what we know now, there was clearly a lot less competition. Lidstrom faced the generation before him early, his own generation, then the generation after and anyone here could make a huge list of the competition at his position over the years. Forget apples and oranges, we're probably talking about a crab apple and a grapefruit cause these aren't the same size at all.
- Harvey had to compete with 6 teams worth of defenseman whereas Lidstrom had to compete with 25 to 30 teams worth, which means there was far more opportunity for his peers to develop and compete because there were more roster spots, more ice-time, and more games being played.

Of course also:
- Harvey played on an absoluate powerhouse yet Lidstrom clearly beats him in raw points, adjusted points, and team finishes. It's not just about era, Lidstrom simply made more of an impact offensively.
- Lidstrom had a longer career in terms of games, started his NHL earlier and had a better last few years to his career as well.

Since you're apparently not that into awards and all-star nominations then what are you basing it on? I've never seen you claim you base everything on watching games like some. Many in this section love quotes on old players to elevate them higher than current players. How does one opinion, or even a few people's opinions, on a player via quotes outweigh a bunch of people voting at the time anyways?

 

[tinyzombies]

Harvey was traded to a sub-.500 team and still won the Norris. He controlled the game through his puck control, vision and by being tough to deal with man-to-man. Lidstrom was about anticipation, positioning, a great stick, vision. Lidstrom gets denigrated because he didn't use his body, but players have said you couldn't get around him and you couldn't dump it in either because he'd anticipate it and would always get there first. Dmen play more and more like him these days seems like.

Hard to single out either guy from the monster teams they played on.

 

[Meloun]

Looking for top 5th player: We have a set of 4 players with their respected careers and we are looking for somebody as close as possible. So based on what we have, we need to describe what we are looking for:
1. Great single season to rival the gods
2. 3-4 years peak at this level
3. 6-8 years prime, when they still compete with the best
4. still being capable to be a great player when the physical abilities fade away due to the health or age
5. being capable to maintain their high level and lead their team in the playoff and/or international competitions
I personally believe, that the great EURO generation, including Jagr, Hasek, Fedorov, Bure, Lidstrom, Forsberg, Selene, Mogilny, Palffy and many others, have not jump out of the grass, and that since the 80ies, the level of EURO leagues, when they contained all their talent, was not far behind the NHL. Since that time, the concentration of talent in the national teams of 6 hockey powers was for me on the level of SC semifinalist, so the results of IIHF are revealing as well. So, if somebody was absolutely dominant, and proved himself internationally as well, he should not be criminalized for not having a possibility to play in the NHL. It should be mentioned, that the quality of hockey is increasing with the time and that there was huge jump in the competition level of NHL in the 90ies due to the coming EUROs.
So based on these criteria, I have the great 7, that significantly distinguished themselves from the rest of the pack. I admit, that having possibility to watch some of them actually play, might slightly influenced my sorting, even if I tried to be objective.
1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Makarov, whenever I saw him play against Mario, he was simply more impressive and more effective player. That includes facing Coffee, Bourque, Gretzky, Mario and Messier at one time on the ice and still be able to dominate.
4. Hasek, we should not forget his first half of career in Europe. For me, the most impactfull player of all the time.
5. Mario – all the talent in the world.
6. Jagr – similar career as Howe, played in the more competitive era with a significantly higher hockey level.
7. Howe
Considering the EURO talent pool being comparable to the Canadian one since the 80ies, its statistically highly improbable that there was never any EURO player belonging to the top4 category.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No one should be using one single metric/trophy counting in any comparison and I think most here are better than that. It's interesting that you claim that's all the "other side" does but how many times do we see regulars post these silly cross era comparisons displaying an 06 player should be ranked higher because they had more all-star nominations or generally dominated their peers more than a modern day player? It happend in this very thread with Crosby/Beliveau and it happens often but I've never seen you complain. Then someone points out that it's not apples to apples because it really isn't.

It is similar to using Fetisov's dominance over his peers in the RSL and saying he must be better than his NHL counterpart at the time because of it. Domestic-talent driven leagues generally shouldn't hold the same value as an international league and everyone should realize why, and that's essentially what the 06 was. Just cause it was fed by Canada, and was the best league in the world at the time with most of the best players doesn't mean it's equal to what came later when other nations joined. That would lack so much context. It matters and we've witnessed how the league changed over time so where's the argument against it? When it was all Canadians they won all the awards but the Europeans and Americans eventually produced elite players as well and they added to the amount of competition for awards, accolades, and the reputations players have. Again, how could anyone even try to deny this?

Lidstrom's Norris' were generally tougher than Harvey's. Here are a couple reasons why:

- As I've stated a thousand times, Harvey had Kelly to compete with until '56-57 (only Harvey's 3rd Norris) and then Kelly seemingly dropped out of the picture and later was turned into a centre. Apart from that, who was his competition to be the best at his position? It was pre-baby boom Canada feeding the league and that was it so, knowing what we know now, there was clearly a lot less competition. Lidstrom faced the generation before him early, his own generation, then the generation after and anyone here could make a huge list of the competition at his position over the years. Forget apples and oranges, we're probably talking about a crab apple and a grapefruit cause these aren't the same size at all.
- Harvey had to compete with 6 teams worth of defenseman whereas Lidstrom had to compete with 25 to 30 teams worth, which means there was far more opportunity for his peers to develop and compete because there were more roster spots, more ice-time, and more games being played.

Of course also:
- Harvey played on an absoluate powerhouse yet Lidstrom clearly beats him in raw points, adjusted points, and team finishes. It's not just about era, Lidstrom simply made more of an impact offensively.
- Lidstrom had a longer career in terms of games, started his NHL earlier and had a better last few years to his career as well.

Since you're apparently not that into awards and all-star nominations then what are you basing it on? I've never seen you claim you base everything on watching games like some. Many in this section love quotes on old players to elevate them higher than current players. How does one opinion, or even a few people's opinions, on a player via quotes outweigh a bunch of people voting at the time anyways?

I don't claim it's "always" the pro-modern side that leans heavier on the awards/top 10s/etc, just more of a general observation. I'm sure there are plenty of examples to the contrary. But "Ovechkin>Hull because Rocket Richards", "Lidstrom 2nd best dman of all time because Norrises", and "Hasek best goalie ever because Harts" are not exactly uncommon claims. Does it happen with pre-expansion players too? Sure, but it seems less common in my observations.

Fetisov is an interesting case to bring up. It's a fairly uncontroversial opinion that he was the best defenseman in the game for a few years in the early to mid 80s. Yet the Soviet Union was surely a smaller talent pool than the rest of the world combined was. It would seem the smaller talent pool could claim the best defenseman, something that you've argued would be highly improbable.

We've made our opinions on Harvey and Lidstrom clear in multiple past discussions, I'm not interested in rehashing it again. Do you think Lidstrom has any argument at all as the #5 player of all time? I haven't seen you suggest this, so what is your motive for bringing him into the debate?

I can't really pinpoint any one thing that I base my opinion on. I've tried to take in as much information as possible since I was 6 years old and began to read. As it pertains to Harvey specifically, and why I do think he at least deserves his case as the #5 player ever examined, is probably most heavily influenced by two things:

1) The hockey establishment pretty firmly believed he was the greatest defenseman of all time before Bobby Orr.

2) In an era where defensemen usually had little to do with the offense, Harvey was considered an offensive driver in a way that nobody was previously. Shore and other pre-war players were known to rush the puck, but Harvey was said to control the tempo and flow of play entirely. When Harvey was doing this, his team enjoyed an unprecedented run of success, winning 5 consecutive Cups during 10 consecutive trips to the Final. [And yes, I am aware that league dynamics makes it almost impossible that a post-1990 player could achieve a similar run of team success, and I wouldn't hold them to this exact standard.]

 

[Hockey Outsider]

As it pertains to Harvey specifically, and why I do think he at least deserves his case as the #5 player ever examined, is probably most heavily influenced by two things:

1) The hockey establishment pretty firmly believed he was the greatest defenseman of all time before Bobby Orr.

2) In an era where defensemen usually had little to do with the offense, Harvey was considered an offensive driver in a way that nobody was previously. Shore and other pre-war players were known to rush the puck, but Harvey was said to control the tempo and flow of play entirely. When Harvey was doing this, his team enjoyed an unprecedented run of success, winning 5 consecutive Cups during 10 consecutive trips to the Final. [And yes, I am aware that league dynamics makes it almost impossible that a post-1990 player could achieve a similar run of team success, and I wouldn't hold them to this exact standard.]

The other thing that's crucial for Harvey's case is watching footage of him play. His hockey sense is off the charts - there's only one player in history who I think clearly has better a better hockey IQ than Harvey, and that's Gretzky.

There are some shifts - not every one of course, but a fair number - when it almost feels like I'm watching a grown man play against children. Everyone else is playing checkers, but Harvey's playing chess. You get the same feeling when watching Lemieux, except Harvey's skillset is much more balanced between offense and defense.

I keep going back and forth between Bourque and Harvey as the 2nd greatest defenseman ever. A more analytical or accomplishment-based approach probably favours Bourque. But, as great as he was, I never got the same sense of total mastery of the game from Bourque that I do when watching footage of Harvey.

 

[Midnight Judges]

...Harvey was said to control the tempo and flow of play entirely.

That begs the question what were Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, and Dickie Moore doing (!?), but OK.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

2) In an era where defensemen usually had little to do with the offense, Harvey was considered an offensive driver in a way that nobody was previously. Shore and other pre-war players were known to rush the puck, but Harvey was said to control the tempo and flow of play entirely. When Harvey was doing this, his team enjoyed an unprecedented run of success, winning 5 consecutive Cups during 10 consecutive trips to the Final. [And yes, I am aware that league dynamics makes it almost impossible that a post-1990 player could achieve a similar run of team success, and I wouldn't hold them to this exact standard.]

'
I don't think "offensive driver" is really what you mean, is it? Red Kelly was statistically quite a bit more involved in the offense than Harvey was; Kelly was even called a "4th forward" in the press, and it was meant as a compliment at that time!

Likewise, Harvey's contemporary Bill Gadsby was involved in the offense at even strength moreso than Harvey was.

What I think made Harvey unique was how he controlled the flow of the game from the backend WITHOUT necessarily joining the rush.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That begs the question WTF were Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, and Dickie Moore doing (?), but OK.

Beliveau and both Richards had a lot of success without Harvey. I do think there is reason to be a bit skeptical of Geoffrion and Moore though

 

[ted2019]

Bobby Hull 5th greatest

Why?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That begs the question what were Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, and Dickie Moore doing (!?), but OK.

Benefitting.