Give us your top ten players of all time

[Canadiens1958]

Plenty to read about Eddie Shore and other pre video greats.

 

[danincanada]

Just browsing the last couple pages and making stream of consciousness points as I read...

- Harvey was an incredible skater and one of the best I've seen. Multi-directional fluidness, stops-and-starts were on a dime, agile, small turning radius. I can't imagine too many better skaters in that era.

- It's interesting that a poster challenges a poster that he's "living in a fantasy" and the accused replies that he could play at the pace of the NHL game in the 1960's...and then doubles down on it by comparing it to children today, which seems irrelevant at best...

- Harvey standing still at the blueline is a function of his poise. Great NHL players can get away with that today because lull checking forwards into one move or slow them down (i.e. controlling the pace of the game) and then move against the flow of play. Seen more than just at the attack line, also seen in the setup to breakouts...it's using the checker's momentum against him - a staple to skilled players for a long time. It's much tougher to pull that off from a standing start... (oh, I see that was touched on shortly thereafter, good)

- Weird to try to mix skating speed (or whatever) and one-timers...and, I'd say even the slapshot is not used nearly as much any more...

- "I could literally do..." and "EVERYONE knows this/that..." have to be a two-stroke penalty, right?

- Weird to compare team finishes given the eras and teammates. Didn't Harvey rack up a metric ton of top-3 defense scoring finishes in his prime...like vs the whole league? In an era with less assists per goal? Him not outscoring Jean Beliveau doesn't give me any heartburn...just like Bourque outscoring Craig Janney doesn't release any endorphins either...

- Harvey didn't have the same options at the time. Watch the film. Center outlet or puck rush. There were very few D-to-D passes to offset pressure in those days. So Harvey did carry it a ton, which was an interesting concept for the time. I wouldn't be D-to-D passing very much either if Al Langlois is my partner...

- I can't tell what the hang up is...isn't just lack of exposure to Harvey? We need an HF watch party to go through some games and work our way back through history...I just started making videos about future players, I might be in the wrong business haha...

You're so off base on most of this stuff that I'm just going to leave it. Anyone really paying attention will know what I'm talking about.

The D to D passing point it interesting but Lidstrom and Bourque were occasionally paired with pretty weak guys as well. After all the times I was told the O6 was filled with only great players because there were only 6 teams it's always amusing when someone tells me a player from that era was terrible.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Was your impression that there were no bad players in 1957?

 

[danincanada]

Was your impression that there were no bad players in 1957?

Not at all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You're so off base on most of this stuff that I'm just going to leave it. Anyone really paying attention will know what I'm talking about.

The D to D passing point it interesting but Lidstrom and Bourque were occasionally paired with pretty weak guys as well. After all the times I was told the O6 was filled with only great players because there were only 6 teams it's always amusing when someone tells me a player from that era was terrible.

Actually, Bourque was almost always paired with weak partners. Not so Lidstrom.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Actually, Bourque was almost always paired with weak partners. Not so Lidstrom.

This has always been the norm in the NHL from the start of two pairing game rosters until recently.

2 pairings would be 1 & 4, 2 & 3.

3 pairings, depending on projected ice time, mainly above plus 5 & 6.

Lately handedness has become a consideration, so there is more movement.

 

[Michael Farkas]

With that, it's important to include the actual caliber of the player (i.e. there are not 31 #1 d-men in the NHL, that's just fun with ice time to think that, not actual skill evaluation). I brought him up before, but evaluating Al Langlois, probably a #5 for me in a four-defenseman league.

Very much worth noting who coaches pair with strong players...modern example is Sidney Crosby...always gets the chaff, Malkin gets the wheat. Crosby gets Kunitz off the scrap heap, Dupuis fresh out of the sewer, paired with kids like Sheary and Guentzel recently...training with complete unknown Dominik Simon this summer...Malkin gets James Neal, Phil Kessel, Petr Sykora players much more regularly...Crosby can better fill-in for the weaknesses of lesser players than Malkin.

Aside to C1958: Care to throw a "circa" on that lately, in your mind? I thought that was a Scotty Bowman thing...you'd know better than I would though...

 

[Canadiens1958]

With that, it's important to include the actual caliber of the player (i.e. there are not 31 #1 d-men in the NHL, that's just fun with ice time to think that, not actual skill evaluation). I brought him up before, but evaluating Al Langlois, probably a #5 for me in a four-defenseman league.

Very much worth noting who coaches pair with strong players...modern example is Sidney Crosby...always gets the chaff, Malkin gets the wheat. Crosby gets Kunitz off the scrap heap, Dupuis fresh out of the sewer, paired with kids like Sheary and Guentzel recently...training with complete unknown Dominik Simon this summer...Malkin gets James Neal, Phil Kessel, Petr Sykora players much more regularly...Crosby can better fill-in for the weaknesses of lesser players than Malkin.

Aside to C1958: Care to throw a "circa" on that lately, in your mind? I thought that was a Scotty Bowman thing...you'd know better than I would though...

Most Scotty Bownan "things" are Toe Blake and Sam Pollock "things" modernized.

There are two depth charts, organizational and team.

When Toe Blake took over as coach in 1955 he added speed and diversity to the defencemen. Jean-Guy Talbot and Bob Turner (organizationally around 10-12) to the returning group of Doug Harvey, Tom Johnson,
Butch Bouchard, Dollard St.Laurent and Bud MacPherson who did not survive training camp. Bouchard was a healthy scratch about 1/2 the time. Speed was gone.

Talbot and Turner could play a forward role on the PK. Effectively two extra game day roster spots.

Blake regularly split Harvey and Johnson except for the PK,so that one would be on all the time. St.Laurent mainly played with Harvey, Talbot with Johnson, with Turner the first PK shot blocking forward.

This continued thru the 1957-58 season. St.Laurent was hurt in the playoffs and Langlois was the emergency replacement. Simply he was the best option from eliminated organizational teams below the NHL level. Hung around for three seasons playing with Harvey because the Canadiens lost prospect Claude Ruel to an eye injury and J.C. Tremblay, a converted center was not ready.

Talbot assumed St.Laurent's slot playing mainly with Johnson, Turner kept his PK role and was part of the rotation with Harvey which thru 1960-61 included Langlois, Cushenan, J. C. Tremblay.

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

I'll put Ken Dryden in my top 10, if not top 5. It's a little bizarre how under-mentioned he is - he was the freakin' Bobby Orr of goalies (check his stats) - and he consistently stonewalled some of the most stacked teams in history.

 

[The Panther]

I'll put Ken Dryden in my top 10, if not top 5. It's a little bizarre how under-mentioned he is - he was the freakin' Bobby Orr of goalies (check his stats) - and he consistently stonewalled some of the most stacked teams in history.

Dryden is the Rodney Dangerfield of hockey players. He won at everything, accomplished everything possible, and did it in better fashion than anyone else at his position. Yet it's mostly down to his team being great -- an excuse not given other goalies on great teams.

Fact is, when Dryden took a year off, the Habs immediately dropped 21 points in the standings. Then, he came back and they improved 14 points, before then reeling off 4 straight Cups. Then, he retired and they lost.

 

[Thenameless]

Dryden is the Rodney Dangerfield of hockey players. He won at everything, accomplished everything possible, and did it in better fashion than anyone else at his position. Yet it's mostly down to his team being great -- an excuse not given other goalies on great teams.

Fact is, when Dryden took a year off, the Habs immediately dropped 21 points in the standings. Then, he came back and they improved 14 points, before then reeling off 4 straight Cups. Then, he retired and they lost.

Yes. As a Montreal fan, even I've been guilty of not giving him enough credit in the past. I do remember them not playing nearly as well with Bunny Larocque, but I'd never seen it quantified.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'll put Ken Dryden in my top 10, if not top 5. It's a little bizarre how under-mentioned he is - he was the freakin' Bobby Orr of goalies (check his stats) - and he consistently stonewalled some of the most stacked teams in history.

I wouldn’t call him the Bobby Orr of goaltenders - there is no Bobby Orr of goaltenders.

Statistically, Dryden has probably the best 8 or 9-year run (jury is still out on Terry Sawchuk and Bill Durnan), though on a single-season level, it’s hard to say he exceeded Bernie Parent in 1973-74. But there were goaltenders who ran nearly as hot as Dryden but twice as long. If he drew the kind of separation between himself and every other goaltender that Bobby Orr did over every other defenseman, then it would make sense to overlook to an extent how compact his career was, but the numbers don’t really shake out that way.

Underrated around HFBoards though. Hopefully with the expansion of the official statistical record, there will be more consideration for goaltenders who played prior to 1983-84(?) when the league originally started publishing an official save percentage.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If you were to make a claim against Dryden...very short career, under one set of circumstances - a pretty loaded Montreal team. Never really challenged outside those walls meaningfully...

In the rare glimpses of international play we saw, he was beat up pretty good relatively speaking...

I mean, we're talking about a guy who was 338-89-74 as a Canadien...76-4-1 at Cornell...

You combine his Team Canada and NCAA Tournament record and you get, what, 7-6-1...now I'm not saying one way or the other...but if you wanted to stake a claim against, the record is much more unimpressive in best on best situations outside of Montreal...

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

If you were to make a claim against Dryden...very short career, under one set of circumstances - a pretty loaded Montreal team. Never really challenged outside those walls meaningfully...

In the rare glimpses of international play we saw, he was beat up pretty good relatively speaking...

I mean, we're talking about a guy who was 338-89-74 as a Canadien...76-4-1 at Cornell...

You combine his Team Canada and NCAA Tournament record and you get, what, 7-6-1...now I'm not saying one way or the other...but if you wanted to stake a claim against, the record is much more unimpressive in best on best situations outside of Montreal...

Okay, but couldn't you make an identical claim against Bobby Orr? I mean, you could almost copy Bobby Orr's name over Dryden's in that argument (only did well on a stacked Bruins team, etc.)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Okay, but couldn't you make an identical claim against Bobby Orr? I mean, you could almost copy Bobby Orr's name over Dryden's in that argument (only did well on a stacked Bruins team, etc.)

Orr also did well on an expansion or revived OHA team in Oshawa going to the Memorial Cup in 1966.Injured, Orr played sparingly.

Ken Dryden. Needed the workload and reps to integrate the team, learn his teammates and opponents. Did not happen at the International level, season or series. Same applies to Tony Esposito.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Okay, but couldn't you make an identical claim against Bobby Orr? I mean, you could almost copy Bobby Orr's name over Dryden's in that argument (only did well on a stacked Bruins team, etc.)

Goaltending statistics are much more of a function of their environment than a defenseman that is clearly dominating the entire ice surface. Most people don't understand goaltending (or goaltenders for that matter...I had to block Doctor No and qpq for this very reason...good-for-nothin'...) and the talent evaluation that's involved. As such, goaltender lists, particularly in this modern era, are so much more volatile because things can be so easily (relatively speaking) manipulated by where they play and behind what system (Brian Elliott, Roman Cechmanek, Tim Thomas, Jonas Hiller, various shades of garbage, but found statistical success in drips and drabs because of their environment...it's not like Brian Elliott practiced extra hard one season to be the all-time* save pct king...he was just playing behind Ken Hitchcock and a talented team and it made his life easier...when you need to beat him - like in a playoff series for instance - you do the advance scout and you pick him apart...)

Dryden, though looks the part to me, so I have less concerns about that...I think it's still worth discussing...my thing is, "does the talent match the numbers?" If so, we're in good shape...if it doesn't, you absolutely need to look at external factors.

 

[Doctor No]

I had to block Doctor No and qpq for this very reason...good-for-nothin'...)

Oh, really? I hadn't noticed.

 

[Sentinel]

I'll put Ken Dryden in my top 10, if not top 5. It's a little bizarre how under-mentioned he is - he was the freakin' Bobby Orr of goalies (check his stats) - and he consistently backstopped some of the most stacked teams in history.

Fixed that for you.

One stacked team he could not stonewall was USSR. CSKA was another.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It would be to your benefit anyway haha

Just to double down, well, kinda...I believe I'm on record of voting Brodeur #3 in the goalie list...and I don't doubt NJ played good defense, I saw it...but his talent was immense, so I have no concerns and actually think he is underrated and much better than his numbers even suggest...

I'm happy to except Dryden in the same way...I'm just posing a discussion point for conversation...

 

[frisco]

Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Orr
Jagr
Hull
Richard
Shore
Hasek
Messier

My Best-Carey

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Okay, but couldn't you make an identical claim against Bobby Orr? I mean, you could almost copy Bobby Orr's name over Dryden's in that argument (only did well on a stacked Bruins team, etc.)

Orr only played in one international tournament and was named the MVP. Being 1976, that means he was already close to finished at that time.

As for the stacked Bruins teams, Orr came into the league when the Bruins were perennial cellar dwellers. When the team was great it was pretty much Orr & Espo.

 

[Big Phil]

It’s not that simple. During Harvey’s All-star seasons, which I would consider his prime, but not including his injury plagued season, the following Habs teammates finished ahead of him in scoring:

Olmstead, Curry, Gamble, Reay, Meger, Lach, Provost, Goyette, Marshall, Bonin, and Hicke.

This is not even including ‘59-60 when he finished 13th in team scoring. Then with a far weaker Rangers team he finished 6th and 4th in scoring, although during the latter he was not an AS. Listing his four best forward teammates on Montreal doesn’t explain away all of this.

During Lidstrom’s all-star seasons, not including his down ‘03-04 season, the following Red Wings finished ahead of him in scoring:

Larionov, Kozlov, Hull, and Hossa.

See the difference?

You keep saying Harvey stood out more, or at least people say he stood out a lot, but he simply was not involved in team offense nearly as much as Lidstrom overall. So again, shouldn’t you question this (nitpick?) or are you just going to let Harvey off easy due to hearsay and because you clearly want to rate him higher just because? I think you’ve already answered the question quite loudly with deafening silence. Your nitpicking comment really only applies to one guy and not the other.

Did Harvey really join and lead the rush that much? I don’t think he did. He could and did at times, and it’s certainly part of his highlight package, but I saw him pass it up to his forwards more often than not and his offensive stats speak to that. Lidstrom didn’t join or lead the rush very much at all but he still had better numbers so maybe era wouldn’t impact him. One thing that Lidstrom did have that was probably impacted by the era he played in was his shot. It was a weapon Harvey didn’t have but it wasn’t impossible because Geoffrion developed a “booming” slap shot in the same era with the same stick technology.

The stocky comment is still a weird point after claiming Bourque and Harvey were so similar in every way but you’ve backtracked now so I’ll just move on from that, wondering if you even know who Harvey was. Again, you clearly want this Canadiens legend to be ahead of the Swede no matter what because you always had it that way. This is the dogma thing that appears as strong as ever.

The Hart voting record corroborates my posts on Harvey. The men who were covering the game at that time felt he stood out.

Harvey - 2, 3, 5, 5, 5
Lidstrom - 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17

Just for kicks and a more modern comparison to Lidstrom:

Bourque - 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11

This is also Harvey on teams with more star players and higher peaks than what Lidstrom had.

I don't know what else to tell you here.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Goaltending statistics are much more of a function of their environment than a defenseman that is clearly dominating the entire ice surface. Most people don't understand goaltending (or goaltenders for that matter...I had to block Doctor No and qpq for this very reason...good-for-nothin'...) and the talent evaluation that's involved. As such, goaltender lists, particularly in this modern era, are so much more volatile because things can be so easily (relatively speaking) manipulated by where they play and behind what system (Brian Elliott, Roman Cechmanek, Tim Thomas, Jonas Hiller, various shades of garbage, but found statistical success in drips and drabs because of their environment...it's not like Brian Elliott practiced extra hard one season to be the all-time* save pct king...he was just playing behind Ken Hitchcock and a talented team and it made his life easier...when you need to beat him - like in a playoff series for instance - you do the advance scout and you pick him apart...)

Dryden, though looks the part to me, so I have less concerns about that...I think it's still worth discussing...my thing is, "does the talent match the numbers?" If so, we're in good shape...if it doesn't, you absolutely need to look at external factors.

What set one piece of garbage apart from the others here?

Perhaps two Vezina Trophies and a Conn Smythe?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not to me...though I do wonder what kind of praise Cechmanek gets if he can just eek past Hasek (he beat Brodeur) for that Vezina in 2001 or whenever...

Of course, Thomas practically stole a Vezina from vaunted stars too...the aloof, oafish Steve Mason and the fake Niklas Backstrom...it's like Arnold winning an Oscar against Chuck Norris and Pauly Shore...

Naturally, Cechmanek would need a team that could keep his corpse afloat in a playoff too...Thomas got 62 (!) even strength goals in 25 games in 2011, a pretty heroic effort from the Boston offense...Cechmanek's group only notched 37 such goals in his 23 career playoff games...just a shade under one whole goal per game less...there but for a flip of a coin go we...

They both have three quality seasons...one left his comfort zone in Philadelphia and promptly washed out of the league...on the other hand, the other one left his comfort zone in Boston......and promptly washed out of the league...one might have a bigger hardware case, but neither of them have a very good case as NHLers...two of the most unreliable goalies I've ever seen at this level...

 

[quoipourquoi]

What set one piece of garbage apart from the others here?

Perhaps two Vezina Trophies and a Conn Smythe?

I was more caught off-guard by the random slam on Jonas Hiller. His sudden decline was from injury.