Round 2, Vote 2 (2009 update)

[Canadiens1958]

Not Quite

Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, LeClair, Kariya, Heatley, Naslund, Robitaille, Shanahan, Zetterberg, Demitra, Tkachuk.

You have listed 2 HHOFers and 3 very strong probables against 11 HHOFers that Esposito had to face. You are significantly short.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

There are two interesting features in your study.

For the Bruins and Esposito the study covers seven regular seasons and playoffs while for the other three players/teams you cover eight regular seasons and playoffs.If you run the numbers for the 1968-75 period for the Bruins and Esposito the numbers might change a fair amount.

The Lafleur / Canadiens and Clarke / Flyers would be more revealing
for the identical era preferably 1973-80 for both - greater overlap with Esposito / Bruins.

If I include 1968 it makes little difference, Boston's playoff scoring rate still drops 8%. Esposito scored 3 points in 4 games that playoff year, so that means his individual numbers get slightly worse.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Quick Question: Are votes due Saturday night/Sunday morning at midnight or Sunday night/Monday morning at midnight?

 

[Pear Juice]

Falling into the trap of comparing centers to wingers. Jaromir Jagr had the benefit of an elite center in Mario Lemieux without the responsibility of playing the elite centers of his era head to head. Jagr faced the checking left wingers of his era, a very weak group compared to the elite centers that Esposito had to face night after night.

Esposito faced centers like Keon, H.Richard, Beliveau, Ullman, Ratelle, Clarke, Trottier, Sittler, Perreault, Lemaire,Mikita,Tkaczuk, to name but a few.

Produce comparable left wingers that Jagr had to play head to head and then we'll see.

This is a flawed way of comparing players and their competition.
A) The right wing does play alot against the opposing left wing, but to completely rule out the rest of the opposing forwards is odd.

B) There has always been more star centers than wingers in the league, obviously it's impossible to produce a list similar to that of 70s centers. Actually the present day is likely the greatest era ever for the notoriously weak group that is Left Wingers. You'd be hard pressed to find a period of 10-15 years that has seen the likes of Ovechkin, Robitaille, Shanahan, Kariya, Näslund, Zetterberg, Leclair, Elias, Kovalchuk, Heatley at Left Wing.

C) What about defensemen? During Jagr's career he played against Bourque. MacInnis, Stevens, Coffey, Lidström, Murphy, Chelios, Leetch, Konstantinov, Blake, Pronger, Niedermayer, Chara. That has got to be the best group of defensemen the league as ever seen during any given 10-15 year period.

 

[FissionFire]

Quick Question: Are votes due Saturday night/Sunday morning at midnight or Sunday night/Monday morning at midnight?

Sunday night/Monday morning.

While leads me nicely into my reminder to everyone that votes are due tomorrow.

 

[FissionFire]

Here is a completely utilitarian question for FissionFire; would it be easier for you if we numbered our vote in this round 11-25, or 1-15 again, or does it not matter either way?

Doesn't matter really. Either way works equally well.

Three times the MVP of the playoffs. Got to the semis or further eight times. Always had a sv% well above the league average in both the regular season and playoffs. Played for teams that took a lot of penalties, making his save percentages even more impressive. 40-19 in playoff overtime. What's not to like?

Did Montreal take significantly more penalties than other teams of that time? This is the first I've really heard that they were a highly penalized team.

Getting to the semis+ 8 times is about the team, not just the goalie. Didn't/Doesn't Jose Theodore have a streak of never losing in the first round (meaning he made the semis every time)? Is that something you attribute completely to a goalie? Also a 40-19 OT record again is a team statistic. Roy can only lose the game, but he can't win it. You need your team to score, no matter how great your goalie is.

Falling into the trap of comparing centers to wingers. Jaromir Jagr had the benefit of an elite center in Mario Lemieux without the responsibility of playing the elite centers of his era head to head. Jagr faced the checking left wingers of his era, a very weak group compared to the elite centers that Esposito had to face night after night.

Esposito faced centers like Keon, H.Richard, Beliveau, Ullman, Ratelle, Clarke, Trottier, Sittler, Perreault, Lemaire,Mikita,Tkaczuk, to name but a few.

Produce comparable left wingers that Jagr had to play head to head and then we'll see.

Isn't comparing players at different positions the entire point of this list?

I also fail to see how it matters what the quality of LWs on the league at the time really has to do with anything. Is it your contention that the LWs on all the teams were tasked to shadow him? Doesn't your LW argument severely hamper just about every RW on this list considering the historical weakness of that position? Do we have to re-evaluate th accomplishments of M.Richard now? Lafleur?

The evolution of defensive systems in the modern era is far above what is was when Esposito played. Maybe head-to-head the LWs were not as strong as the Cs, but overall team defense was more advanced, plus Jagr didn't have anything near the rapidly expanding and diluting talent base that occured for Esposito. Also, as you've mentioned before, when Jagr played the goalies overall were much better with far better overall technique and far larger equipment, making it even harder to score.

In the end, teams focused their entire defense around trying to contain/shut down Jagr. That to me is the most important thing, not who the opposing LW was.

Or another way of admitting that you cannot produce a list of comparable elite left wingers that Jagr had to play against.

Very simple challenge either you can produce such a list of left wingers or you cannot. If you cannot your point is weakened significantly.

Just a question, but is there ANY era that you can show a list of LWs comparable to the Cs of that (or any other) era for that matter? I'd love for you to prove me wrong but I just can't think of any time where the LW depth was better than C depth, even when comparing across eras.

As I said earlier, just ...well, voted by anticipation. Some thoughts :

1 - The castoffs from round 1 are ranked 11 to 15.
2 - Slightly bumped Morenz. Still has SOME goalies ahead of him.
3 - Changed my views on Red Kelly. Definitely. Had him kindof high. Now, he's my 5th D-Men. Actually, he's the 6th, but since his stint at C was pretty good, he goes up. It takes an elite player to be so good at a different position (and allegedly one where speed was more essential back then) so late. Not unlike, say... a guy not up yet.
4 - My bottom rankings might be slightly controversial to some, but I haven't seen anything to detract me from changing it. (bottom rankings... are we ranking strippers or what?)
5 - My first place for next round might be the easiest of the whole projet. But not so much, actually. Highest player not available for voting is 16, but then, two players who know each other pretty well at 18 and 19. All other guys from 1 to 19 are either in, or absolute sureshots to get in, unless somebody really thinks that Patrick Roy sucked in the regular season. It's highly possible, unless I'm convinced otherwise, that the no.14 and 15. (of my list actually) of this round might NOT a spot in the Top-10 next round.

Slight comment on the bolded. From what I recall reading (I'll try to find the exact source) but Kelly was switched from defense to forward because he got too slow to play on D. This IIRC was a rather common practice is that time, as it happened to Ebbie Goodfellow as well. Skilled defensemen as they got older and slowed down were often moved to center.

Here's one of the quotes I remember:
Source: Red Kelly

Concerns about his lack of speed and aggression convinced Leafs chief scout Squib Walker that Kelly wouldn't last more than 20 games in the National Hockey League.

Not much, but I'll try to find a few more when I have some time.

Geez, I know it's kinda late, but here are the numbers I talked about. I was kindof wrong about Roy having the 2nd best season ever. HO redirected me to this site a few years ago. Not working anymore, but luckily, somebody invented the webarchives.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051222134501/members.shaw.ca/hbtn/player_study/goaltender_rating.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20051222130948/members.shaw.ca/hbtn/player_study/adjusted_svp.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20051222135006/members.shaw.ca/hbtn/player_study/updated_adjustedsvp.htm

It actually reassured me that while it might be a little early for Glenn Hall, he probably deserves to get in next round.

Extremely worth noting that, for careeer SV%, Hasek and Roy are virtually tied for no.1 , with Roy playing some 33% more minutes (it's actually more than that, but Hasek did play a bit since this list was compiled). And it's definitely possible that Hasek FELL behind Roy, since those lists were made.

Keep in mind there are quite a few mitigating factors:
1) Hasek lost quite a few of his "prime" seasons in Czechoslovakia and stuck in a backup role in the NHL.
2) Hasek played significantly longer than Roy. Hasek was 6 years older than Roy when he played his final game. In fact, Hasek has played in 4 seasons where he was older than Roy's final season.
3) It should be noted at Hasek at the same age Roy retired led the NHL in wins. He was 6th in the league in wins when he was 42 (some people value this stat, I don't).
4) 3 times finished in the top 10 in shutouts after the age of 40 (2nd, 4th, 6th).

A quick perusal of the box scores on the Hockey Summary Project showed that in many of Phil Espositio's best seasons, Bobby Orr was not a factor in his points by such a significant margin however. Certainly less than I expected. I believe in one season Orr assisted on only 33% of Esposito's goals.

Again, I don't have exact data on me, I didn't bother actually counting as I just wanted an impression, but to me it seems quite clear that Esposito would have led the league in Goals and Points multiple times even if Orr had not existed.

I do believe that Phil Esposito is a player who's stats make him look better than he is (heck I think Wayne Gretzky's stats make him look better than he is and he's the undisputed #1 Hockey Player in my book), and I do believe that he may not have had the Offensive skills of Players less accomplished than him and that he probably would suffer a lot more than most Players ranked about where he is had he switched to certain eras, but the guy was an Offensive machine for sure.

On the flip side, Jaromir Jagr (who I would rate ahead of Esposito and very highly), did have more help than is sometimes noted. The magnificent season he had in 1998-1999 with basically no help is somewhat anomalous, as while the Penguins may not have been a great team overall when Jagr was placing high in scoring during the late 1990's, they were a great Offensive team most of those years and their roster is testament to it.

Bobby Orr doesn't need an assist to be an offensive force on the ice. His mere presence out there, even if he didn't touch the puck, sucked up the defense and opened up a lot of room for other players.

Hasek fell behind Roy in more ways then one. Regular season. Taking your 33% more minutes that Roy played yields 551 wins to 389 for Hasek or 41.6% more. In the playoffs Roy played app 207% more minutes when comparing games 247 to 119 for Hasek with an edge in wins 151 to 69 for Hasek or a app 219% edge.

Actually the point could be made that Hasek not only fell behind Roy but was lapped.

You seem to be a big proponent of comparing players on equal levels. This comparison completely ignores the factors I listed above. How do they compare over the same time span? Roy simply played more games in the NHL so career totals will obviously be skewed in his favor. Ironically, Hasek played hockey and a high level for more YEARS than Roy did, considering he retired 6 years older than Roy did. Using just career NHL numbers is heavily penalizing a player for factors outside of his control.

Plus you one again compare wins. How many goals does a goalie score? A goalie cannot win a game without a team. He can improve his teams chances of winning. He can't win the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Flawed

This is a flawed way of comparing players and their competition.
A) The right wing does play alot against the opposing left wing, but to completely rule out the rest of the opposing forwards is odd.

B) There has always been more star centers than wingers in the league, obviously it's impossible to produce a list similar to that of 70s centers. Actually the present day is likely the greatest era ever for the notoriously weak group that is Left Wingers. You'd be hard pressed to find a period of 10-15 years that has seen the likes of Ovechkin, Robitaille, Shanahan, Kariya, Näslund, Zetterberg, Leclair, Elias, Kovalchuk, Heatley at Left Wing.

C) What about defensemen? During Jagr's career he played against Bourque. MacInnis, Stevens, Coffey, Lidström, Murphy, Chelios, Leetch, Konstantinov, Blake, Pronger, Niedermayer, Chara. That has got to be the best group of defensemen the league as ever seen during any given 10-15 year period.

In response.
A.) No one ruled out the other forwards BUT when a right winger is facing weak left wingers then his defensive responsibilities are reduced. Phil Esposito's defensive responsibilities have to be viewed in the context of who he was playing against.

B.) Let's see, 10-15 year period for left wingers. 1960-74. Ted Lindsay, Dickie Moore, Bobby Hull, John Bucyk, Bert Olmstead, Frank Mahovlich, Dick Duff,Steve Shutt,Craig Ramsay, Bob Gainey,
which puts us at 9 HHOFERS.

C.) Let's see, 10-15 year period for defensemen that Esposito played against. Being lazy this morning so I will stick to 1960-74.
Doug Harvey, Jacques Laperriere, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Tim Horton, Borje Salming, Pat Stapleton, Bill White, Pierre Pilote, Bill Gadsby, Marcel Pronovost, Brad Park, Harry Howell, Bobby Orr, Denis Potvin, Jim Watson.

Don't think that your points hold.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Dissembling

In response.
A.) No one ruled out the other forwards BUT when a right winger is facing weak left wingers then his defensive responsibilities are reduced. Phil Esposito's defensive responsibilities have to be viewed in the context of who he was playing against.

B.) Let's see, 10-15 year period for left wingers. 1960-74. Ted Lindsay, Dickie Moore, Bobby Hull, John Bucyk, Bert Olmstead, Frank Mahovlich, Dick Duff,Steve Shutt,Craig Ramsay, Bob Gainey,
which puts us at 9 HHOFERS.

C.) Let's see, 10-15 year period for defensemen that Esposito played against. Being lazy this morning so I will stick to 1960-74.
Doug Harvey, Jacques Laperriere, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Tim Horton, Borje Salming, Pat Stapleton, Bill White, Pierre Pilote, Bill Gadsby, Marcel Pronovost, Brad Park, Harry Howell, Bobby Orr, Denis Potvin, Jim Watson.

Don't think that your points hold.

Maybe you should pick players from 1965 forward when Esposito started playing his first full season rather than listing people who were done when he was really rolling.

Harvey was done when Esposito entered the league(Only had 1 full season against him, and that was when he was a shadow of his former self) As was Gadsby, and Orr was Esposito's teammate for the majority of his best years, not his opponent.

Pronovost was virtually done before Esposito's big scoring years started and Pilote had one foot out the door.

 

[MXD]

[QUOTE = FissionFire]Keep in mind there are quite a few mitigating factors:
1) Hasek lost quite a few of his "prime" seasons in Czechoslovakia and stuck in a backup role in the NHL.
2) Hasek played significantly longer than Roy. Hasek was 6 years older than Roy when he played his final game. In fact, Hasek has played in 4 seasons where he was older than Roy's final season.
3) It should be noted at Hasek at the same age Roy retired led the NHL in wins. He was 6th in the league in wins when he was 42 (some people value this stat, I don't).
4) 3 times finished in the top 10 in shutouts after the age of 40 (2nd, 4th, 6th).[/QUOTE]

1) I don't think we should factor in favorably for Hasek the fact he was a backup. I mean, Patrick Roy split duties for a while and I have yet to see an argument in favor of Roy in that regards.
2)He did play significantly longer. But when we add up his mins played, he's still short. I don't know how they were splitting goaltendings duties in Czechoslovakia, but I have a hard time giving more weight to a season in that league with those players than, let's say, '86 Connie Smythe.
3)I don't value wins that much.
4)I fail to see why point 4 is a mitigating factor (it's already taken into account...)

Actually, what I want people to realize is that the gap between Roy and Hasek in regular season isn't as huge as everybody makes it to be (it's IMO pretty small). Yes, I'm inclined to think Hasek was kindof better as far as only regular season is concerned, mainly because Hasek really shone on much, much weaker teams. And the playoffs comparison is kinda lopsided. Hasek could have been the all-time 2nd best goaltender in the playoffs, the comparison would STILL be lopsided.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Apples to Apples.......................

Doesn't matter really. Either way works equally well.



Did Montreal take significantly more penalties than other teams of that time? This is the first I've really heard that they were a highly penalized team.

Getting to the semis+ 8 times is about the team, not just the goalie. Didn't/Doesn't Jose Theodore have a streak of never losing in the first round (meaning he made the semis every time)? Is that something you attribute completely to a goalie? Also a 40-19 OT record again is a team statistic. Roy can only lose the game, but he can't win it. You need your team to score, no matter how great your goalie is.



Isn't comparing players at different positions the entire point of this list?

I also fail to see how it matters what the quality of LWs on the league at the time really has to do with anything. Is it your contention that the LWs on all the teams were tasked to shadow him? Doesn't your LW argument severely hamper just about every RW on this list considering the historical weakness of that position? Do we have to re-evaluate th accomplishments of M.Richard now? Lafleur?

The evolution of defensive systems in the modern era is far above what is was when Esposito played. Maybe head-to-head the LWs were not as strong as the Cs, but overall team defense was more advanced, plus Jagr didn't have anything near the rapidly expanding and diluting talent base that occured for Esposito. Also, as you've mentioned before, when Jagr played the goalies overall were much better with far better overall technique and far larger equipment, making it even harder to score.

In the end, teams focused their entire defense around trying to contain/shut down Jagr. That to me is the most important thing, not who the opposing LW was.



Just a question, but is there ANY era that you can show a list of LWs comparable to the Cs of that (or any other) era for that matter? I'd love for you to prove me wrong but I just can't think of any time where the LW depth was better than C depth, even when comparing across eras.



Slight comment on the bolded. From what I recall reading (I'll try to find the exact source) but Kelly was switched from defense to forward because he got too slow to play on D. This IIRC was a rather common practice is that time, as it happened to Ebbie Goodfellow as well. Skilled defensemen as they got older and slowed down were often moved to center.

Here's one of the quotes I remember:
Source: Red Kelly


Not much, but I'll try to find a few more when I have some time.



Keep in mind there are quite a few mitigating factors:
1) Hasek lost quite a few of his "prime" seasons in Czechoslovakia and stuck in a backup role in the NHL.
2) Hasek played significantly longer than Roy. Hasek was 6 years older than Roy when he played his final game. In fact, Hasek has played in 4 seasons where he was older than Roy's final season.
3) It should be noted at Hasek at the same age Roy retired led the NHL in wins. He was 6th in the league in wins when he was 42 (some people value this stat, I don't).
4) 3 times finished in the top 10 in shutouts after the age of 40 (2nd, 4th, 6th).



Bobby Orr doesn't need an assist to be an offensive force on the ice. His mere presence out there, even if he didn't touch the puck, sucked up the defense and opened up a lot of room for other players.



You seem to be a big proponent of comparing players on equal levels. This comparison completely ignores the factors I listed above. How do they compare over the same time span? Roy simply played more games in the NHL so career totals will obviously be skewed in his favor. Ironically, Hasek played hockey and a high level for more YEARS than Roy did, considering he retired 6 years older than Roy did. Using just career NHL numbers is heavily penalizing a player for factors outside of his control.

Plus you one again compare wins. How many goals does a goalie score? A goalie cannot win a game without a team. He can improve his teams chances of winning. He can't win the game.

Hasek proponents tend to argue his greatness while denigrating the team - weak Buffalo Sabres. This was debunked recently:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=670117

Focus on the posts pertaing to Hasek and his game.

Simply Hasek and the Sabres were an ideal blend of team and players, producing the results that they did individually and collectively. They maximized each others strengths.

Roy retired because of the wear and tear of the NHL - hip injury, app 1300 regular season and playoff games since a very early age, playing in the NHL against a constant level of the best competition. Hasek like Bower did not have the high level of NHL competition early in their careers so they played well into there forties while Plante effectively took a three year sabbatical from hockey at the age of 36. Very few of the players that Hasek and Bower faced in their pre NHL days are being considered here in the top 100 discussion and when they did face such players it was for a very short stretch of time. Factor in that both Hasek and Bower took sabbaticals as they passed forty or had reduced roles. So the AHL years that Bower played or the Czech years that Hasek played have to be adjusted significantly in the board vernacular to reflect the weakness of the competition. Somehow the 523 goals Willie Marshall scored in the AHL do not quite compare to the 500+ that NHL greats scored. Effectively you are the one who is comparing the Czech league on an equal level with the NHL. Hello. No one credits Johnny Bower with his AHL positives - wins, shutouts, championships etc so Hasek should not get credit for his Czech record. Like Hasek, Bower could not control his destiny. And at age 42-43 adjusting for team strength and era the point could be made that Bower was a better goalie than Hasek especially at playoff time.

Conversely win % clearly indicate that Patrick Roy gave his team a much better chance at winning then Dominik Hasek. Given that SV% slides downward the greater number of games that a goalie plays the adjustment that would be made would favour Roy.

Comparing players across different positions is one of the features of the present discussion but before reaching that stage comparisons have to be made within the position. I have been outspoken about Lafleur and M.Richard but the same questions that are asked about M.Richard's alleged weak defense should be asked about Jagr BUT certain agendas do not wish to go there.

Again your Jagr / Esposito comparison focuses on goalie comparisons which favour Jagr since goalie equipment and techniques have evolved since Esposito's time BUT you neglect mention of the evolution of skates,sticks,training or other factors which also favour Jagr but make Esposito's accomplishments more impressive. The bolded clearly omits Mario Lemieux from consideration yet teams were more concerned with stopping Mario when the two were playing together.

Actually Ebbie Goodfellow was moved to forward as the game got faster. Dit Clapper and Neil Colville were moved from forward back to defense because they were not as fast as before. It is very rare that forwards move back since few can skate backwards well enough to handle the transition.

As for the Kelly comment. The original Kelly trade was to New York as part of a package for Bill Gadsby. Also, this was posted elsewhere on this board but I do not have the time to find the post,
Kelly had played part of the previous season with a foot injury that was not reported and would have sidelined most players. Ergo the scouting misperception of lost speed. Also Punch Imlach was very good at planting misdirect statements about the opposition players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rules in Place

Maybe you should pick players from 1965 forward when Esposito started playing his first full season rather than listing people who were done when he was really rolling.

Harvey was done when Esposito entered the league(Only had 1 full season against him, and that was when he was a shadow of his former self) As was Gadsby, and Orr was Esposito's teammate for the majority of his best years, not his opponent.

Pronovost was virtually done before Esposito's big scoring years started and Pilote had one foot out the door.

Conditions in place. Posters selected Ovechkin who entered the league when Jagr had one foot out the door. Simply conforming to standards established by other posters.

 

[FissionFire]

Hasek proponents tend to argue his greatness while denigrating the team - weak Buffalo Sabres. This was debunked recently:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=670117

I have read that thread and even contributed to it. Contrary to what you think that thread has not really done anything to debunk the theory that Hasek's Sabres were a weak team or diminish Hasek really. If anything my post proved that the only seasons Storr had a strong SV% was when he was playing extremely weak competition. Also, Doctor No has every bit the coaching/scouting credibility in real life that you do and he seems to vehemently disagree with your assessment that Hasek's game is built largely around luck. I don't see how you feel that thread debunked what you claim it did at all.

Simply Hasek and the Sabres were an ideal blend of team and players, producing the results that they did individually and collectively. They maximized each others strengths.

That is true of any team. A goalie cannot be good without playing well with his defense, and vice versa. Roy doesn't win Conn Smythes without blending in seamlessly with his defense. Plante doesn't win Cups. No team can succeed without it. How does it somehow apply more to Hasek than others?

Roy retired because of the wear and tear of the NHL - hip injury, app 1300 regular season and playoff games since a very early age, playing in the NHL against a constant level of the best competition. Hasek like Bower did not have the high level of NHL competition early in their careers so they played well into there forties while Plante effectively took a three year sabbatical from hockey at the age of 36. Very few of the players that Hasek and Bower faced in their pre NHL days are being considered here in the top 100 discussion and when they did face such players it was for a very short stretch of time. Factor in that both Hasek and Bower took sabbaticals as they passed forty or had reduced roles. So the AHL years that Bower played or the Czech years that Hasek played have to be adjusted significantly in the board vernacular to reflect the weakness of the competition. Somehow the 523 goals Willie Marshall scored in the AHL do not quite compare to the 500+ that NHL greats scored. Effectively you are the one who is comparing the Czech league on an equal level with the NHL. Hello. No one credits Johnny Bower with his AHL positives - wins, shutouts, championships etc so Hasek should not get credit for his Czech record. Like Hasek, Bower could not control his destiny. And at age 42-43 adjusting for team strength and era the point could be made that Bower was a better goalie than Hasek especially at playoff time.

You assume that travel conditions, medical conditions, training conditions, etc. were equal. I'm not as familiar with Czech customs but if they were anything like the Soviet ones they lagged far behind NHL standards in most of those categories. I've never claimed the Czech league was equal to the NHL, but there were still quite a few NHL caliber players in it when Hasek played. I posted the list in Vote 1 if you didn't catch it.

Conversely win % clearly indicate that Patrick Roy gave his team a much better chance at winning then Dominik Hasek. Given that SV% slides downward the greater number of games that a goalie plays the adjustment that would be made would favour Roy.

Since you are such a fan of denigrating Jagr based on LW quality, how about you post a list of Roy's teammates who will be potential Top 100 candidates versus Hasek's teammates. I'll bet you anything that 3/4 of the Hasek list comes from his time in Detroit (even if you include his Chicago teammates). Since wins are clearly a team statistic, how can you say that the fact that Roy had clearly better, more skilled, higher caliber teammtes wouldn't make him more likely to win?

Comparing players across different positions is one of the features of the present discussion but before reaching that stage comparisons have to be made within the position. I have been outspoken about Lafleur and M.Richard but the same questions that are asked about M.Richard's alleged weak defense should be asked about Jagr BUT certain agendas do not wish to go there.

Everyone has an agenda, even you. We all try to defend our opinions. That doesn't mean we can't be objective and open-minded. I haven't seen anyone ducking Jagr's defense. I surely would be one of the more vocal critics if someone came on here and tried to claim he was a defensive stud. He's average at best. There are many accounts that claim Richard's defense wasn't really up to par. If someone tries to say Jagr was strong defensively I'm sure we'll have no trouble digging up several accountings that say otherwise. I'm not sure why you feel Jagr's defense isn't being used to penalize him?

Again your Jagr / Esposito comparison focuses on goalie comparisons which favour Jagr since goalie equipment and techniques have evolved since Esposito's time BUT you neglect mention of the evolution of skates,sticks,training or other factors which also favour Jagr but make Esposito's accomplishments more impressive. The bolded clearly omits Mario Lemieux from consideration yet teams were more concerned with stopping Mario when the two were playing together.

That's true, but do you feel the evolution in skating equipment has impacted the game to a greater degree than goalie equipment? I'd disagree. The NHL seems to feel likewise since they are trying hard to scale goalies back but I haven't seen anything done to limit skates or sticks (aside from the length and curve).

As for the Kelly comment. The original Kelly trade was to New York as part of a package for Bill Gadsby. Also, this was posted elsewhere on this board but I do not have the time to find the post,
Kelly had played part of the previous season with a foot injury that was not reported and would have sidelined most players. Ergo the scouting misperception of lost speed. Also Punch Imlach was very good at planting misdirect statements about the opposition players.

I'm not sure if you read the entire link but I think you have the wrong impression. The quote on Kelly was not from the time of his trade. If was from his youth when Toronto passed on signing him. He was never seen as being speedy, even in his youth. As for the Kelly injury, I think that was from the time of his trade and not from the time I was referencing. I'm not sure if it was really relevent. If he was injured when Toronto scouted and chose not to sign him I'd like to see some sort of evidence because that's the first I've heard that.

 

[lextune]

After a few last minute changes I sent in my vote.

11. Howie Morenz
12. Jacques Plante
13. Patrick Roy
14. Dominik Hasek
15. Stan Mikita
16. Guy Lafleur
17. Bobby Clarke
18. Phil Esposito
19. Nicklas Lidstrom
20. Denis Potvin
21. Red Kelly
22. Jaromir Jagr
23. Terry Sawchuk
24. Ted Lindsay
25. Glenn Hall

 

[overpass]

Did Montreal take significantly more penalties than other teams of that time? This is the first I've really heard that they were a highly penalized team.

No, in fact Montreal took fewer penalties. Their record in avoiding penalties from the mid seventies to the mid nineties is excellent, and is matched only by the Devils of the last 15 years.

Fewest powerplays against on average, 1985-86 to 1995
1. Montreal, 323
2. St. Louis, 351
3. Washington, 354
4. Boston, 355
League Average, 372

Montreal was also a strong defensive club, so Patrick Roy's years in Montreal came in a similar situation to Martin Brodeur in New Jersey, with a tight defensive team that took few penalties.

 

[canucks4ever]

I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, in fact Montreal took fewer penalties. Their record in avoiding penalties from the mid seventies to the mid nineties is excellent, and is matched only by the Devils of the last 15 years

Small nitpick, the Devils record of avoiding penalties ended sometime in the last few years (Sutter as coach?) They are middle of the pack now.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Did Montreal take significantly more penalties than other teams of that time? This is the first I've really heard that they were a highly penalized team.

Getting to the semis+ 8 times is about the team, not just the goalie. Didn't/Doesn't Jose Theodore have a streak of never losing in the first round (meaning he made the semis every time)? Is that something you attribute completely to a goalie? Also a 40-19 OT record again is a team statistic. Roy can only lose the game, but he can't win it. You need your team to score, no matter how great your goalie is.

Semis is winning the first and second round. Theodore has never made it there. Anyways, other goalies have played on great teams their entire career but no one has Patrick Roy's playoff resume. He was arguably the best playoff player in history.

Isn't comparing players at different positions the entire point of this list?

I also fail to see how it matters what the quality of LWs on the league at the time really has to do with anything. Is it your contention that the LWs on all the teams were tasked to shadow him? Doesn't your LW argument severely hamper just about every RW on this list considering the historical weakness of that position? Do we have to re-evaluate th accomplishments of M.Richard now? Lafleur?

The evolution of defensive systems in the modern era is far above what is was when Esposito played. Maybe head-to-head the LWs were not as strong as the Cs, but overall team defense was more advanced, plus Jagr didn't have anything near the rapidly expanding and diluting talent base that occured for Esposito. Also, as you've mentioned before, when Jagr played the goalies overall were much better with far better overall technique and far larger equipment, making it even harder to score.

In the end, teams focused their entire defense around trying to contain/shut down Jagr. That to me is the most important thing, not who the opposing LW was.

Teams also sent their best defenders and toughest guys to try and clear out Esposito and contain him around the net, which is where most of the goals where scored. They didnt send their best defender to chase Bobby Orr around the rink. As great as Orr was, no one scores all their goals from outside and on the perimeter. From what I remember of when the Canadiens were beating the Bruins they let Orr have it and skate all day as he liked on the perimeter and concentrated on defending the high scoring areas in front of the net and in the slot. Right where Espo was. His presence changed the look of any defense the Bruins faced.

Keep in mind there are quite a few mitigating factors:
1) Hasek lost quite a few of his "prime" seasons in Czechoslovakia and stuck in a backup role in the NHL.
2) Hasek played significantly longer than Roy. Hasek was 6 years older than Roy when he played his final game. In fact, Hasek has played in 4 seasons where he was older than Roy's final season.
3) It should be noted at Hasek at the same age Roy retired led the NHL in wins. He was 6th in the league in wins when he was 42 (some people value this stat, I don't).
4) 3 times finished in the top 10 in shutouts after the age of 40 (2nd, 4th, 6th).

Hasek played longer, Roy played more though. I wonder if you take Hasek's Czech league seasons and backup seasons in the NHL and give him ~65 games credit or so who has more GP.

Haseks last few seasons he was also injury prone, after his unretirement in Detroit and his trip to Ottawa I think the uncertainty behind his health was a detriment to his team. I wouldnt dock him any points in my mind for this, like I wouldnt hold Chelios or Messier's late years against them, but I certainly dont give them much credit.

Bobby Orr doesn't need an assist to be an offensive force on the ice. His mere presence out there, even if he didn't touch the puck, sucked up the defense and opened up a lot of room for other players.

Likewise though, without Espo in front creating havoc and being the best ever in close in the slot Orr's offensive numbers would be deflated as well. Great players help each other, every single player voted into the top 10 also played with other greats. Yet more than anyone Espo is maligned for being the tag along complementary player. Orr couldnt score everything from the perimeter, neither could he dance through 5 guys with impunity to get into better scoring areas every time. He'd have gotten hurt much faster, or his offensive numbers would be much lower.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Apples to Apples....................... PartII

I have read that thread and even contributed to it. Contrary to what you think that thread has not really done anything to debunk the theory that Hasek's Sabres were a weak team or diminish Hasek really. If anything my post proved that the only seasons Storr had a strong SV% was when he was playing extremely weak competition. Also, Doctor No has every bit the coaching/scouting credibility in real life that you do and he seems to vehemently disagree with your assessment that Hasek's game is built largely around luck. I don't see how you feel that thread debunked what you claim it did at all.



That is true of any team. A goalie cannot be good without playing well with his defense, and vice versa. Roy doesn't win Conn Smythes without blending in seamlessly with his defense. Plante doesn't win Cups. No team can succeed without it. How does it somehow apply more to Hasek than others?



You assume that travel conditions, medical conditions, training conditions, etc. were equal. I'm not as familiar with Czech customs but if they were anything like the Soviet ones they lagged far behind NHL standards in most of those categories. I've never claimed the Czech league was equal to the NHL, but there were still quite a few NHL caliber players in it when Hasek played. I posted the list in Vote 1 if you didn't catch it.



Since you are such a fan of denigrating Jagr based on LW quality, how about you post a list of Roy's teammates who will be potential Top 100 candidates versus Hasek's teammates. I'll bet you anything that 3/4 of the Hasek list comes from his time in Detroit (even if you include his Chicago teammates). Since wins are clearly a team statistic, how can you say that the fact that Roy had clearly better, more skilled, higher caliber teammtes wouldn't make him more likely to win?



Everyone has an agenda, even you. We all try to defend our opinions. That doesn't mean we can't be objective and open-minded. I haven't seen anyone ducking Jagr's defense. I surely would be one of the more vocal critics if someone came on here and tried to claim he was a defensive stud. He's average at best. There are many accounts that claim Richard's defense wasn't really up to par. If someone tries to say Jagr was strong defensively I'm sure we'll have no trouble digging up several accountings that say otherwise. I'm not sure why you feel Jagr's defense isn't being used to penalize him?



That's true, but do you feel the evolution in skating equipment has impacted the game to a greater degree than goalie equipment? I'd disagree. The NHL seems to feel likewise since they are trying hard to scale goalies back but I haven't seen anything done to limit skates or sticks (aside from the length and curve).



I'm not sure if you read the entire link but I think you have the wrong impression. The quote on Kelly was not from the time of his trade. If was from his youth when Toronto passed on signing him. He was never seen as being speedy, even in his youth. As for the Kelly injury, I think that was from the time of his trade and not from the time I was referencing. I'm not sure if it was really relevent. If he was injured when Toronto scouted and chose not to sign him I'd like to see some sort of evidence because that's the first I've heard that.

First bolded. Storr's flaw, if you understood what it was, did not change according to the quality of the opposition. He would work on correcting it but would relapse all the time. Then the coaches would stop playing him. I doubt you understood what the flaw was because if you did then the charts and analysis you posted would not be necessary. As for Hasek, Dr. No clearly explains the the synergy required between the team and the goalie in optimizing Hasek's performance. This has been my point all along about the Sabres. The ability to play to your strengths can never be interpreted as a weakness. This is what made the Sabres coaching - Nolan/Ruff, players and most notably Hasek strong. It is certainly not luck, a claim I never made. This is also what made Toronto strong with Bower once they realized what Bower's strengths were - the ability to poke check when faced with solo scoring threats, etc.

This ability to blend with teammates applies to all goalies which is why it takes longer for RH catching goalies like Theodore to blend then the normal LH catching goalie since the defence and forwards have to make the necessary adjustments.

The difference in the number of TOP 100 teammates for Hasek and Roy is marginal at best and subject to interpretation. Hasek would have more since the Red Wing roster was very fluid compared to the Canadiens and Avalanche.

Second bolded - consider the reduced weight of pads jerseys, improved helmets, fitting and contouring of skates,restrictions on the composition of composite sticks, restrictions on certain technological advances in skate blades, amongst others.

Jagr's defense - do not recall anyone questioning it to date BUT we did now.

Knew the context of the Kelly quote. My point was that his NHL career until the injury and the trade had proved the quote to be fairly inaccurate - like the Ranger scout who passed on Gordie Howe.
I just took things at the time of the trade and offered appropriate explanations.

Shortly I will be offering and explanation in another post regarding Ken Dryden, the Canadiens and the Bruins which I will tie-in with Hasek.

 

[nik jr]

in last year's top 100 debate, overpass noted an interesting point about '56 all star voting.

Here are the all-star team voting records from 1950 to 1957 for defencemen. If the Norris trophy had existed from 1950 on, Kelly could have had a few more. He led the All-star voting for defencemen by a comfortable margin from 1951-1954.

Although he was only a 2nd team all-star in 1956, he was very close behind both Harvey and Gadsby in the voting. Red Burnett wrote that Kelly played part of the season at left wing, and he thought that cost him the 1st team spot on defence. It's certainly arguable that he was considered to be better than Harvey that year, although Harvey won the Norris.

Note on the points: Anywhere I don't have a total, it wasn't listed in the article I read.

1950
Maximum 25 pts, selected by coaches
Mortson 21
Reardon 20
Kelly 17
Reise 17

1951
Maximum 90 pts, sportswriters begin selecting
Kelly 90
Quackenbush 68
Thomson 62
Reise 50

1952
Maximum 90 pts
Kelly 90
Harvey 71
Buller
Thomson

1953
Maximum 90 pts
Kelly 90
Harvey 56
Quackenbush 44
Gadsby 30

1954
Maximum 180 pts, voting is conducted once at midseason and once after the season
Kelly 177
Harvey 130
Gadsby 84
Horton

1955
Maximum 180 pts
Harvey 174
Kelly 151
Goldham 64
Flaman 47

1956
Maximum 180 pts
Harvey 117
Gadsby 116
Kelly 114
Johnson 81
Note: Kelly played left wing for part of the year, and Red Burnett thought it cost him the 1st team spot.

1957
Maximum 180 pts
Harvey 172
Kelly 98
Flaman 79
Gadsby 77

I think I like Kelly a lot more after looking at this. He was the unquestioned best defenceman in hockey for 4 straight years, and there aren't many players who can say that.

i should say, though, that harvey won the norris by a large margin.

NORRIS: (130-161)
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent Points

Semis is winning the first and second round. Theodore has never made it there. Anyways, other goalies have played on great teams their entire career but no one has Patrick Roy's playoff resume. He was arguably the best playoff player in history.




Teams also sent their best defenders and toughest guys to try and clear out Esposito and contain him around the net, which is where most of the goals where scored. They didnt send their best defender to chase Bobby Orr around the rink. As great as Orr was, no one scores all their goals from outside and on the perimeter. From what I remember of when the Canadiens were beating the Bruins they let Orr have it and skate all day as he liked on the perimeter and concentrated on defending the high scoring areas in front of the net and in the slot. Right where Espo was. His presence changed the look of any defense the Bruins faced.



Hasek played longer, Roy played more though. I wonder if you take Hasek's Czech league seasons and backup seasons in the NHL and give him ~65 games credit or so who has more GP.

Haseks last few seasons he was also injury prone, after his unretirement in Detroit and his trip to Ottawa I think the uncertainty behind his health was a detriment to his team. I wouldnt dock him any points in my mind for this, like I wouldnt hold Chelios or Messier's late years against them, but I certainly dont give them much credit.





Likewise though, without Espo in front creating havoc and being the best ever in close in the slot Orr's offensive numbers would be deflated as well. Great players help each other, every single player voted into the top 10 also played with other greats. Yet more than anyone Espo is maligned for being the tag along complementary player. Orr couldnt score everything from the perimeter, neither could he dance through 5 guys with impunity to get into better scoring areas every time. He'd have gotten hurt much faster, or his offensive numbers would be much lower.

Thank you for contributing an excellent post. For the record including playoffs Patrick Roy played 1276 NHL games while Dominik Hasek played 854 NHL games so the difference of 422 games more than compensates for any Czech or other non NHL games. Simply in terms of durability and longevity Roy has it all over Hasek with greater win percentages etc.

Your explanation(bolded) about the Bruins vs the Canadiens has to be developed as there are a number of subtle factors.

First the Canadiens / Bruins rivalry during the the Orr and P. Esposito era has to be divided into two segments. The pre Ken Dryden era and the Ken Dryden era.

The pre Ken Dryden era. The Canadiens had great defensive centers - Beliveau, H.Richard (a RHS center), Backstrom plus a few players like Jacques Lemaire and Bobby Rousseau (a RHS) who could play center. They also had quality left wingers - Gilles Tremblay ( excellent defensively), Dick Duff(quickness), John Ferguson (toughness), Jacques Lemaire ( excellent defensively). They also had a defense that was not star studded but blended very well together - Jacques Laperriere, Terry Harper, Ted Harris, J.C. Tremblay and a young Serge Savard.

The approach to defending the Bruins and Bobby Orr was different. The Canadiens would forecheck mainly with the centers but would not chase Bobby Orr. They would vary the approach sending alternatively LHS and RHS centers, taking different angles and creating different looks. This would cause split second delays in the Boston attack. The strength of the left wingers would act as a semi-trap slowing down the pace or causing longer, high risk passes.

The defense would not get overly physical with Phil Esposito. They settled for small territorial and positional victories. Getting Phil Esposito to one side of the slot or 5 feet closer to the blueline made a difference. The goalies had more reaction time, screens were less effective, and it gave the defense more room and time to get to rebounds or interfere with Espositos shots.

Net result in the two playoff series(1968, 1969), the Canadiens held an 8-2 edge.

The Ken Dryden era. Ken Dryden was the first BIG goalie who could actually play. Cesare Maniago and Gary Smith before Dryden were big but were very pedestrian goalies. By the 1971 playoffs Duff, Gilles Tremblay, Ralph Backstrom and Bobby Rousseau had left replaced by Frank and Pete Mahovlich. Also the core forwards were two years older as were the defensemen. Guy Lapointe replaced an injured Serge Savard. Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito had reached their prime.

Ken Dryden showed the NHL the importance of a BIG goalie who could play. His size covered more net while reducing shooting angles.Also when Dryden went down a greater part of the net was still covered which combined with his reach made scoring more difficult. The concept of vertical angles:

Dr. No from the Jamie Storr SV% Paradox thread -
I've studied Hasek for hours on video, and his understanding of the geometry of hockey - specifically where it relates to the vertical angles - was so far beyond his peers that people are still catching up now. His consistency was not a fluke.

and

It's a very hard style to learn because you've got to have a very good intuition for the game and how flow works. You've also got to have a very good intuition for angles, spacing and other similar concepts (I initially gravitated towards Hasek because it seemed like my mathematics background could really help me). The style also requires a training focus to improve flexibility beyond what typical goaltenders do in their training.

It's hard on your defensemen until you've been together for a long time - when I sub for another goaltender, or when another goaltender subs for me, it's easy to see the problems. With the teams I work with as a coach, it's easier to incorporate because the players all grow together. And although I won't teach the Hasekian style to just any goaltender (it requires a lot of patience and discipline), the vertical angles are taught just about everywhere now, even if the coaches or players don't realize it. Every time you tie ropes to the top corners of the net and move a puck around for a goaltender, you're exposing them to vertical angle concepts (many coaches I've talked with don't consciously realize this).

Some brief (and very basic) material I put together on my website many years back:
http://hockeygoalies.org/advice/rule5.html

With his size and skills Ken Dryden changed the way big goalies played and were taught the position. Though the phrase "vertical angle" did not enter hockey lexicon for ages the impact and theory was basically the same. Dryden's size often forced shooters to miss or shoot into him when upright or when he was down.

The Canadiens did not change thir approach from the pre Dryden era their centers and left wingers defended Bobby Orr. Nor did they change the way the defense handled Phil Esposito. They simply made sure that at every opportunity both Orr and Esposito and the other Bruins were challenged with different looks, that they had to play slightly outside their comfort zone, that the goalie and defense had more reaction time while creating every possible obstruction for Orr and Esposito and the Bruins. The Canadiens adapted very quickly to their new goalie.

While Bobby Orr had a great series 12 points in 7 games and Esposito contributed they were frustrated more often than note as the Canadiens won the series in a huge upset 4-3.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Conditions in place. Posters selected Ovechkin who entered the league when Jagr had one foot out the door. Simply conforming to standards established by other posters.

Not the same at all.

Jagr did not have a foot out the door. He was a top NHL player for 2 of his last 3 years(By top, I mean elite best of the best), and was still a top 35 scorer even in his last year on a pro defense team before jumping ship to the KHL. He was still fully capable of putting in several more NHL years before retiring. Top 10 in scoring twice, Once runner up for the Art Ross and Hart is nowhere near 1 foot out the door, or close to done like Gadsby, Pilote, Harvey and Pronvost were by 1965.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.

What makes you think Clancy will be on the list for voting next round?

 

[lextune]

My thoughts exactly....

I for one would be utterly shocked if Clancy showed up next round.

 

[reckoning]

If Messier isn't up for the next round, I'll have to seriously question the sanity of this board. Many of us had him in our top 20, so I'm curious how low some of you had him since he wasn't among the top 25 in the original lists.

I predict that all four of the #19's will be up next round.

 

[lextune]

If Messier isn't up for the next round, I'll have to seriously question the sanity of this board.

I will fall right out of my chair if Messier and Bossy aren't both up in the next round. (I am sure both of them will be.....99% sure, lol).