Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Hardyvan123]

Okay, so the only 2-way players that can receive credits are the ones that played after TA stats could be made available on the Internet?

sure nice distraction but you have a point here that I have brought up before that is a more complete picture the further one goes along chronologically in time.

But no worries broad conclusions are being made on less supporting evidence, ie Denneny play making ability here.

[MOD]

just to get back to Iggy being voted # 1 by his peers in those 2 categories in a season we have a list or survey of hockey people that virtually ignore or think very little of Denneny why wasn't that a counter point I wonder?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I wasn't aware you wrote to book regarding this process.

yes i guess it's official now since I declared it we are voting on the guys eligible this round right?

You don't want me to bring up guys like Cook and Morenz?

The comparison to cook was totally different since Joliat was in the league for the period of time in question, not to mention he was a totally different type of player.

Then stop holding their contemporaries to standards only reached by these when we're CLEARLY past that point.

it's not the standard of winning the hart it's the total absence from hart voting results for such a long period of time, when other players would gather Hart votes along with their teammates.

case in point we understand why Kurri wasn't getting Hart votes while Wayne was in Edmonton but Morenz didn't have the monopoly like Wayne did over Joliat, in fact Morenz was 2nd when Jolait had his 1st 5th place finish.

Joliat has a very good career his peak isn't as high as many other this round, regular season and playoffs.

 

[MXD]

The comparison to cook was totally different since Joliat was in the league for the period of time in question, not to mention he was a totally different type of player.

You were talking about the timespan between Joliat's Hart votes. That was, 1925-26 to 1933-34.

Bill Cook played in the NHL from 1926-27 to 1936-37...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Explanation

Inspired by some comments in this thread, I did a study on assists-per-goal per team during the Original 6 era: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1760947

Relevant to this thread, Chicago in the 1940s seems to have consistently handed out assists more freely than most teams, which affects Doug Bentley primarily.

1945 rule change about awarding assists was the main factor. Link posted in the thread you started.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dickie Moore St. Louis

Many unsupported comments have been made about Dickie Moore not having an impact during the playoffs on the dynsaty Canadiens because of the overall strength of the teammates.

!968 playoffs, at the age of 37, Dickie Moore led the St. Louis in scoring ahead of players like Red Berenson, etc.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/STL/1968.html

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why Aurele Joliat will be in my top 4

After looking at the numbers and reading through what's been presented in these threads, I have decided that I underrated Joliat a bit on my Round 1 list. I now think he's probably a top 20 winger of all-time.

First, from tarheel's earlier post:

The all-round, complete package guys
Doug Bentley
Toe Blake
Aurele Joliat
Jari Kurri

Dickie Moore could fit the description too, but he's harder to compare to the others, so I'm going to stick with the 4 tarheel listed.

Longevity and consistency as an elite player / career value

I think this is the biggest advantage Joliat has over Blake and Kurri.

Look at Joliat's awards recognition.

Keep in mind that the 1927 and 1928 All Star Teams are the only ones we've been able to dig up from before 1931, and Joliat is on both:

• 5th in Hart voting in 1925 (split league)
• GM-voted 2nd Team All-Star in 1927 (thanks overpass) - one of the few seasons when Joliat dropped out of the top 10 in scoring (actually fell out of the top 20 ) - shows his value as a defensive player
• GM-voted 2nd Team All-Star in 1928

Now after the official All-Star Teams were created for 1931

• 1st Team All-Star LW in 1931
• 2nd Team All-Star LW in 1932 (behind Busher Jackson)
• 5th in AS LW voting in 1933
• 2nd Team All-Star LW in 1934 (behind Busher Jackson), HART TROPHY
• 2nd Team All-Star LW in 1935 (behind Busher Jackson), 5th in Hart voting
• 3rd in AS LW voting in 1936
• 4th in AS LW voting in 1937

That's a significantly longer period of relevance than Bentley, Blake, or Kurri

He was known as a playmaker, playing on a team that may have been stingy at giving away assists

When looking for evidence for the claim that Denneny's Senators may have overcounted assists (conclusion: they probably did, but only by a little), MXD surprised everyone including himself by discovering that Montreal seemed to be the one team that handed out assists quite a bit more sparingly than most teams. He only found the data for the beginning of Joliat's prime, but it's worth noting: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=91375671&postcount=131

(See also reckoning's post for the 1930-31 season which also showed the Canadiens well below average in assists-per-goal, though not at the bottom: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=91605005&postcount=12)

This could be relevant, because Joliat was anecdotally a strong playmaker:

Milt Schmidt, Syl Apps, Teeder Kennedy, Sid Abel, and even Howie Morenz are not classified in the trade as great playmakers, though acknowledged as great hockey players.

"They belong to the 'driving' type of player, Dick Irvin said. "Fellows like Schmidt, Kennedy, and Abel go into the corners and get the puck out to their wings." Apps used to hit the defense at top speed and Drillion would come behind and pick up his garbage. Apps used to get sore when I told him that Drillion profited from his mistakes.

Howie Morenz wasn't a good playmaker, said Elmer Ferguson. "Aurele Joliat was the playmaker on that line and the greatest playmaking left-winger of all time. Just like Bobby Bauer at right wing was the playmaker for the Kraut Line."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=4301,1318041&dq=lach+morenz+irvin&hl=en

If you go to the original article, it seems like puck possession is considered an important aspect of "playmaking." I think a classic "playmaker" was like a point guard in basketball - he was the guy who stickhandled the puck down the ice and made the first pass in the offensive zone - more important back when players couldn't pass the puck forward between zones. This might be why Ferguson says what he says, despite Morenz putting up better assist totals than Joliat.

Point being that Joliat's offensive contributions may be underrated slightly by looking at the stats.

Highly regarded by contemporary opinion

The inaugural 1945 class of the Hockey Hall of Fame consisted entirely of deceased players, so the 1947 class was the first one to induct living players. Dit Clapper, Aurel Joliat, Frank Nighbor, and Eddie Shore were the first still-living men who played hockey in the late 1920s and 1930s to be inducted into the HHOF (in 1947).

In 1962, Frank Boucher picked Joliat as the Left Wing on his "All-Time All-Star team," though it is obvious from the names that he was just picking players he played with or against, which means he just picked Joliat over Jackson: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=4844,3988229&dq=chuck+gardiner+best&hl=en

How I rank these 4 players

1) Joliat. I think he, Blake, and Kurri were probably similar quality players but Joliat maintained that level for quite a bit longer. Joliat will be in my top 4.

2/3. Blake/Kurri. I still can't see any noticeable difference in quality between them. Unless someone makes a good argument, these two will likely be back-to-back on my ballot, probably in the 5-8 range.

4. Bentley. I think he loses his small regular season edge on Blake/Kurri if we take into account Chicago's generosity in handing out assists. And if Bentley has similar regular season value to Blake/Kurri, he gets ranked below them because he lacks the playoff resume (possibly because of opportunity, but that's the way the puck bounces). Bentley will probably not be in my top 8.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why Aurele Joliat will be in my top 4

After looking at the numbers and reading through what's been presented in these threads, I have decided that I underrated Joliat a bit on my Round 1 list. I now think he's probably a top 20 winger of all-time.

First, from tarheel's earlier post:



Dickie Moore could fit the description too, but he's harder to compare to the others, so I'm going to stick with the 4 tarheel listed.

Longevity and consistency as an elite player / career value

I think this is the biggest advantage Joliat has over Blake and Kurri.

Look at Joliat's awards recognition.

Keep in mind that the 1927 and 1928 All Star Teams are the only ones we've been able to dig up from before 1931, and Joliat is on both:

• 5th in Hart voting in 1925 (split league)
• GM-voted 2nd Team All-Star in 1927 (thanks overpass) - one of the few seasons when Joliat dropped out of the top 10 in scoring (actually fell out of the top 20 ) - shows his value as a defensive player
• GM-voted 2nd Team All-Star in 1928

Now after the official All-Star Teams were created for 1931

• 1st Team All-Star LW in 1931
• 2nd Team All-Star LW in 1932 (behind Busher Jackson)
• 5th in AS LW voting in 1933
• 2nd Team All-Star LW in 1934 (behind Busher Jackson), HART TROPHY
• 2nd Team All-Star LW in 1935 (behind Busher Jackson), 5th in Hart voting
• 3rd in AS LW voting in 1936
• 4th in AS LW voting in 1937

That's a significantly longer period of relevance than Bentley, Blake, or Kurri

He was known as a playmaker, playing on a team that may have been stingy at giving away assists

When looking for evidence for the claim that Denneny's Senators may have overcounted assists (conclusion: they probably did, but only by a little), MXD surprised everyone including himself by discovering that Montreal seemed to be the one team that handed out assists quite a bit more sparingly than most teams. He only found the data for the beginning of Joliat's prime, but it's worth noting: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=91375671&postcount=131

(See also reckoning's post for the 1930-31 season which also showed the Canadiens well below average in assists-per-goal, though not at the bottom: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=91605005&postcount=12)

This could be relevant, because Joliat was anecdotally a strong playmaker:



http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=4301,1318041&dq=lach+morenz+irvin&hl=en

If you go to the original article, it seems like puck possession is considered an important aspect of "playmaking." I think a classic "playmaker" was like a point guard in basketball - he was the guy who stickhandled the puck down the ice and made the first pass in the offensive zone - more important back when players couldn't pass the puck forward between zones. This might be why Ferguson says what he says, despite Morenz putting up better assist totals than Joliat.

Point being that Joliat's offensive contributions may be underrated slightly by looking at the stats.

Highly regarded by contemporary opinion

The inaugural 1945 class of the Hockey Hall of Fame consisted entirely of deceased players, so the 1947 class was the first one to induct living players. Dit Clapper, Aurel Joliat, Frank Nighbor, and Eddie Shore were the first still-living men who played hockey in the late 1920s and 1930s to be inducted into the HHOF (in 1947).

In 1962, Frank Boucher picked Joliat as the Left Wing on his "All-Time All-Star team," though it is obvious from the names that he was just picking players he played with or against, which means he just picked Joliat over Jackson: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=4844,3988229&dq=chuck+gardiner+best&hl=en

How I rank these 4 players

1) Joliat. I think he, Blake, and Kurri were probably similar quality players but Joliat maintained that level for quite a bit longer. Joliat will be in my top 4.

2/3. Blake/Kurri. I still can't see any noticeable difference in quality between them. Unless someone makes a good argument, these two will likely be back-to-back on my ballot, probably in the 5-8 range.

4. Bentley. I think he loses his small regular season edge on Blake/Kurri if we take into account Chicago's generosity in handing out assists. And if Bentley has similar regular season value to Blake/Kurri, he gets ranked below them because he lacks the playoff resume (possibly because of opportunity, but that's the way the puck bounces). Bentley will probably not be in my top 8.

Good to see you have come to your senses.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good to see you have come to your senses.

The more I look at it, the more I'm thinking I might actually have Joliat #1 this round. Fewer questions about him than there are about Moore or Denneny. I don't think that's even a groundbreaking statement - not that we should be handcuffed by past lists - but they were all ranked around the same place by this forum in 2009. Funny, looking back at the discussions, I was one of the Joliat naysayers then.

 

[MXD]

I don't have Joliat first in this group, but it's a totally defensible outcome as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT : By defensible, I mean I could rationnalize it and possibly argue for it even if it goes against my findings.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't have Joliat first in this group, but it's a totally defensible outcome as far as I'm concerned.

At this point of the project one could expect 4 or 5 guys vying for 1st place this round, given different criteria.

Joliat still lacks the wow factor or peak of many this round though makes him more a middle pick for me.

His longevity is very good but then again many players excellled well into their 30's in the 30's NHL as well.

Still very hard to put Joliat up ahead of Hull or even Kurri (the player he most resembles this round)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At this point of the project one could expect 4 or 5 guys vying for 1st place this round, given different criteria.

Joliat still lacks the wow factor or peak of many this round though makes him more a middle pick for me.

His longevity is very good but then again many players excellled well into their 30's in the 30's NHL as well.

Still very hard to put Joliat up ahead of Hull or even Kurri (the player he most resembles this round)

As a self-professed "career guy," you should love Joliat.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I am also leaning towards Moore, Denney, Joliat in my top 4, likely in that order. #4 still up for grabs. Could be Hull, Blake or Mikhailov. Kurri the next guy on the list, but don't see him cracking the top 6 here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

As a self-professed "career guy," you should love Joliat.

I like long careers types sure but peaks mean a lot too and so do playoffs and the whole resume, with all of that it's hard to put Joliat on top unless you think his defense is that extraordinary and that seems doubtful with anything presented here or what I have read about him.

 

[MXD]

I ended up having time today instead of tomorrow....

This time, I’m voting Moore first and Denneny second, and that is pretty much set since day one in this current group. I had them exactly that way going in (4th and 5th last round) and they logically go to the top this time around. I’ve expressed myself quite a lot on this topic and feel absolutely no need to rehash those points, but there’s indeed something I want to focus on regarding Moore. He’s often described as a 2 or 3-year peak player, which is, to me, all sorts of wrong. Moore was PPG+ in 59-60. There was only 8 PPG players that season. Amongst the seven others, six are either already in as wingers, or we’re well passed their « center » equivalent spot (Beliveau and Richard). The 7th is Bronco Horvath, whose case is hopefully well-known. And in 60-61, Moore was well on its way to finish 3rd in scoring. Add to that two seasons of mostly 2nd line duties as his best seasons (not many players got his totals on a 2nd line…) and you have a more fair portrayal.

Denneny is probably the player whose career was the most scrutinized since Round 2, and the relevant info is all over the place. I’m pretty much on both sides of the fences in his case (he’s not the 2nd best playmaker in that group, but he’s not Brett Hull either; he’s not exactly a defensive stalwart, but in a round with all sorts of Brett Hull and Busher Jackson, or just indifferent players like Jarome Iginla and Boris Mikhailov, he doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb; he’s not playoffs-Moore, but he’s not a playoffs-Joliat either – probably the most important one-on-one comparison so far… at least as far as my rankings are concerned). But in terms of offensive value, he’s a quite easy first here, and was possibly first last round as well (or, at worst, 2nd to Bathgate).

I’m ranking Joliat 3rd. There’s something of a hole in the middle. But that hole is why Joliat isn’t already in, not why he shouldn’t be voted in this round. Add to this what’s arguably the most « complete » resume (a long career, always useful regardless of numbers) and you have a player who’s probably closer to Denneny than to any player below. In fact, notwithstanding playoffs, I would have given a very long look to Joliat for 2nd.

4th is where it becomes touchy, and I’m still undecided as of yet. This is Mikhailov’s or St-Louis’s spot. Some may think it’s a bit high for Mikhailov, but there’s just something about his game that seems to make it well-adapted to better competition, something he did not always face, though hardly fault of its own, and that would make those around him better. I wouldn’t call him a plug, but that’s kindof the idea. I tend to see the lack of praise for Mikhailov as a detriment for every other Eastern Bloc players – as if observers there were focused on the wrong thing. His ranking might seem high in view the fact that Firsov isn’t available, but Firsov would’ve been a serious Top-8 candidate here, nothing more, nothing less. So, not that big of a gap between Firsov and Mikhailov.

As for St-Louis, really, how much should he be punished for failing to impress otherwise stupid people? His numbers really mirrors Bathgate’s. This said, the Conference/Division argument has to be given some weight (was it given some weight in regards to Ovechkin?), and he did have some average seasons. Solid playoffs resume. Ask me to rank St-Louis in 6 months, and my opinion might be different. His Art Rosses are certainly stronger than what I thought they were at first glance (really, only Crosby would have passed him; 2004 is not exactly a high-water mark, though).
6th will be Jari Kurri. Not much has been said about him this round (Matnor’s tables on scoring proportions are interesting, but ANY player playing regularly with Gretzky would have a table looking like that) and, if anything, confirm what keeps Kurri low : there’s a legit concern that his gaudy offensive totals could directly be explained by playing with Gretzky. Which isn’t to say he wasn’t good, and it’s actually a positive that a player was able to mesh very well with Gretzky. His totals might be overstated, but his defense wasn’t. Can’t blame a player for not being as useful to its team than Messier and Gretzky were, at least not at this poitn.

Right away : Jarome Iginla and Busher Jackson will be kept out. I clearly expressed my views on Jackson; TDDM’s rebuttal was good, but if anything, it’s closer to an argument as to why Jackson would be a decent Top-8 candidate next round. There is quite a few flawed players this round, and all of the them are better than Jackson. Iginla? It appears I had slightly underrated him at first. I don’t think I’m able to word my thoughts in such a way that I wouldn’t appear to penalize him for Reverse Cup Counting or for not considering that his prime was long enough to not care that much about post-prime. So I’ll reserve my thoughts.

The other player kept out will be Doug Bentley. I guess it’s just about perceiving Toe Blake as being a little bit better at everything than Bentley was, not to mention Bentley’s resume has some question marks (Chicago assists count sticks out like a sore thumb in the case of a player that was more of a goalscorer). I don’t dispute the fact he was a good skater/backchecker, but I certainly wouldn’t his defense any significantly above average. I’m totally open to rank him below Iginla and Jackson in the next rounds.

So Blake and Hull remains. I had Blake first, and will probably keep him there. Amongst all War Stars, Blake is the one we’d have to be the most lenient on, considering he was indeed a star before the war and because he did a lot with… not much. Iginla’s parters were singled out, and I’m exactly sure they were worse than Blake’s. Being the 3rd best player on his line for his post-42 career isn’t a slight considering who his linemates were, and he’s actually was good playoff performer (not significantly better or worse than Hull, which might be against common knowledge). As for Hull, I can’t exactly consider him being a compiler for his post 3 big seasons, but he does fall somewhere between the Jaromir Jagr and the Mike Gartner spectre. Holes in his game are well documented in this thread. But he was good at what he was good, decent playoff producer in spite of some early exits who shouldn’t have been. Hull would need to be the absolute best at all offense-related aspects to make it. My reasoning : If there’s a debate as to who the best goalscorer is, who the best offensive player (overall) is and as to who has the best peak – which is definitely the case with the current group – it’s safe to say Hull won’t even get in the Top-4 for me. With new players coming in – and I don’t see any new players having any form of a case against Hull – he’ll probably make my Top-4 next round, barring abnormal number of candidates getting in the list. Considering what we’ve been through so far, he’s far from a lock, lol.

1 – Moore
2 – Denneny
3 – Joliat
4/5 – Mikhailov
4/5 – St-Louis
6 – Kurri
7 – Blake
8 – Hull

 

[seventieslord]

1 – Moore
2 – Denneny
3 – Joliat
4/5 – Mikhailov
4/5 – St-Louis
6 – Kurri
7 – Blake
8 – Hull

my list will be almost exactly the same! Swap Moore and Denneny, and swap St. Louis and Iginla, and that's pretty much it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I searched the 2009 project for info on Joliat and came across this post:

Joliat: I'm excluding 1935 and 1937, when he was past his offensive prime. He's 4th in points per game during the span (behind only Boucher, Morenz and Cook). A good ranking and the three players ahead of him have all already been voted in. A solid 6 pts in 8 non-NHL Stanley Cup final games.

It's always tough to evaluate playoff performances from the incredibly low-scoring playoffs of the late 1920s and 1930s, but it seems Joliat was pretty good.

 

[ted2019]

I searched the 2009 project for info on Joliat and came across this post:



It's always tough to evaluate playoff performances from the incredibly low-scoring playoffs of the late 1920s and 1930s, but it seems Joliat was pretty good.

I really don't think Iggy is getting enough credit for what He did in Calgary. He managed to score 525 Goals there with the following players as His Centers during that time.
Olli Jokinen
Craig Conroy
Daymond Langkow
Matt Lombardi

Switch out a Brett Hull with Jarome Iginla and lets see on how many Goals Hull would've scored with those guys. Iginla carried the franchise for 15+ seasons and if it wasn't for Iginla, Calgary would've never made the playoffs with the other players that team had.

 

[ted2019]

I searched the 2009 project for info on Joliat and came across this post:



It's always tough to evaluate playoff performances from the incredibly low-scoring playoffs of the late 1920s and 1930s, but it seems Joliat was pretty good.

after looking at things, this is what I've come up with.

Iginla: Maybe a round or 2 too early for Iggy.
St. Louis: Clutch player, but possibly a round too early.
Denneny: In My top 4
Bentley: On the fence with Him, Still have to compare Him with others on the list.
Jackson: Maybe I'm missing something with Jackson, but He's way too early IMO.
Kurri: For Me, the playoffs put Kurri in My top 4 right now. Great 2 way player that played 4 years too long.
Blake: No too sure on what to think about Blake. Still deciding on Him.
Moore: Moore could make My top 4 or He could not. Moore is a tricky player to rate in this grouping.
Brett Hull: Purely one dimensional. Next round He would be in My top 4, not this one.
Joliat: Doesn't have a chance this round.
Mikhailov: Could make it this round, maybe around number 4.

Changed My mind a bit, especially on Iginla. My top guys are ( in no order)
Iginla
Denneny
Moore
Kurri
Mikhailov
Joliat

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is where I'm at now. I'm not going to vote until tomorrow, so there could be minor changes.

1. Aurele Joliat - the most complete player available this round

2/3. Dickie Moore - I think there are serious questions about his career - lack of Hart voting, lack of healthy seasons outside the dynasty years. But I can't shake how almost universally highly thought of he was by people who watched him play in retrospect. The only winger left to have a serious showing on the 1998 THN Top 100 list, I believe (a list put together by 50 "experts"), and it isn't hard to find people who held him in higher regard than Geoffrion (though I think Geoffrion clearly had the better career). Makes me tend to think that the questions have favorable answers.

2/3. Jarome Iginla - I think he has the best record of the 4 post-expansion NHLers. I don't think he's far enough behind Brett Hull as a scorer to make up for everything else he brings. His stats were put up with basically no help. Iginla led his team in scoring 11 times, tied with Jaromir Jagr for second most all-time among wingers: (Source). Hull led his teams in scoring 9 times, by the way, also quite good.

Iginla been one of the faces of the NHL for over a decade. His health and longevity are pretty remarkable, considering his physical style of play. IMO, his career snuck up on us like Selanne's did a few years ago, and I think this ranking will be a lot less controversial in a few years. Perhaps the last true star power forward in the NHL.

4/5. Boris Mikhailov - Hopefully Batis can post more today before I actually vote. I'm not totally sure of this position. But Mikhailov was a star player for a long time in the USSR. Long term team captain, in addition to his stats. Being voted Player of the Year twice is impressive, even if it happened in the gap between Kharlamov and Makarov.

4/5. Cy Denneny. Denneny is the player who keeps dropping for me this round. I still like him better than Brett Hull because of his assist numbers, but I can no longer have him THAT far ahead of Hull. Seeing overpass post his Stanley Cup finals numbers (NOT included in a hockey reference search of his NH playoffs) made me reevaluate just how good he was in the playoffs. He was still great in the playoffs - just not all-time legend great.

6/7/8/9 (I realize one of these has to be not ranked). I'm listing them alphabetically because I'm not quite sure how to rank them yet: Blake, Hull, Kurri, St. Louis.

I think Blake and Kurri likely make my list, partly because it would feel wrong to include one and not the other (yeah, lame reason, I know). I do love their overall games, though. I may very well not rank Brett Hull (his non-contribution to the puck possession game is a huge deal to me, as is the consistently mediocre plus/minus that goes along with it), but the fact that I'm considering him at all should be considered something of a small victory for Hull advocates - I thought he was an easy last going into this round

10/11. Bentley/Jackson. I don't really think there are any not-yet available NHL players left who are better than them, but someone has to be at the bottom.

 

[Plural]

I really don't think Iggy is getting enough credit for what He did in Calgary. He managed to score 525 Goals there with the following players as His Centers during that time.
Olli Jokinen
Craig Conroy
Daymond Langkow
Matt Lombardi

Switch out a Brett Hull with Jarome Iginla and lets see on how many Goals Hull would've scored with those guys. Iginla carried the franchise for 15+ seasons and if it wasn't for Iginla, Calgary would've never made the playoffs with the other players that team had.

Outside of Kipper, that wasn't too special team. But there is a case to be made that few seasons worth, Kipprusoff was the best Calgary player. Obviously it has little bearing in the winger discussion, since he is a goalie.

Jokinen was not at his best when in Flames. But he was a solid offensive center.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Voting Open

Voting is now open and will close on Thursday the 30th at 9pm EST. Please PM me your votes for only the top 8 wingers with numbers next to each name (i.e. 1. Gordie Howe). You will receive confirmation that your vote has been received within 24hrs. If you do not receive confirmation please re-send votes and let me know with a post in this thread.

Thanks,
HT18

 

[Canadiens1958]

Voted

Voted.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So Blake and Hull remains. I had Blake first, and will probably keep him there. Amongst all War Stars, Blake is the one we’d have to be the most lenient on, considering he was indeed a star before the war and because he did a lot with… not much. Iginla’s parters were singled out, and I’m exactly sure they were worse than Blake’s. Being the 3rd best player on his line for his post-42 career isn’t a slight considering who his linemates were, and he’s actually was good playoff performer (not significantly better or worse than Hull, which might be against common knowledge). As for Hull, I can’t exactly consider him being a compiler for his post 3 big seasons, but he does fall somewhere between the Jaromir Jagr and the Mike Gartner spectre. Holes in his game are well documented in this thread. But he was good at what he was good, decent playoff producer in spite of some early exits who shouldn’t have been. Hull would need to be the absolute best at all offense-related aspects to make it. My reasoning : If there’s a debate as to who the best goalscorer is, who the best offensive player (overall) is and as to who has the best peak – which is definitely the case with the current group – it’s safe to say Hull won’t even get in the Top-4 for me. With new players coming in – and I don’t see any new players having any form of a case against Hull – he’ll probably make my Top-4 next round, barring abnormal number of candidates getting in the list. Considering what we’ve been through so far, he’s far from a lock, lol.

Let me say that even I'm surprised at to how some people are viewing Hull and his offense, it's behind incredible really.

Wow to the part in bold, when Hull was good he was good, as in his 3 year peak...seriously?

Decent playoff performer? once again seriously?

Not in the top 4 offensively this round...again seriously what flawed metrics are you suing here?

The understatement of Hull's offensive game this round is like calling Richard a decent playoff performer.

I get, but don't agree with the value being placed on it, the difference between his game outside of offense but seriously the comments above can't be serious can they?

even without any context Hull in hands down a lock for top 2 spots, #1 really, for offensive production, regular season, playoffs, peak, longevity ect..... really hard to get around that fact...unless one completely ignores it I guess.

One really has to wonder on what observers viewing this thread will think of the understatement of comments that Hull has had reguarding his offensive this round.

 

[MXD]

Hardy, please abstain from quoting my posts if you're to distort them. Thank you.

 

[seventieslord]

This is where I'm at now. I'm not going to vote until tomorrow, so there could be minor changes.

1. Aurele Joliat - the most complete player available this round

2/3. Dickie Moore - I think there are serious questions about his career - lack of Hart voting, lack of healthy seasons outside the dynasty years. But I can't shake how almost universally highly thought of he was by people who watched him play in retrospect. The only winger left to have a serious showing on the 1998 THN Top 100 list, I believe (a list put together by 50 "experts"), and it isn't hard to find people who held him in higher regard than Geoffrion (though I think Geoffrion clearly had the better career). Makes me tend to think that the questions have favorable answers.

2/3. Jarome Iginla - I think he has the best record of the 4 post-expansion NHLers. I don't think he's far enough behind Brett Hull as a scorer to make up for everything else he brings. His stats were put up with basically no help. Iginla led his team in scoring 11 times, tied with Jaromir Jagr for second most all-time among wingers: (Source). Hull led his teams in scoring 9 times, by the way, also quite good.

Iginla been one of the faces of the NHL for over a decade. His health and longevity are pretty remarkable, considering his physical style of play. IMO, his career snuck up on us like Selanne's did a few years ago, and I think this ranking will be a lot less controversial in a few years. Perhaps the last true star power forward in the NHL.

4/5. Boris Mikhailov - Hopefully Batis can post more today before I actually vote. I'm not totally sure of this position. But Mikhailov was a star player for a long time in the USSR. Long term team captain, in addition to his stats. Being voted Player of the Year twice is impressive, even if it happened in the gap between Kharlamov and Makarov.

4/5. Cy Denneny. Denneny is the player who keeps dropping for me this round. I still like him better than Brett Hull because of his assist numbers, but I can no longer have him THAT far ahead of Hull. Seeing overpass post his Stanley Cup finals numbers (NOT included in a hockey reference search of his NH playoffs) made me reevaluate just how good he was in the playoffs. He was still great in the playoffs - just not all-time legend great.

6/7/8/9 (I realize one of these has to be not ranked). I'm listing them alphabetically because I'm not quite sure how to rank them yet: Blake, Hull, Kurri, St. Louis.

I think Blake and Kurri likely make my list, partly because it would feel wrong to include one and not the other (yeah, lame reason, I know). I do love their overall games, though. I may very well not rank Brett Hull (his non-contribution to the puck possession game is a huge deal to me, as is the consistently mediocre plus/minus that goes along with it), but the fact that I'm considering him at all should be considered something of a small victory for Hull advocates - I thought he was an easy last going into this round

10/11. Bentley/Jackson. I don't really think there are any not-yet available NHL players left who are better than them, but someone has to be at the bottom.

Good to see the Iginla support. Has anyone up for voting in this project had to do so much with so little?

I found room for Hull. Barely. The thing about him for me is, his production is not the only thing to judge him by. He was a very specialized player at finishing, but he needed all the other moving parts to be working well for him to be able to finish.

A team of 5 Brett Hulls would get destroyed by a team of 5 of anyone else in this round. I know that's a weak way to judge a player singularly, but there are other elements to everyone else here and not him.