Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

[MXD]

I hate every goaltender metric or assessment tool which doesn't lead to the ineluctable conclusion that Ron Tugnutt had a better night than Réjean Lemelin on March 21st 1991.

 

[VanIslander]

How many times have you seen a game where the announced Three Stars includes the goalie who 'earned' a shutout when it should be bloody obvious to those who just saw the game that the goalie was nothing special that night, that a couple of defensemen, forwards and perhaps excellent coaching was the difference.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Bad guess!

A goalie could have given up 3 or 4 goals on weak scoring opportunities but his team scored 4 or 5 goals by the end of the second period.

Sure. But is that in conflict with the statement that a goaltender cannot surrender something that they do not have? A 4 GA goaltender can surrender a 5-4 lead as you say, but a 4 GA goaltender cannot surrender a lead in a 4-0 game.

The problem comes from rewarding the latter no different than you would reward a goaltender from protecting a 1-0 lead. Martin Brodeur holding a 2-1 lead in Game 2 of the 2001 Stanley Cup Finals is literally treated no different than him losing 5-0 in Game 1 of the same series, because both contribute exactly 1 GP while neither triggers the negative occurrence.

Only goaltenders with leads can lose them - just as only goaltenders who win 3 games can lose in Game 7. Measurements of negative occurrences that have a positive performance prerequisite before slapping the goaltender down for not winning are going to be prejudiced against goaltenders who meet that positive performance prerequisite most often.

So it wasn’t a “bad guess,” because I wasn’t really guessing; I just like to use polite phrasing.

 

[Sentinel]

Question deserves an answer. Main-board has active project- in the low-20s at the time of this writing.

Or: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/the-22nd-best-player-in-nhl-history.2560577/

We could sneer- but I won't (well... not so much, anyway). I think they were a mere transposition away from getting the order of the Big Four just right.

You'll see worse-looking lists. Bowman. Fischler. NHL-100. Main-board effort looks jurist-sober compared to those three iterations.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Bobby Orr
4. Gordie Howe
5. Jaromir Jagr
6. Sidney Crosby
7. Dominik Hasek
8. Alexander Ovechkin
9. Jean Beliveau
10. Bobby Hull
11. Maurice Richard
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Patrick Roy
14. Ray Bourque
15. Doug Harvey
16. Mark Messier
17. Phil Esposito
18. Guy Lafleur
19. Martin Brodeur
20. Joe Sakic
21. Steve Yzerman

I actually like this list! A lot! Sure, my Top 4 looks different, and Brodeur doesn't belong anywhere near Top 20, but it's still quite respectable. Morenz and Shore are missing, and, of course, no Soviets here.

 

[Sentinel]

Strawman

Saying Potvin has an edge in leadership doesn't imply Lidstrom isn't a leader.

You said "Potvin is a leader," when comparing him to Lidstrom. That pretty much implies that Lidstrom was not a leader. That's wrong. They were both leaders, enormously respected in the game. I cannot differentiate between degrees of "leadership," and I suspect neither can anybody here, not being in the locker room and all. What I know is: as far as "leadership" goes, Yzerman's shoes were incredible hard to fill. Lidstrom did it, and nobody blinked an eye.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You said "Potvin is a leader," when comparing him to Lidstrom. That pretty much implies that Lidstrom was not a leader. That's wrong. They were both leaders, enormously respected in the game. I cannot differentiate between degrees of "leadership," and I suspect neither can anybody here, not being in the locker room and all. What I know is: as far as "leadership" goes, Yzerman's shoes were incredible hard to fill. Lidstrom did it, and nobody blinked an eye.

You weren't even quoting me, but someone else, who said there was an argument for Potvin > Lidstrom based on many things including leadership.This doesn't imply Lidstrom isn't a leader.

If you want to establish that Potvin = Lidstrom as leaders, be my guess.I don't think you're gonna get a lot of mileage out of that.

 

[MXD]

You said "Potvin is a leader," when comparing him to Lidstrom. That pretty much implies that Lidstrom was not a leader. That's wrong. They were both leaders, enormously respected in the game. I cannot differentiate between degrees of "leadership," and I suspect neither can anybody here, not being in the locker room and all. What I know is: as far as "leadership" goes, Yzerman's shoes were incredible hard to fill. Lidstrom did it, and nobody blinked an eye.

...That's the thing.

Lidstrom filled Yzerman's shoes.
Potvin made his own.

Seriously, if I wanted to compare a player, ANY player to Denis Potvin in order to make that player look better than Denis Potvin, leadership is just the last thing I'd raise (save for Jean Beliveau).

It's not a slight against Lidstrom, which I consider a slightly better player Potvin all in all (that longevity advantage is... not small).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Is it too late to nickname someone who has been retired for 30 years “The Cobbler”?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'd like to hear a comparison between Potvin and Bourque at their very best.I watched both of them, Potvin on tapes and Bourque in real time, but someone who saw both in real time could answer that better.Who was the best at their peak?

The thing that bothers me with Bourque's peak is that it coincides with Messier's prime years and the intersection of Gretzky's late prime and Lemieux' prime.Roy too.That's a lot of shadows over your spotlight.And then his continuous excellence blurries the fact that he had a prime.

 

[Sentinel]

...That's the thing.

Lidstrom filled Yzerman's shoes.
Potvin made his own.

Seriously, if I wanted to compare a player, ANY player to Denis Potvin in order to make that player look better than Denis Potvin, leadership is just the last thing I'd raise (save for Jean Beliveau).

It's not a slight against Lidstrom, which I consider a slightly better player Potvin all in all (that longevity advantage is... not small).

Again: how do you distinguish between leaders? What are the degrees of leadership?

Sure, Potvin made his own, because he joined his club pretty much the same time the club joined the League. Lidstrom filled Yzerman's shoes: Yzerman was older and a long-serving captain by the time Lidstrom joined the club (and by some bizarre coincidence, said club started routinely making playoffs). But after Yzerman retired, it took an exceptional leader not to evoke a single negative comparison from anybody.

Overall I think Lidstrom's leadership qualities are greatly underrated, as this thread demonstrates. He should absolutely be mentioned in the same breath as Beliveau, Potvin, Messier, Yzerman, and Toews. He just wasn't Canadian, that's all.

 

[VanIslander]

The praise for Yzerman's leadership was loud and often. For Lidstrom? Quiter and less frequent.

Heck, Bourque's leadership was heralded more than Lidstrom's.

It'd take some concerted research effort to sway opinion on this.

Otherwise, at best, I'd grant Lidstrom was a good leader in the way Sakic was.

 

[sr edler]

Did Lidas even sniff the Mark Messier Leadership Award?

On a serious note, leadership is such a hard-to-quantify concept I don't even know why we should try to debate it extensively when we already have more tangible stuff to plow through. On Team Sweden though, Lidas was never the go-to guy for any form of captaincy. Always considered too quiet, I guess. Peter Forsberg was also never considered captain material, considered too emotional/grumpy.

 

[VanIslander]

In the first couple of rounds captaincy and leadership isn't much of a factor (the greatest five or six wingers certainly get no brownie points).

Messier and Bourque I've witnessed and admired their leadership a lot. So they will get some kuddos. Research (not stats) will need to be done and I'll gladly dig stuff up.

There are some great studies of the greatest leaders in NHL history. It will be nice to reference specifics when the time comes.

Conn Smythe, who oversaw decades of Leaf greats, was emphatic about who the greatest leader for the franchise ever was. Guess who? (No, not Kennedy, though Smythe prefaces his remarks by giving the: "with all due respect for Kennedy")

 

[MXD]

In the first couple of rounds captaincy and leadership isn't much of a factor (the greatest five or six wingers certainly get no brownie points).

Sorry, but...
You're not putting Richard on the same foot as Jagr, I hope?

 

[VanIslander]

Was Richard an exceptional team leader? Please cite sources not presumptions or tangential factors like popularity with fans and media. Sincerely, it will take cited research to show him as elite as a leader on the team.

It's not about being a leader vs. Not being a leader... in the top20 range leadership has to be a considerable difference to make any difference.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Trying to sit here and measure an immeasurable thing in a situation that you've never been even close to is a huge waste of time...

If you're a good read of people, you can make some reasonable calls...like, I've been to enough Devils games and seen enough of them (and even know a few Devils from the time) that I know Scott Stevens was a really strong leader...I don't know this about Nicklas Lidstrom, I don't even know it about Steve Yzerman...I've read some things, I've seen them play hundreds of games each...but I don't know to what level they're a better leader or worse leader than Scott Stevens...nor do I have to...

There's guys that you know did it well, there's guys that you know probably didn't do it well or were even a detriment at times (Mike Richards for example, even Ziggy Palffy maybe) and then everyone else (which is gonna be like 98% of players) that are in the middle...

Trying to say that Potvin is a 9 on the leadership scale and Lidstrom is an 8.7 is a bigger waste of time than me calculating how large of a percentage a negative value makes up of a positive integer...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Adjusted my ratio of "crucial" goals by going [Crucial Goal Totals] / [Total GA - Garbage Time]

Best Adj. Ratio by percentage:
1955 Plante (17.39%)
1963 Sawchuk (32.35%)
1992 Roy (35.71%)
2000 Roy (36.67%)
1958 Plante (38.89%)

 

[blogofmike]

Would it be easier to take stats from nhl.com and figure out where they should be assigned?

For example, Patrick Roy lost 11 out of 66 playoff games where he had a lead after 40 minutes from 1996-2003. www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggregate=1&report=leadingtrailing&reportType=season&seasonFrom=19951996&seasonTo=20022003&gameType=3&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=lossAfterLead2p

With the Habs he was quite good, but I am more hesitant to assign credit given the 2-goalie system early in his run. NHL.com - Stats

Losing a game after having the lead after 2 periods is partly a team stat though, and doesn't account for bad goals that cost you a tie or lead earned late in the game. Cherrypicking the 88 Oilers as an example, they had the firepower to not care who scored first (9-1 vs 7-1), and have a 2-2 record when trailing after 2 (varies, but teams are typically winning 10%-12% of those playoff games.)

 

[Michael Farkas]

Stats are stats, they're never going to tell you enough...no matter how you chop them up or how many data points you get...but we don't have the resources to ask people to go back and watch every one of Roy's 584 goals surrendered, but we can try to proxy it as best we can...whether I did that or not, I have no idea...whether I laid the groundwork for something better, I have no idea...but I know for a fact that save pct. isn't going to get us close...so I had to go beyond that...

But these are good data points too...a lot of ways to interpret that data and a deeper dive can be made...

You look at even winning games when leading after 1 (all-time):
Anaheim .854
New Jersey .849
Tampa Bay .844

One could wager it took some pretty strong goaltending to do that...or it took good, timely scoring to do it...

Goals by period...
Anaheim (162 GP): 121, 140, 148, 24
New Jersey (257 GP): 212, 230, 237, 18
Tampa Bay (133 GP): 101, 112, 126, 15

Per game rate:
Ana 0.75 | 0.86 | 0.91
NJ 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.92
TB 0.76 | 0.84 | 0.95

So, we see - from 30,000 feet - that Tampa scores a lot late, so they can potentially overcome first goals or even a surrendered lead. This makes some sense given that they've never really had a franchise goalie...

Just browsing, at 148 goals in 182 games (again, all time), the Avs are a low scoring 3rd period team...maybe that's to Roy's benefit or maybe that's all on the post-Sakic Avs...

 

[MXD]

Was Richard an exceptional team leader? Please cite sources not presumptions or tangential factors like popularity with fans and media. Sincerely, prepare stuff on it.

It's not about being a leader vs. Not being a leader... in the top20 range leadership has to be a considerable difference to make any difference.

*MOD EDIT*

If you want to claim that Jaromir Jagr has something on Maurice Richard as far as leadership is concerned, the onus is on you do to so clearly, and to cite sources to that effect.

*MOD EDIT*

(And that's after suggesting a list with no Dit Clapper should get rejected)

 

[VanIslander]

[MOD]

I think there may be a difference but questioned if it's a 'considerable' difference between Richard and Jagr because merely being a captain vs. not wins no brownie points. The question is: Was his leadership exceptional? That's the question that moves the needle in my deliberations. For example, Gretzky was a long time captain but Howe not so long, certainly not through the dynasty years. But this difference is immaterial to reflecting on their listing position, that is, unless a great case is made of the signifigance of the difference.

 

[VanIslander]

[MOD]

I specify what is needed to persuade me of the importance of leadership to listing.

This entire exercise is supposed to be about persuading each other, using reasons and research to convince each other. Part of that process is figuring out what's needed, what's important.

There are so many factors to consider, kinds of reasons. For example, one voter pimps trophy counting. Instead of ignoring him, pointing out it's a start not an end, and why, advances the discussion and opens up possibilities to influence each other (eg., he could reply: it's not everything, but trophies are important. To which one counters: 2nd and 3rd place trophy voting is also significant. But, as seventieslord said earlier, don't cite 10th or lower trophy voting because it makes no difference to us in this project - now if one thinks a few mere votes is significant, then argue for it and change our minds).

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Bobby Orr
4. Gordie Howe
5. Jaromir Jagr
6. Sidney Crosby
7. Dominik Hasek
8. Alexander Ovechkin
9. Jean Beliveau
10. Bobby Hull
11. Maurice Richard
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Patrick Roy
14. Ray Bourque
15. Doug Harvey
16. Mark Messier
17. Phil Esposito
18. Guy Lafleur
19. Martin Brodeur
20. Joe Sakic
21. Steve Yzerman

I actually like this list! A lot! Sure, my Top 4 looks different, and Brodeur doesn't belong anywhere near Top 20, but it's still quite respectable. Morenz and Shore are missing, and, of course, no Soviets here.

For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that their endeavor covers NHL-history. On that basis, the lack of Soviets is understandable.

 

[MXD]

[MOD]

I specify what is needed to persuade me of the importance of leadership to listing.

This entire exercise is supposed to be about persuading each other, using reasons and research to convince each other. Part of that process is figuring out what's needed, what's important.

There are so many factors to consider, kinds of reasons. For example, one voter pimps trophy counting. Instead of ignoring him, pointing out it's a start not an end, and why, advances the discussion and opens up possibilities to influence each other (eg., he could reply: it's not everything, but trophies are important. To which one counters: 2nd and 3rd place trophy voting is also significant. But, as seventieslord said earlier, don't cite 10th or lower trophy voting because it makes no difference to us in this project - now if one thinks a few mere votes is significant, then argue for it and change our minds).

I really, but really don't care.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

*MOD EDIT*

If you want to claim that Jaromir Jagr has something on Maurice Richard as far as leadership is concerned, the onus is on you do to so clearly, and to cite sources to that effect.

*MOD EDIT*

(And that's after suggesting a list with no Dit Clapper should get rejected)

I believe I made that suggestion first and I want credit for it.