ted2019
History of Hockey
Does anyone have Tom Johnson up for consideration? He broke up Harvey's streak of Norris victories, but all and all, he was a very solid 2 way defensemen.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (The Sequel)
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
- Status
Richard's reputation is a very interesting one since he has always been in the minds of hockey fans as the guy with the most Cups. That fact alone will guarantee that he never falls off of the average fan's conscious. So, when it comes time to makes these lists, the average fan, and the 1980's oriented media (that's when most of the current media members got their start) will look and see that his stats aren't that mind blowing. But, he has 11 Cups so he must have done something right, and they'll give him a token spot on the list. And that is all Richard is known for nowadays, 11 Cups. The man known as "11 Cup Richard" has come to now be overrated by the media and by the average fan. If your argument starts with Stanley Cups, IMO, it isn't a god one.
But, note that I said the man known as "11 Cup Richard", because the other Richard, the one that is:
- Arguably the best two way forward of the late 1950s to early 1960s, based on contemporary opinion
- Top three, at minimum, ES producer during his prime
- 7x Top-10 in scoring despite seeing extremely little PP time throughout his career
- 1x 1st AST C, 3x 2nd AST C
- 2x Assist titles
- Leading scorer of the 1960 SC win
Conclusion: He is massively overrated by his 11 Cups, but at the same time, the 11 Cups are what is keeping his name in the minds of hockey fans, and making up for the unknown aspects of Richard listed above. He is overrated, but at the same time, he's underrated. It's an interesting paradox. There's only one other player that I can think of off the top of my head with the same paradox: 51 year old Gordie Howe that played forever vs Six time Hart and Art Ross Trophy Winner, 1952-53 season as dominant as any of Lemieux's and Gretzky's season Howe.
I would personally have Richard top-50 on my list.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Wayne Gretzky, +/- overview compared to other centers.
Centers Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Centers Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Oiler Years - Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Oiler Years - Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Post Oilers - Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Post Oilers - Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Oiler Gretzky approached Bobby Orr in RS and Playoff game impact.
Gretzky RS +520 / PO + 89
Orr RS +582 / PO +60
Gretzky played almost double the number of games that Orr did in the playoffs.
Post Oilers Gretzky RS -33/ PO +2.
Amongst skaters since 1988-89 Gretzky ranks 3747th in RS +/-. Home +46, away -79 splits.
Definitely not #1 All-Time numbers.
Far from impressive.
Centers Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Centers Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Oiler Years - Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Oiler Years - Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Post Oilers - Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Post Oilers - Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Oiler Gretzky approached Bobby Orr in RS and Playoff game impact.
Gretzky RS +520 / PO + 89
Orr RS +582 / PO +60
Gretzky played almost double the number of games that Orr did in the playoffs.
Post Oilers Gretzky RS -33/ PO +2.
Amongst skaters since 1988-89 Gretzky ranks 3747th in RS +/-. Home +46, away -79 splits.
Definitely not #1 All-Time numbers.
Far from impressive.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Because of the nickname Digging Dickie I've always viewed him as more of a Holmstrom/Ovechkin type of defensive player, i.e. a tough guy who can battle it out at the boards, but not one to really be very effective against an oncoming attacker. But I may have misinterpreted his role?
Last edited:
Sentinel
Registered User
TDMM has mentioned that the tables consisting of Richard's dominance at ES have been lost due to the migration. Looking at the thread you provided and using the data that the poster @overpass used which he provided me during this year's ATD, I can reconstruct the numbers.
This is only from 1959-60 to 1966-67. Notable scorers during that time period sorted by total ESP:
B. Hull: 534 GP, 432 ESP, 0.81 ESP PPG
H. Richard: 506 GP, 397 ESP, 0.78 ESP PPG
S. Mikita: 548 GP, 389 ESP, 0.71 ESP PPG
N. Ullman: 549 GP, 382 ESP, 0.70 ESP PPG
G. Howe: 552 GP, 371 ESP, 0.67 ESP PPG
A. Bathgate: 536 GP, 357 ESP, 0.67 ESP PPG
F. Mahovlich: 537 GP, 350 ESP, 0.65 ESP PPG
J. Bucyk: 514 GP, 323 ESP, 0.63 ESP PPG
A. Delvecchio: 558 GP, 320 ESP, 0.57 ESP PPG
J. Beliveau: 487 GP, 317 ESP, 0.65 ESP PPG
Flip side, same guys but sorted by total PPP.
G. Howe: 552 GP, 207 PPP, 0.38 PPP PPG
J. Beliveau: 487 GP, 191 PPP, 0.39 PPP PPG
S. Mikita: 548 GP, 190 PPP, 0.35 PPP PPG
B. Hull: 534 GP, 171 PPP, 0.32 PPP PPG
A. Bathgate: 536 GP, 158 PPP, 0.29 PPP PPG
A. Delvecchio: 558 GP, 150 PPP, 0.27 PPP PPG
N. Ullman: 549 GP, 128 PPP, 0.23 PPP PPG
F. Mahovlich: 537 GP, 125 PPP, 0.23 PPP PPG
J. Bucyk: 514 GP, 105 PPP, 0.20 PPP PPG
H. Richard: 506 GP, 87 PPP, 0.17 PPP PPG
Yes, this time period will undeniably favor Richard, as he was productive in all eight seasons. But, at the same time, I think it's still a good representation of what was going on. Of the names above, the only names that beat Richard if we included 1958-59 and/or 1967-68 is Mikita (rookie season in 1959-60 and Art Ross in 1967-68). So, at worst, Richard was the third best ES producer of the 1960s.
It's been brought up many times that Richard saw very little PP time compared to other stars and, here, I bring to you concrete evidence of this. The percentage of PPP to total points is around the same for every player on that list except for Richard and Beliveau. For Richard, it's heavily slanted towards ESP, while for Beliveau it's towards PPP. Richard is 48 points behind the 2nd last tier one star on that list, Mahovlich (sorry, Bucyk). No such gap exists on the ESP chart. It's pretty impressive that Richard managed five top-10 scoring placements during that time period considering how little PP time he saw.
Other interesting observations:
- Beliveau was last among ESP (2nd or 3rd last in PPG), but he jumps up all the way to 2nd on the PPP chart (1st in PPG). Bad Beliveau for hogging all the PP time.
- This post is about Richard, but I'd like to point out Norm Ullman. In fact, I also highlighted his name. For the love of god, please include this guy on your list. He has become massively underrated, mainly due to the fact that he never won a Cup. If you have Delvecchio on your list, Ullman needs to be on there too.
- Surprised that Hull had 19 less PPP than Mikita.
I'll include another time period, 1955-56 to 1959-60, otherwise known as the Canadiens' five straight Cup run. Some choice names:
A. Bathgate: 345 GP, 258 ESP, 0.75 PPG
G. Howe: 344 GP, 245 ESP, 0.71 PPG
J. Beliveau: 318 GP, 244 ESP, 0.77 PPG
H. Richard: 327 GP, 232 ESP, 0.71 PPG
D. Moore: 342 GP, 228 ESP, 0.67 PPG
D. McKenney: 344 GP, 216 ESP, 0.67 PPG
B. Geoffrion: 260 GP, 183 ESP, 0.70 PPG
N. Ullman: 338 GP, 182 ESP, 0.54 PPG
T. Lindsay: 343 GP, 178 ESP, 0.52 PPG
A. Delvecchio: 328 GP, 171 ESP, 0.52 PPG
M. Richard: 254 GP, 156 ESP, 0.61 PPG
B. Olmstead: 314 GP, 156 ESP, 0.50 PPG
Flip side, PP points with the same names:
J. Beliveau: 318 GP, 150 PPP, 0.47 PPG
G. Howe: 344 GP, 141 PPP, 0.41 PPG
D. Moore: 342 GP, 121 PPP, 0.35 PPG
A. Bathgate: 345 GP, 117 PPP, 0.34 PPG
B. Geoffrion: 260 GP, 105 PPP, 0.40 PPG
M. Richard: 254 GP, 84 PPP, 0.33 PPG
T. Lindsay: 343 GP, 79 PPP, 0.23 PPG
B. Olmstead: 314 GP, 72 PPP, 0.23 PPG
A. Delvecchio: 328 GP, 71 PPP, 0.22 PPG
H. Richard: 327 GP, 66 PPP, 0.20 PPG
D. McKenney: 344 GP, 64 PPP, 0.19 PPG
N. Ullman: 338 GP, 52 PPP, 0.15 PPG
The same conclusions can be gleamed for the 1955-56 to 1959-60 period. Richard is right up there with known offensive juggernauts such as Moore, Beliveau, Howe and Bathgate, and ahead of Geoffrion both in terms of ESP raw totals and PPG. However, Richard is really, really behind them in terms of PPP.
Side note: Again, Ullman > Delvecchio. Please have this.
Sentinel
Registered User
Who exactly is McD's competition? Post-prime Crosby, Malkin, and Giroux? Kucherov? Taylor Hall?
Crosby's and Malkin's competition were PRIME Malkin and Crosby, respectively, plus prime Ovechkin and Thornton. So: no, not at all.
ted2019
History of Hockey
Has anyone thought of putting Doug Harvey above Maurice Richard?
Staniowski
Registered User
An additional note on ESP: in his 3 full seasons in Chicago, Phil Esposito was 4th in the NHL in ESP, trailing only Mikita, Hull, and Ullman. Henri Richard was 5th over those 3 seasons. Like Henri, Phil was getting very few points on the PP.
I don't think that's an uncommon opinion. I have them Harvey>Beliveau>Richard personally. I might put Harvey at 5th overall.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
Bingo. Curious votes can occasionally be grounds to reach out to the list maker and ask what the deal is. But we don't reject lists because we disagree with them.
BM67
Registered User
Over the period of 88-89 to 98-99, Joe Sakic was -74, +15 at home, and -89 on the road (career totals are +30, +87, -57). Gretzky outscored Sakic 1188 to 979, producing at a 1.50 ppg pace, the same as Bossy's career average.
Bad road +/- is more about the strength of the team, than the shortcomings of the player, unless you want to argue that Bossy (+380, +271, +109) is more responsible defensively on the road than Potvin (+456, +367, +89).
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Thank you.
Anyone putting McDavid in this thread from here on out is getting blocked for the remainder of the project. I'm sorry, but he's got 2.5 years of hockey under his belt. 2.5 years.
McD is a world class talent. Nobody is denying that. But he doesn't deserve to be in this discussion. He hasn't done anything that no other player in history has. He hasn't revolutionized the game. He hasn't set unbreakable records. And the Oilers have done exactly squat (yeah, I know, it's everyone else's fault) in the postseason. And I'm sorry, but when your team is absolute putrid and you miss the postseason by a mile you don't deserve to be awarded an MVP. I'd say that about anyone, anywhere, in any era. How valuable are you if your team is once again picking top 10 in the draft? The voters got it right. He got the Lindsay (yes, I'm still calling it that) because he was the most outstanding player. But he didn't blow the field away in anything remotely close to Gretzky fashion, offensively. He didn't lead the league in goals or assists, etc, etc. Guys like Taylor Hall and Nathan Mac took average teams and got them into the playoffs while each having very strong statistical years themselves. 2 other guys eclipsed 100 points.
Finally, this is about what players have accomplished to the present day. Not about what they probably will down the road. Simple as that. And nothing he's done in 2.5 years is so extraordinary that he should be brought up here. His time will absolutely come. But we're not there yet.
/rant
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Canadiens1958
Registered User
1994-95 thru 2003-o4 the Sakic / Forsberg, Yzerman / Fedorov era thru the +/- window.
Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Edge to Forsberg, especially on the road where Yzerman had difficulties.
Regular Season
NHL.com - Stats
Playoffs
NHL.com - Stats
Edge to Forsberg, especially on the road where Yzerman had difficulties.
Last edited:
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,122
- 2,652
No offense, +/- can be interesting (take a look at Larry Robinson, that is incredible IMO. OTOH Brad McCrimmon is 10th overall in +/- and he's nowhere near a top 100 list) but there are a ton of factors I'd consider before going onto the plus minus stuff.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
This is slowly being addressed. You can find bad road minus figures for many players on dynasty teams.
J.C. Tremblay is a prime example, RS on the road he had to play on an island without the last change forward line advantage: +253 / -9
NHL.com - Stats
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
I'm actually expecting a handful of McDavid votes ranging from token 100-120 throw-ins, to the occasional eye-popping ranking in the top-50 or so, but probably not enough to get him into a round-2 vote at all (and I doubt he'd be popular in the round 2 debates.) If said votes are consistent with a strong "peak FTW" stance in the individual list, it won't be wrong to have it there. Now, if McDavid's there and a large number of "obscure" cases (say Firsov, Gerard and Benedict are all missing), I'd have to question whether the listmaker did their history homework.
For my part, I'm with TDMM on his "not as good as Lindros yet, and Lindros is borderline at best" explanation. It's a sensible comparison that takes the mystique out of McDavid's unique case. After all, the goal of this project is not to throw up our arms and say "b'golly these players are just TOO different to even talk about".
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Actually you have a prime example of deployment differences home and away.
Away Bossy line would draw the checking line. Would be supported mainly by the second pairing since the Denis Potvin pairing and the Islander checking line would be part of the cat and mouse game with the opposing scoring line.
At this stage, it's not as important to determine whether player X should be 23rd, 24th or 25th on your list, but rather, whether he should be in the 20s, 50s, or if he even makes the list at all. Determining precise rankings is the purpose of the next round. Now, we just need to make sure players appear for voting and discussion at the right times. One of those players that I fear that might be ranked too low or not at all is Norm Ullman, which I have kind of built a case for in my Richard posts.
To start the case, I'll be comparing him to Delvecchio who is widely known if you have any interest in hockey history.
Offense
A quick cursory glance at their top-10 scoring finishes has Delvecchio with 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10 while Ullman's are 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10. Delvecchio has three more seasons than Ullman in the top-10, but Ullman's placements in the top-10 are consistently higher. Based off of pure longevity, Delvecchio wins, but I'm comfortable in saying that Ullman had the superior peak and prime. I don't know how important this is but Ullman's goal/points ratio is higher than your typical center while Delvecchio is your typical playmaking center.
Another tool I'll use is VsX. If you don't know what this is, you should really check it out because IMO, as of right now, it's the best tool to compare offense across eras. This is the link: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/reference-vsx-comprehensive-summary-1927-to-2017.2215905/
Ullman's 7 year VsX is 89.5, while Delvecchio's is 84.8. which is a 5.39% difference which is pretty big. Delvecchio makes up a bit of ground in the 10 year table with a score of 82.9, but Ullman' score is still higher, coming in at 84.7.
Right now, all signs point to Ullman being a clear step ahead of Delvecchio offensively. But, there's still one factor that hasn't been addressed yet: who was Gordie Howe's centre?
Credit to @overpass for the following info. This is on Delvecchio:
On Ullman:
Unfortunately, the tables are gone so we don't have exact data. But, Ullman was Howe's full time centre for three seasons, before Delvecchio took over the role for the rest of the 1960s. How much should the Howe factor be considered? IDK, up to you, but I do know that the Howe factor is considerably less for Ullman than for Delvecchio.
Another factor I want to bring up is PP time. I'm not exactly sure on the exact Red Wings PP formation but I'm pretty sure Delvecchio played the point in the 50s, before Howe took over the role in the 60s. Ullman doesn't look like he was a fixture on the PP until the 60s.
Contemporary reputation
So, this is where I'll post awards, and intangibles. Let's start off with awards:
Delvecchio:
Ullman:
Defensively, both were known as excellent. Not good on the Bergeron or Toews level, but I'm reading more towards the playoff Crosby level. I'm not sure who was better between the two, but I can't imagine that the gap between them would be significant. If anyone is more well versed on this front, please chime in.
Leadership, well, Delvecchio was the captain of the Red Wings for 10 years, so I guess he wins in that department. Physicality seems to be Ullman.
Playoffs
Now this is where I think Delvecchio gets most of his boost from present day observers (and him spending his entire career with the Red Wings). But, like "11 Cup Richard", all they're looking at is number of Cups. Yes, Delvecchio has four Cups compared to Ullman's zero, but how important was Delvecchio to the 50s dynasty?
We can say for sure that he is behind Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, and Sawchuk. That's four guys already. You can add in Marty Pavelich, the best defensive forward of the early to mid 1950s. Quotes from Jack Adams, the GM of the Wings:
That's five guys that IMO are inarguable. That leaves Delvecchio to fight it out with #2D and #3D of the Red Wings, Leo Reise and Marcel Pronovost and Sid Abel, who was only there for two Cups. So, at best he's sixth, and at worst he's 9th. I'm not going to call Delvecchio a passenger, but I'm not going to call him one of the drivers either.
Despite never winning a Cup, Ullman was really good in those losing efforts, so this isn't a Dionne or Thornton situation where he sucked ass. This is more like Brad Park here. Ullman led the playoffs in scoring twice and finished 2nd another time. Delvecchio's best finish is 3rd.
I will have Ullman somewhere in the top-70.
To start the case, I'll be comparing him to Delvecchio who is widely known if you have any interest in hockey history.
Offense
A quick cursory glance at their top-10 scoring finishes has Delvecchio with 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10 while Ullman's are 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10. Delvecchio has three more seasons than Ullman in the top-10, but Ullman's placements in the top-10 are consistently higher. Based off of pure longevity, Delvecchio wins, but I'm comfortable in saying that Ullman had the superior peak and prime. I don't know how important this is but Ullman's goal/points ratio is higher than your typical center while Delvecchio is your typical playmaking center.
Another tool I'll use is VsX. If you don't know what this is, you should really check it out because IMO, as of right now, it's the best tool to compare offense across eras. This is the link: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/reference-vsx-comprehensive-summary-1927-to-2017.2215905/
Ullman's 7 year VsX is 89.5, while Delvecchio's is 84.8. which is a 5.39% difference which is pretty big. Delvecchio makes up a bit of ground in the 10 year table with a score of 82.9, but Ullman' score is still higher, coming in at 84.7.
Right now, all signs point to Ullman being a clear step ahead of Delvecchio offensively. But, there's still one factor that hasn't been addressed yet: who was Gordie Howe's centre?
Credit to @overpass for the following info. This is on Delvecchio:
On Ullman:
Unfortunately, the tables are gone so we don't have exact data. But, Ullman was Howe's full time centre for three seasons, before Delvecchio took over the role for the rest of the 1960s. How much should the Howe factor be considered? IDK, up to you, but I do know that the Howe factor is considerably less for Ullman than for Delvecchio.
Another factor I want to bring up is PP time. I'm not exactly sure on the exact Red Wings PP formation but I'm pretty sure Delvecchio played the point in the 50s, before Howe took over the role in the 60s. Ullman doesn't look like he was a fixture on the PP until the 60s.
Contemporary reputation
So, this is where I'll post awards, and intangibles. Let's start off with awards:
Delvecchio:
- Hart voting: 9th and 13th
- AST voting at C (noteworthy seaons only): 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6*
- AST voting at LW (noteworthy seaons only): 2, 4*, 5
- 4x Lady Byng Trophy
Ullman:
- Hart voting: 2, 5, 9, 14
- AST voting at C: 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5
- 1x Retro Rocket Trophy
Defensively, both were known as excellent. Not good on the Bergeron or Toews level, but I'm reading more towards the playoff Crosby level. I'm not sure who was better between the two, but I can't imagine that the gap between them would be significant. If anyone is more well versed on this front, please chime in.
Leadership, well, Delvecchio was the captain of the Red Wings for 10 years, so I guess he wins in that department. Physicality seems to be Ullman.
Playoffs
Now this is where I think Delvecchio gets most of his boost from present day observers (and him spending his entire career with the Red Wings). But, like "11 Cup Richard", all they're looking at is number of Cups. Yes, Delvecchio has four Cups compared to Ullman's zero, but how important was Delvecchio to the 50s dynasty?
We can say for sure that he is behind Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, and Sawchuk. That's four guys already. You can add in Marty Pavelich, the best defensive forward of the early to mid 1950s. Quotes from Jack Adams, the GM of the Wings:
Jack Adams said:
Jack Adams said:
That's five guys that IMO are inarguable. That leaves Delvecchio to fight it out with #2D and #3D of the Red Wings, Leo Reise and Marcel Pronovost and Sid Abel, who was only there for two Cups. So, at best he's sixth, and at worst he's 9th. I'm not going to call Delvecchio a passenger, but I'm not going to call him one of the drivers either.
Despite never winning a Cup, Ullman was really good in those losing efforts, so this isn't a Dionne or Thornton situation where he sucked ass. This is more like Brad Park here. Ullman led the playoffs in scoring twice and finished 2nd another time. Delvecchio's best finish is 3rd.
I will have Ullman somewhere in the top-70.
Last edited:
Iceman
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2014
- 10,640
- 2,024
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,302
- 6,631
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
HC Dynamo Pardubice @ Ocelari Trinec - Pardubice leads series 3-2Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated: