Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10

[ChiTownPhilly]

Spent some time reading Round 2 Vote 3 from the "Defensemen" project earlier today. Also scoured H-R, NHL.com & HoH Award & All-Star Voting to get a feel for how the Defensemen performed relative to the contemporaries at their position. Also tried to get a feel for the quality of the contemporaries- and am left with the impression that the "weak era for position" assertions for Park & Pilote may be something of an overstatement.

After taking that long trip around the neighborhood, I wind up in exactly the same place I started. The Defensemen project has the three Ds in the same order I had on my Prelim List- which also matches the order of their voting here last Round.

I don't think I've said a positive word about Brad Park yet- but it's more than time. He belongs this go-round. The Cliff's Notes argument for Park over Pilote is- their 10 year extended Prime is close- but Park at 30+ decisively eclipses Pilote's negligible contribution prior to age 26. And-- it's easier to put Points on the scoresheet when you have Hull on one line, and Mikita on another, to help finish things off. {And that's before even considering the Power Play chances you get here.}

All right: I'm off to the Polls. No matter how I finally work this all out, some guys I really admire are going to wind up on the bottom-half of my ballot.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Voted. Definitely a center/goalie heavy round for me. Coffey is starting to look attractive too.

Next round - really, really hoping for Malkin, Firsov, and Brimsek.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Wow.

In his first two playoff years, he was a teenager*. Also in his first two years, he was giving you a six game sample. [*Okay, in that second campaign, he just turned 20 before the Playoffs began- but point remains that he was 19 for the preponderance of the season, so please spare me the tendentious "fact-checks."] The third year, he has a disappointing-looking scoresheet-line... but his team won, so how badly could he have hurt, really?

Furthermore, seeing as how he's routinely listed as a "C/D" in the early Playoff years per H-R, the valid question is: how much of that time was actually spent as a Defenseman- and is it really proper to judge his scoring by the standards we'd apply to a full-time Center?

Funny thing is, I don't think I really favor Schmidt for advancement this Round. [Next Round for sure, though!] Still, to re-use an old Fischler line, Schmidt really needs an Anti-Defamation League of his own in this discussion.The Boston player(s) who blew off playing Defense will be a discussion we'll have later, I suspect. Hopefully not too soon, though.

I don't think my comments on Schmidt were unfair. As you quoted, I already acknowledged that he "wasn't yet an established scorer" in those first two scoreless playoffs.

In 1939 - true, the Bruins won the Cup anyway, even if his offense dried up (two points in the five game finals, one of which was an empty-net goal - though in fairness, that was scored with a minute left in the decisive fifth game, which probably speaks to his defensive responsibilities). But not being bad enough to cost his team victory is faint praise when we're talking about a player who's up for the top fifty.

1940 really is puzzling. Has a scoring leader ever been shut out in the playoffs? The closest I can think of is Thornton in 2004 (3rd in scoring, but he was playing with broken ribs in the spring). Was Schmidt injured?

I've never heard of Schmidt playing as a defenseman. Will certainly correct that if there's evidence, but I wouldn't count solely on hockey-reference.com (which, although a great resource, has a number of errors).

Like I said, Schmidt's playoff resume from 1941 onwards is very good, but it's certainly not "defamatory" to show that his first four runs were underwhelming.

(Side note - I think players like Schmidt should get some degree of credit for the time they missed during WWII. I don't have a lot of sympathy for time missed due to injuries - even fluke injuries, like the types that have derailed Crosby a couple of times, are part of the game. I'm also not willing to give credit to someone like Dryden, who shortened his career to make more money. But I don't think that serving one's country should be held against an athlete. On the other hand, in the case of Schmidt, the two years leading up to his service weren't overly impressive - hovering around the top ten in PPG while missing time to injuries - so it's hard to say how much he would have accomplished had he been in the league - ie would he have challenged for a few more Hart trophies and scoring titles, or merely been a top ten scorer with recurring minor injuries - WWII or not, Schmidt's biggest issue seems to have been consistency).

(Side note 2 - a few people have mentioned that Schmidt likely would have won the Hart trophy in 1940, based on modern standards, by virtue of decisively leading the league in scoring. That's probably true, but that argument would likely result in him losing that trophy in 1951 to Howe for the same reason - though finishing second to peak Howe is noteworthy in itself).

(Side note 3 - if we're going to give credit to players who missed time for WWII, that would help Apps far more. His biggest issue was injuries. But, for what it's worth, he was top five in points per game seven straight years leading up to WWII - his whole career to that point - then two of the three years right after. The biggest issue with Apps appears to have been health, so it's still hard to say what he actually would have accomplished had he not served, but I find the consistency impressive).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

They dropped from 270 GF in 2000-01 (4th overall; 1st in West) to 212 GF in 2001-02 (18th overall; 9th in West). They rebounded to 251 GF in 2002-03 (5th overall; 4th in West).

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that Forsberg wasn't important to the Avalanche - it's obvious that he was. But I think an argument can be made that his health issues were somewhat mitigated by the fact that he played on such strong teams, and that they still made the playoffs (and even won division titles) when he was injured, due to their depth and their other stars. The same argument can be made for Geoffrion. (Not that he'll be up for discussion in this project, but you can contrast this with one of Forsberg's peers - Paul Kariya. Playing on the weak Ducks, when Karyia missed a lot of time, he sunk his team's playoff chances - look at how they did in 1997 and 1999 when he was healthy, versus 1998 when he missed most of the year).

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument (why should Forsberg get credit for playing on a good team?), but at least it's a reasonable position that his injury history isn't as impactful as it first appears.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I've never heard of Schmidt playing as a defenseman. Will certainly correct that if there's evidence, but I wouldn't count solely on hockey-reference.com (which, although a great resource, has a number of errors).

Yeah, I considered that possibility myself, which led me to say "if true" as part of my citation, q.v.:

I also noticed that for both of Boston's Stanley Cup successes [38-39 & 40-41], Milt Schmidt is credited as a "C/D" by H-R, which, if true, means that they entrusted him with defensive duties on the largest possible stages, too.

And there's one more curious thing about the resource- the "C/D" designation is ONLY visible in The Playoffs. Perfectly open to the possibility that it's another error- but if it is, it's an abtrusely selective error at that.

(Side note - I think players like Schmidt should get some degree of credit for the time they missed during WWII...if we're going to give credit to players who missed time for WWII, that would help Apps far more.

Moot point by now- I expect most Votes are cast. I expect Apps will go through this Round- I expect Schmidt won't- and I'm okay with that. There are reasons to favor Apps over Schmidt. [Linemate help is a big factor, for instance.] But if the claim is that Apps lost "far more" to the War than Schmidt, I guess we've alighted on "agree-to-disagree" territory...

 

[MXD]

I've read conflicting reports over time as to who got credit for shutting down the Krauts amongst forwards (Schibicky-Colville-Colville or Patrick-Watson-Hextall), but it's probably worth mentioning (once again) that this Rangers team was very stingy. I really, really doubt Schmidt was playing D for the whole round.

Now, why can I cannot find the Top-100 Rangers book right as I might need it?

 

[wetcoast]

Voted. Definitely a center/goalie heavy round for me. Coffey is starting to look attractive too.

Next round - really, really hoping for Malkin, Firsov, and Brimsek.

I'm wondering when Dionne will come up, man history is treating him really poorly.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I'm wondering when Dionne will come up, man history is treating him really poorly.

We could do worse. In fact, one could make a good case for 'we already have.' That said, I have nine un-nominateds ahead of the man... and I'm nearly certain that I'm higher on him than most of The Panel. Wouldn't shock me if we're not talking about him until the latter part of February.

Still, he's like Earl Seibert inasmuch as he could say "can I try this career again, but with above-mediocre-effectiveness teammates this time?" Seibert is the Defenseman version of that sentiment- Dionne is the Center version of it.

Andy Bathgate & Jarome Iginla are the Winger versions...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Marcel Dionne is going the way of Mike Gartner, few others.

Quoting Ma Peller "where's the beef?".

 

[seventieslord]

While I fully agree that Dionne's career lacks "substance" and he has already been punished quite a bit for that, and will continue to be, comparing him with someone like Gartner is just unfair. Gartner compiled a staggering career goals total despite never being one of the league's elite scorers. Dionne compiled a staggering career points total because he was very often one of the league's elite scorers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

While I fully agree that Dionne's career lacks "substance" and he has already been punished quite a bit for that, and will continue to be, comparing him with someone like Gartner is just unfair. Gartner compiled a staggering career goals total despite never being one of the league's elite scorers. Dionne compiled a staggering career points total because he was very often one of the league's elite scorers.

If a non-elite scorer - Gartner, can generate comparable results in a lower scoring era, compared to an elite score Dionne in a higher scoring era, it says plenty about our perception of elite and our inability / unwillingness to differentiate by position.

 

[sr edler]

Dionne won an Art Ross Trophy and a Lester B. Patrick Award. Gartner wasn't close doing any of that. How is that in any way comparable?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Question of how points/goals get distributed during a career.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Question of how points/goals get distributed during a career.

You saw both Gartner and Dionne play.

Why do you make such an idiotic comparison?

 

[DannyGallivan]

How often did you see prime Geoffrion play?

I wasn't born.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You saw both Gartner and Dionne play.

Why do you make such an idiotic comparison?

Saw Dionne play bantam. Predictable, skilled but like Gartner lacking the top level of a great that was the driving force of a team.

 

[ted2019]

Saw Dionne play bantam. Predictable, skilled but like Gartner lacking the top level of a great that was the driving force of a team.

Dionne WAS the Kings and it was a credit on how good he was that he finished with the career that he had. Just looking at Dionne's numbers and I didn't even know this one. In the 1974-75 season, he lead the league in SH goals with 10 and finished within 19 in his career. 2 Pearson's in a row and 3 top 3 Hart trophy finalists in consecutive years puts him a universe ahead of Gartner. To be fair, Gartner also lead the league in SH goals with 7 in 1986-87 and had 24 for his career.

 

[VanIslander]

Dionne scored more than anybody over a 10-year stretch, from mid-70s to mid-80s, and took more career shots than any center ever has (Bourque, Jagr only more prolific shooters).

If Marcel had been on the Habs or Oilers during his career, man, imagine. He himself lamented not playing for Montreal. One wonders: Why did he keep re-signing with lowly expansion Los Angeles? His legacy was hurt by it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

To answer your question on why Dionne kept signing in LA...a poor old 'poet' once said:

You take your choice at this time
The brave old world
Or the slide, into the depths of decline

 

[ted2019]

Dionne scored more than anybody over a 10-year stretch, from mid-70s to mid-80s, and took more career shots than any center ever has (Bourque, Jagr only more prolific shooters).

If Marcel had been on the Habs or Oilers during his career, man, imagine. He himself lamented not playing for Montreal. One wonders: Why did he keep re-signing with lowly expansion Los Angeles? His legacy was hurt by it.

If he went to the Habs, I'm sure a certain poster would be saying that he was a top 15 all time talent.

 

[ted2019]

To answer your question on why Dionne kept signing in LA...a poor old 'poet' once said:

You take your choice at this time
The brave old world
Or the slide, into the depths of decline

Dionne also didn't have a choice. It was either play for the Kings, get sent to the minors, sit home or if he was lucky enough, get traded.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Dionne, for all intents and purposes, signed an offer sheet (RFA) to get to Los Angeles in the first place...free agency was in its infancy, sure, but he could have gotten away if he so desired...because he did it in 1975...

He leaves a garbage Detroit team for a garbage LA team because LA made him rich...I don't fault him for that...he signed an absolute ticket in LA...

 

[BenchBrawl]

I hope to see Ted Kennedy.

Edit: Maybe Joe Malone and Sprague Cleghorn too.

Edit2: I also agree with the other players named here, except Dionne which I couldn't care less about even if he missed the Top 100.

Edit3: I hope Charlie Gardiner and George Vezina pops up at the same time as Frank Brimsek.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Guess we are just killing time til the next thread, so I'll answer this.

Edit3: I hope Charlie Gardiner and George Vezina pops up at the same time as Frank Brimsek.

I agree those are the best 3 remaining goalies, as all were the best of their respective generations and all 3 had at least some playoff heroics. After those 3, the waters get muddy indeed.

Of the 3, I think Gardiner is clear #3 because of lack of longevity.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Guess we are just killing time til the next thread, so I'll answer this.



I agree those are the best 3 remaining goalies, as all were the best of their respective generations and all 3 had at least some playoff heroics. After those 3, the waters get muddy indeed.

Of the 3, I think Gardiner is clear #3 because of lack of longevity.

I think Gardiner was a better goalie than Brimsek and Vezina, as in peak form, and I think he had the best playoff run.That's potentially two points in his favor over Brimsek and Vezina, but I agree his lack of longevity counter-balance that.