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

[wetcoast]

COL hardly moves past LAK that year without Forsberg. LAK was in cinderella mode that year and had already upset DET the previous round. Sakic had 2 points in 5 games that series and was –2. Forsberg had 8 points and drove the offense flanked by Tanguay/Hejduk. It's not like he was Gary Suter in 89.

Forsberg was a force in the playoffs more so then Sakic in their time together.

While Forberg does miss some time in the NHL he was still an elite player in the NHL for a consecutive decade..His worst season of play maybe happens when he is 33 and for a 33 year old season it wasn't too shabby, just below the expectations people had of him.

He compares extremely favorably to Richard this round for me.

Has a claim to the best playoff performer this round as well.

Geoffrion is an interesting case as he also missed time in alot of seasons.

He also plays in the shadow and legend of Richard in Montreal and it seems at times that some people resent him and his 50-50 season.

I also don't think that Boom Boom looks all that bad beside the next Hab RW legend, Lafleur..

Boom Boom was relevant over a longer period of time, both regular season and playoffs than the flower was.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I know I've been a bad boy for citing an un-nominated player. Maybe I can atone by referencing some players already advanced...

I'm not sure we have the full measure of the historical significance of Charlie Conacher's two-year Peak. [1933-34 & 1934-35.] Hell, I'm not sure I have the full measure of it. I'm sure someone here can fact-check my findings, but: per my view of the VsX measure for offensive output, Conacher's two most productive seasons are the highest-scoring pair by a Winger, ever, with the following exceptions- Gordie Howe, Jaromir Jágr, Guy Lafleur. [Jágr's output comes with the 6'4" qualifier named Mario Lemieux, and Lafleur's output involved his playing a higher ratio of games than Conacher. Conacher missed seven games in that two year span, roughly equivalent to 11 in two Lafleur-length seasons.] So, (considering Peak), that's who he's behind. Who's he ahead of, by that measure? Bobby Hull. Maurice Richard. Alexander Ovechkin. Mike Bossy...

 

[MXD]

I know I've been a bad boy for citing an un-nominated player. Maybe I can atone by referencing some players already advanced...

I'm not sure we have the full measure of the historical significance of Charlie Conacher's two-year Peak. [1933-34 & 1934-35.] Hell, I'm not sure I have the full measure of it. I'm sure someone here can fact-check my findings, but: per my view of the VsX measure for offensive output, Conacher's two most productive seasons are the highest-scoring pair by a Winger, ever, with the following exceptions- Gordie Howe, Jaromir Jágr, Guy Lafleur. [Jágr's output comes with the 6'4" qualifier named Mario Lemieux, and Lafleur's output involved his playing a higher ratio of games than Conacher. Conacher missed seven games in that two year span, roughly equivalent to 11 in two Lafleur-length seasons.] So, (considering Peak), that's who he's behind. Who's he ahead of, by that measure? Bobby Hull. Maurice Richard. Alexander Ovechkin. Mike Bossy...

Did the on-ice rules change in 32-33?

Because you can see that league-wide scoring went down that season and, even more specifically, Leafs scoring.
Which also happened to be the season where Conacher was injured (and play injured).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Did the on-ice rules change in 32-33?

Because you can see that league-wide scoring went down that season and, even more specifically, Leafs scoring.
Which also happened to be the season where Conacher was injured (and play injured).

Original NHL Salary Cap accompanied by reduced rosters.

 

[MXD]

Original NHL Salary Cap accompanied by reduced rosters.

Did it remain that way for more than just that specific season?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Did it remain that way for more than just that specific season?

Cap dropped the following season and rosters did not rise.

Until the 1936-37 season, no significant rookies - Apps, entered the league.

 

[MXD]

Cap dropped the following season and rosters did not rise.

Until the 1936-37 season, no significant rookies - Apps, entered the league.

... So the cap, in and of itself, can't be a good explanation as to why league-wide scoring went down 12% in 32-33, only to rise back up the following season.

 

[Canadiens1958]

... So the cap, in and of itself, can't be a good explanation as to why league-wide scoring went down 12% in 32-33, only to rise back up the following season.

Look at the player movement via trades that resulted. Also Ottawa returned after skipping a year getting their players back.

 

[The Macho King]

I'm starting to think I underrated some modern players when I look at these guys more closely.

I'm really struggling with Forsberg. He only played one full season, and missed significant time (10+ games) in 7 others (only 4 "mostly healthy" seasons). He was dominant when he was on the ice, but I think at some point, you need to be *on the ice*. Comparing him to Apps, for instance (and lower "mostly healthy" to missing fewer than 6 games due to schedule lengths), He has 5 "mostly healthy" seasons, another that's pretty close with 41/48, and 3 where he missed significant time. Plus he lost 2 years of prime to WW2, which I can't knock him for since he came back and was still a PPG player.

With Forsberg, the Avs had to get used to playing without him. His playoff numbers are really good, but he missed time (even if a game or two here or there) in a lot of Colorado's runs. He missed 17 playoff games from 1996-2004 (with the biggest chunk coming in 2001). And that's the playoffs, where you play when you probably shouldn't a lot.

Healthy Forsberg was fantastic and would probably be right putting on the list around this point. The problem is healthy Forsberg was the exception rather than the rule.

 

[MXD]

I'm starting to think I underrated some modern players when I look at these guys more closely.

I'm really struggling with Forsberg. He only played one full season, and missed significant time (10+ games) in 7 others (only 4 "mostly healthy" seasons). He was dominant when he was on the ice, but I think at some point, you need to be *on the ice*. Comparing him to Apps, for instance (and lower "mostly healthy" to missing fewer than 6 games due to schedule lengths), He has 5 "mostly healthy" seasons, another that's pretty close with 41/48, and 3 where he missed significant time. Plus he lost 2 years of prime to WW2, which I can't knock him for since he came back and was still a PPG player.

With Forsberg, the Avs had to get used to playing without him. His playoff numbers are really good, but he missed time (even if a game or two here or there) in a lot of Colorado's runs. He missed 17 playoff games from 1996-2004 (with the biggest chunk coming in 2001). And that's the playoffs, where you play when you probably shouldn't a lot.

Healthy Forsberg was fantastic and would probably be right putting on the list around this point. The problem is healthy Forsberg was the exception rather than the rule.

... Also, 708 RS games is REALLY not a lot of games, considering the era he played in. To give you an idea, he was recently passed by... Jamie Benn. Steven Stamkos. John Tavares. LUKE SCHENN. He'll soon by passed by Erik Karlsson and Matt Duchene. Tyler Seguin will pass him next season. To Forsberg's credit, he DOES add some 150+ playoffs games too, but still, that's an awfully small amount of games.

It's probably very obvious that, on a PPG basis, Forsberg would already be in.

Forsberg also seems to be the "youngest" player to get some very, very misplaced nostalgia cred.

 

[DannyGallivan]

... Also, 708 RS games is REALLY not a lot of games, considering the era he played in. To give you an idea, he was recently passed by... Jamie Benn. Steven Stamkos. John Tavares. LUKE SCHENN. He'll soon by passed by Erik Karlsson and Matt Duchene. Tyler Seguin will pass him next season. To Forsberg's credit, he DOES add some 150+ playoffs games too, but still, that's an awfully small amount of games.

It's probably very obvious that, on a PPG basis, Forsberg would already be in.

Forsberg also seems to be the "youngest" player to get some very, very misplaced nostalgia cred.

Speaking of Forsberg, wait until Lindros' name comes up. On my list, I had them back-to-back (with Lindros ahead).
If we're looking at overall excellence and dominance, Forsberg deserves to be in the conversation right now. My issue is that if I have Lindros ahead of him, I have a hard time putting him in among the top five this time around.

 

[The Macho King]

Speaking of Forsberg, wait until Lindros' name comes up. On my list, I had them back-to-back (with Lindros ahead).
If we're looking at overall excellence and dominance, Forsberg deserves to be in the conversation right now. My issue is that if I have Lindros ahead of him, I have a hard time putting him in among the top five this time around.

So the name that came to my mind when thinking about Forsberg was Marty St. Louis, and to a lesser extent Iginla. MSL was never the per-game player Forsberg was, but he showed up for work every day (had an iron man streak of over 500 games at one point until he got hit in the eye during practice by a puck). His AR trophies are two of the weaker ones (60p in 48games isn't bad, but most people asterisk that because of Crosby's injury, and his first one came during the last season of the DPE with an injured Forsberg as the presumptive best player in the league). He was a monster in the playoffs though.

I guess I'm just saying - where does our per game assessment end and credit for showing up begin? Forsberg may be the best per game player left, but that didn't manifest itself into a whole lot.

And despite @quoipourquoi 's assertion otherwise, I think 2001's Cup *should* be held against him to an extent, because the fact that the Avs could keep rolling was largely due to the fact that they had to get used to playing without Forsberg.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Pierre Pilote should be one of those who finally get ranked this round. Say what you want about his competition as a defenseman in the 60's, but for six straight seasons he was first in voting for three straight years and had three other years of finishing second for the Norris.

 

[The Macho King]

Pierre Pilote should be one of those who finally get ranked this round. Say what you want about his competition as a defenseman in the 60's, but for six straight seasons he was first in voting for three straight years and had three other years of finishing second for the Norris.

While I'll be voting Pilote this round, I don't really love this reasoning. Context matters.

 

[DannyGallivan]

While I'll be voting Pilote this round, I don't really love this reasoning. Context matters.

Six consecutive seasons voted as either the best or second best defenseman in the world is its own context. Especially when three of those years he won the Norris. He also has 8 straight seasons as a first or second team all-star.

He and Coffey are the only 3-time or more Norris winners who have yet to be voted in (they'll both make my list this time).

 

[The Macho King]

Six consecutive seasons voted as either the best or second best defenseman in the world is its own context. Especially when three of those years he won the Norris. He also has 8 straight seasons as a first or second team all-star.

He and Coffey are the only 3-time or more Norris winners who have yet to be voted in (they'll both make my list this time).

Once again - these assertions in a vacuum are pretty useless to me. Being the best in the world when the world is shit doesn't move the needle for me. Judge on merits, not trophy counting.

We're comparing players across generations, so one generation's weakness is absolutely relevant.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Once again - these assertions in a vacuum are pretty useless to me. Being the best in the world when the world is **** doesn't move the needle for me. Judge on merits, not trophy counting.

We're comparing players across generations, so one generation's weakness is absolutely relevant.

Cause and effect. Ya don't get the accolades for nothing. We can look at his stats - as a defenseman in the low scoring (due to parity) years just before Orr. Three seasons in the top five for assists (two in the top three). One season with 14 goals in an era where that would be a fine total for a forward. Six seasons in the top 10 for plus minus including first twice (although that's a very flawed stat, it sometimes leads to a truthful conclusion). He also led the playoffs in points (15 in 12 games) the season the Hawks won the Stanley Cup (and would have been a likely Conn Smythe winner if that trophy had existed).

Yep, he gets in for me.

 

[The Macho King]

Cause and effect. Ya don't get the accolades for nothing. We can look at his stats - as a defenseman in the low scoring (due to parity) years just before Orr. Three seasons in the top five for assists (two in the top three). One season with 14 goals in an era where that would be a fine total for a forward. Six seasons in the top 10 for plus minus including first twice (although that's a very flawed stat, it sometimes leads to a truthful conclusion). He also led the playoffs in points (15 in 12 games) the season the Hawks won the Stanley Cup (and would have been a likely Conn Smythe winner if that trophy had existed).

Yep, he gets in for me.

Once again - not arguing with your conclusion, just your reasoning. He makes it in for me too, mostly based on what you described.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Once again - not arguing with your conclusion, just your reasoning. He makes it in for me too, mostly based on what you described.

Then, my reasoning is sound... no?
Whatever... I seem to have had this conversation decades ago with my math teacher who insisted I show my work. I did show my work, it was just a different way of getting to the same conclusion.

 

[The Macho King]

Then, my reasoning is sound... no?
Whatever... I seem to have had this conversation decades ago with my math teacher who insisted I show my work.

Sorry for being unclear - the reasoning in the post I quoted, not the reasoning of 3 Norris trophies = in.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Speaking of Forsberg, wait until Lindros' name comes up. On my list, I had them back-to-back (with Lindros ahead).
If we're looking at overall excellence and dominance, Forsberg deserves to be in the conversation right now. My issue is that if I have Lindros ahead of him, I have a hard time putting him in among the top five this time around.

I had them back-to-back as well.

But I have no problem with putting him in right now. Can't help it if other posters didn't like Lindros yet.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Once again - these assertions in a vacuum are pretty useless to me. Being the best in the world when the world is **** doesn't move the needle for me. Judge on merits, not trophy counting.

I don't think the defensemen of the NHL were so bad in the 60's anyways. It was an age of high parity, as the league still had only six teams right when it had been ready for years to double the size of the league. The worst defensemen in the NHL were pretty darned good. Scoring wasn't all that high because of the high parity league-wide. That's what makes Bobby Hull's scoring exploits so impressive.

 

[The Macho King]

I don't think the defensemen of the NHL were so bad in the 60's anyways. It was an age of high parity, as the league still had only six teams right when it had been ready for years to double the size of the league. The worst defensemen in the NHL were pretty darned good. Scoring wasn't all that high because of the high parity league-wide. That's what makes Bobby Hull's scoring exploits so impressive.

I'm just saying - looking at Norris record doesn't answer everything. He won one of them scoring 26 points in 59 games while being a -4. He finished second playing 51 games one season.

All I'm saying is look beyond the hardware.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm just saying - looking at Norris record doesn't answer everything. He won one of them scoring 26 points in 59 games while being a -4. He finished second playing 51 games one season.

All I'm saying is look beyond the hardware.

I'll admit, there has got to be a story behind the -4 season (especially since it was surrounded by very high plus-minus seasons before and after). Another anomaly was a few years later, when he had a league-leading plus 54, only to have a career-worst minus 10 the season after.

 

[sr edler]

... Also, 708 RS games is REALLY not a lot of games, considering the era he played in. To give you an idea, he was recently passed by... Jamie Benn. Steven Stamkos. John Tavares. LUKE SCHENN. He'll soon by passed by Erik Karlsson and Matt Duchene. Tyler Seguin will pass him next season. To Forsberg's credit, he DOES add some 150+ playoffs games too, but still, that's an awfully small amount of games.

It's probably very obvious that, on a PPG basis, Forsberg would already be in.

Forsberg also seems to be the "youngest" player to get some very, very misplaced nostalgia cred.

Luke Schenn last season was a bottom pairing defenseman on the Phoenix Coyotes (sorry, Arizona Coyotes...), the 29th placed club in a 31 team league. I fail to see the point with bringing up his name in this project. You've now mentioned Luke Schenn in the Top-100 Players of All-Time project. If the league incorporated say 26 teams (like when Forsberg joined the league in 94–95) instead of 31, Schenn would probably be playing in Austria or in the AHL instead.

Forsberg also played 200+ games in the SHL, a professional senior league, scoring 200+ points.