Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11

[ChiTownPhilly]

I love Seibert, but I have a hard time voting him ahead of Cleghorn, at least significantly ahead of Cleghorn. I'm open minded on it but Cleghorn has a better Hart record (2 number twos vs. 2 number fours) and the Hart didn't exist til Cleghorn was 33. Even if we view Cleghorn's number twos as lesser than Seibert's number fours because of the split league when he won them surely the fact Cleghorn had 13 other seasons of his more usual prime years puts him ahead right? Its not like Cleghorn had a short career, less GPs per year sure, but still a solid 15 years or so.

Proposed addendum to House Rules:

• Buy us ALL a drink (the good stuff on the top shelf) whenever you intimate or assert "I won't support player X until Player Y is nominated."

I'll have a Compass Box Asyla, up.

 

[sr edler]

Wait, I wondered why everyone was discussing Dionne, but then I went back a few pages and there he is on page 1: eligible.

I'm not super sold on any of the new guys.

Almost every time I watch some Penguins highlights recently and the team gets scored on a couple of times, at least once or twice Malkin scoops into the picture late behind the actual coverage. Regarding Malkin/Forsberg, I think Forsberg pulls ahead simply on defensive prowess.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Malkin hasn't had a great year...

He's also never been a good defensive player.

I hate this kind of stuff, because it's so cliche...like when people go "Like, I'm totally a Republican, and even *I* don't agree with that..." as if that makes you any more qualified or your opinion worth any more...but that said...I have seen every single Evgeni Malkin game for the last 12 years (AMA). The last time I missed one was April 5, 2007 against Ottawa...so, I'd like to think I'm a subject matter expert on Geno haha

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I was able to dig up an essay that I wrote in May 2008 on Marcel Dionne's playoff performance. I went back to newspapers to look up each game summary.

I'll be honest - when I did this project, I was hoping to find proof that Dionne was actually a pretty good playoff performer, and he was let down by his teammates. That wasn't the case. You can read the attached essay for the full details, but the concluding paragraph is:

"...we can now make an argument against Dionne that’s more subtle than “he didn’t score as much as he did in the regular season”. First, Dionne and the Kings usually played very poorly in the first game of a series, often getting blown out. Winning the first game is especially important in a best-of-three/five, so a weak first game is especially dangerous. Second, Dionne played very poorly in elimination games. When the Kings needed a big effort, Dionne was usually (though not always) held off the scoresheet. Nine points in thirteen games is what you’d expect from Butch Goring, not Marcel Dionne. Finally, Dionne’s biggest problem was inconsistency. I found two or three times in his entire career when Dionne strung together two consecutive good games. The Kings often lost because their best player often disappeared for half a series at a time."

I think Dionne has a top 40 regular season resume. But I also think he pretty clearly has the weakest playoff resume of any player who's likely to end up on our final list. (Who would be next weakest - Joe Thornton? Even then, I think Thornton's playoff resume is clearly better, and I don't know if he'll end up in the top hundred).

We'll get to a point when Dionne's regular season offensive dominance is too much to ignore, but I don't think we're there yet.

 

[overpass]

I was able to dig up an essay that I wrote in May 2008 on Marcel Dionne's playoff performance. I went back to newspapers to look up each game summary.

I'll be honest - when I did this project, I was hoping to find proof that Dionne was actually a pretty good playoff performer, and he was let down by his teammates. That wasn't the case. You can read the attached essay for the full details, but the concluding paragraph is:

"...we can now make an argument against Dionne that’s more subtle than “he didn’t score as much as he did in the regular season”. First, Dionne and the Kings usually played very poorly in the first game of a series, often getting blown out. Winning the first game is especially important in a best-of-three/five, so a weak first game is especially dangerous. Second, Dionne played very poorly in elimination games. When the Kings needed a big effort, Dionne was usually (though not always) held off the scoresheet. Nine points in thirteen games is what you’d expect from Butch Goring, not Marcel Dionne. Finally, Dionne’s biggest problem was inconsistency. I found two or three times in his entire career when Dionne strung together two consecutive good games. The Kings often lost because their best player often disappeared for half a series at a time."

I think Dionne has a top 40 regular season resume. But I also think he pretty clearly has the weakest playoff resume of any player who's likely to end up on our final list. (Who would be next weakest - Joe Thornton? Even then, I think Thornton's playoff resume is clearly better, and I don't know if he'll end up in the top hundred).

We'll get to a point when Dionne's regular season offensive dominance is too much to ignore, but I don't think we're there yet.

We now have some more detailed playoff stats available from the NHL for Dionne’s playoff career.

22 of Dionne’s 45 career playoff points were scored on the power play. Only 23 were scored at even strength. So Dionne maintained his PP scoring in the playoffs but was shut down at even strength.

Dionne was also a -23 in 49 games. Not surprising considering he wasn’t scoring at evens.

Marcel Dionne Stats and News

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's an update of an older post I had on Forsberg vs Malkin (note - all stats are through the end of 2017-18, so Malkin's solid first half to the 2018-19 season is being ignored):

Statistically they're very close. Forsberg has slightly outscored Malkin on a per-game basis, 1.25 PPG vs 1.18 PPG. But Malkin has appeared in 76 extra regular season games - about one full season's worth. Their eras were, overall, roughly even in terms of levels of offense.

Malkin finished 1-1-2-4 in scoring , while Forsberg was 1-2-4-5-9. I generally don't like per-game arguments, but both players were injured often, and have similar placings in PPG (1-1-2-4-5-6-6-9 for Forsberg, 1-2-2-3-3-3-4-7-8 for Malkin). It's remarkably close.

Both players spent most of their careers (or all, in the case of Malkin) sharing ice time with an equally good or stronger center. I believe Forsberg generally got tougher matchups than Malkin.

Awards? Both were first-team all-stars three times (Malkin also had one year where he finished 4th, and Forsberg had a year when he 3rd behind Lemieux and Gretzky). Both won a Hart, but Malkin was a runner-up twice (Forsberg never even again in the top five).

Playoffs? Pretty close. Yes, Malkin has an extra Cup and a Smythe. But both led the playoffs in scoring twice (and both have one more top five finish - 5th place for both of them). Their playoff numbers are virtually identical (slight edge to Forsberg). Forsberg led his team in playoff scoring more often (6-4). Forsberg contributed a larger percentage of his team's offense but it's close (35% vs 33%).

Defensive play? Forsberg is clearly better.

It's a tough call. Both were consistent on a per-game basis but missed a lot of time. Forsberg has slightly better numbers in the playoffs and was much better defensively and, despite recurring injuries, he was at least consistent on a per-game basis - the only down year he had from ages 22 to 32 was 2000 (when he barely scored a point per game). Malkin had some years where he didn't impress me at all (like 2013 or especially 2011). On the other hand, Malkin's high-end trophy case (three years as Hart winner or runner-up - first or second in scoring those seasons) is very impressive at this point. I also like the fact that Malkin was the Penguins' leading scorer during two of their three Cups (and three of their five deepest playoff runs overall) - Forsberg led the Avalanche in scoring in three of their six deepest playoff runs, but neither of their two Cup victories.

If I was building a team, I'd take Forsberg first because I prefer his style and I think he's more consistent on a per-game basis. But looking at what they actually accomplished, I'd have to rank Malkin ahead - longer NHL career and despite some lower valleys, he has some more high-end regular seasons and playoff runs, and that pushes him ahead.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Malkin hasn't had a great year...

He's also never been a good defensive player.

I hate this kind of stuff, because it's so cliche...like when people go "Like, I'm totally a Republican, and even *I* don't agree with that..." as if that makes you any more qualified or your opinion worth any more...but that said...I have seen every single Evgeni Malkin game for the last 12 years (AMA). The last time I missed one was April 5, 2007 against Ottawa...so, I'd like to think I'm a subject matter expert on Geno haha

Yet he has a Conn Smythe (deservedly), Art Ross, Hart... he's a winner. Yes, he's not a defensive kind of guy, but that's why he's down here in the voting and not up there (points to sky) like Crosby. His resume - even if it is mainly offense - makes him a contender for top vote getter this round. I'd put him in before Forsberg based on the resumes/achievements of the two players.

 

[DannyGallivan]

We now have some more detailed playoff stats available from the NHL for Dionne’s playoff career.

22 of Dionne’s 45 career playoff points were scored on the power play. Only 23 were scored at even strength. So Dionne maintained his PP scoring in the playoffs but was shut down at even strength.

Dionne was also a -23 in 49 games. Not surprising considering he wasn’t scoring at evens.

Marcel Dionne Stats and News

My issue with Dionne is that I want to reward his body of work without penalizing the fact that he was never on particularly good teams. His career stats and regular season accomplishments vindicate him to a degree. He had 8 seasons of over 100 points... six of them over 120. He also led the league in short handed goals in '75 with ten, so we know he killed penalties. As a guy with almost 1,800 career points, it would seem strange for him not to find a spot somewhere this round.

Right now, I have him on the bubble this round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yet he has a Conn Smythe (deservedly), Art Ross, Hart... he's a winner. Yes, he's not a defensive kind of guy, but that's why he's down here in the voting and not up there (points to sky) like Crosby. His resume - even if it is mainly offense - makes him a contender for top vote getter this round. I'd put him in before Forsberg based on the resumes/achievements of the two players.

You won't find any disagreement from me. He's an offensive weapon of the highest regard. There's nothing he can't do offensively. Frankly, he leaves a little meat on the bone too...he revs it up in the playoffs and when Sid is out...otherwise, he kind of Fedorovs it a lot...which is still better than 95% of the league at least...

 

[Nick Hansen]

Very fair assessment by Hockey Outsider up there. Which ever way you choose to go, Malkin and Forsberg should be very close on this list. I personally prefer Forsberg sliiiightly. But that may be patriotic bias on my part...

Another thing to consider would be international play. Malkin in the WHC 2012 had probably the greatest international performance I've seen to date (being a conscious hockey watcher since about 2001/2002). It was marvellous. Forsberg certainly was no slouch in this matter, though. Very, very good for the most part with team Sweden and the greatest WJC performance ever whichever way you want to weigh that. But peak there goes to Malkin.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Dionne also suffered PR-wise by being mired on the west coast, when there was no NHL hockey closer than Vancouver. No cable television. No sports networks. No internet. You read about Dionne in boxscores way more than you ever actually saw him. And when you did see the Kings, they were usually being pummeled by Montreal in the playoffs on Hockey Night in Canada.

Given that post-expansion awards voters tend to rely mainly on scoring stats rather than anything else, this may have actually been advantageous in some ways.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yet he has a Conn Smythe (deservedly), Art Ross, Hart... he's a winner. Yes, he's not a defensive kind of guy, but that's why he's down here in the voting and not up there (points to sky) like Crosby. His resume - even if it is mainly offense - makes him a contender for top vote getter this round. I'd put him in before Forsberg based on the resumes/achievements of the two players.

I really hope that defense is not the difference between Malkin being ~50 or ~12, because the offensively comparable Forsberg was better defensively than Crosby. I think they’re both down here because of questionable health and no other reason.

Was Malkin in 2007-08 or 2008-09 substantially better than Forsberg in 1997-98 and 1998-99 when he took 1st Team selections over Pearson/Hart nominees? Or 1996-97 when he placed 2nd in Selke voting (+31 to Sakic’s -10 that year, which is jarring even when taking into account that Forsberg saw teams’ best defensive players) for his work on Colorado’s 2nd ranked Penalty Killing (which got worse when they transitioned him into a strictly offensive role)?

Certainly not to the extent that the Hart voting suggests. And Malkin doesn’t exactly have those stretches in his injury-years like Forsberg’s 2003-04 and 2005-06 where he was obviously the best player in the world.

Malkin will be ahead one day, but I also don’t know that today is necessarily that day. Minus-19 right now on a better than average defensive team is alarming.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm open to being corrected here, but my general recollection is that Forsberg almost always brought his lunch pail and gave you an honest effort, be it shift to shift, game to game, week to week. Malkin on the other hand is notorious for taking nights off, or disappearing for weeks at a time. Some of that can maybe be excused as pacing yourself over an 82 game stretch, but it seems with Malkin it goes a little beyond that. If people have them neck and neck and are looking for reasons to choose one above the other, that could be one reason to lean towards Forsberg.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My issue with Dionne is that I want to reward his body of work without penalizing the fact that he was never on particularly good teams. His career stats and regular season accomplishments vindicate him to a degree. He had 8 seasons of over 100 points... six of them over 120. He also led the league in short handed goals in '75 with ten, so we know he killed penalties. As a guy with almost 1,800 career points, it would seem strange for him not to find a spot somewhere this round.

Right now, I have him on the bubble this round.

If you look at Dionne's numbers when he played with two good (not great) players in Simmer and Taylor, they are really remarkable.

In 78-79, on a team that was -83, he had 130 points (59 goals) and was +22.

In 79-80, on a team that was -72, Dionne had 137 points (53 goals) and was +34.

In 80-81, on the only good team the Kings had, Dionne had 135 points (58 goals) and +54.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm open to being corrected here, but my general recollection is that Forsberg almost always brought his lunch pail and gave you an honest effort, be it shift to shift, game to game, week to week. Malkin on the other hand is notorious for taking nights off, or disappearing for weeks at a time. Some of that can maybe be excused as pacing yourself over an 82 game stretch, but it seems with Malkin it goes a little beyond that. If people have them neck and neck and are looking for reasons to choose one above the other, that could be one reason to lean towards Forsberg.

They're both in my top 5 right now. And yes, Forsberg is a spot ahead.

 

[MXD]

I can't exactly check right now, but I'm 99% certain the Kings were not a -83 team in 78-79.

Edit : Is that the number on HR? If yes, that's the sum of the +/- of the players. Which is not quite the +/- of the team.

By my calculations, the Kings were a -17 team.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I can't exactly check right now, but I'm 99% certain the Kings were not a -83 team in 78-79.

Edit : Is that the number on HR? If yes, that's the sum of the +/- of the players. Which is not quite the +/- of the team.

By my calculations, the Kings were a -7 team.

Yes, that's the sum of the +/- of the players.

 

[seventieslord]

My issue with Dionne is that I want to reward his body of work without penalizing the fact that he was never on particularly good teams. His career stats and regular season accomplishments vindicate him to a degree. He had 8 seasons of over 100 points... six of them over 120. He also led the league in short handed goals in '75 with ten, so we know he killed penalties. As a guy with almost 1,800 career points, it would seem strange for him not to find a spot somewhere this round.

Right now, I have him on the bubble this round.

1974-75 was an anomaly. He had 12 of his 30 career SHP that season, and 30 of his career 157 PPGA. On a career basis, he was on the ice for just 13% of his team's PPGA. So technically yeah it's true, he "killed penalties", but 13% is not a noteworthy, needle moving amount, at all.

 

[seventieslord]

I can't exactly check right now, but I'm 99% certain the Kings were not a -83 team in 78-79.

Edit : Is that the number on HR? If yes, that's the sum of the +/- of the players. Which is not quite the +/- of the team.

By my calculations, the Kings were a -17 team.

Yeah, that's not the way you do it.

 

[Sentinel]

Still no Fedorov? Wow.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, we're not to the end yet, so...

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Still no Fedorov? Wow.

Never mind that locks-of-the-bowl... we're still trying to make up our minds as to whether Tretiak is a Top-50 player.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah, that's not the way you do it.

Not the way you do what?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

COLLECTION OF POSTS FROM HOH TOP GOALTENDERS PROJECT:

Frank Brimsek was likely cheated out of 2-3 1st Team All Star Teams by the tradition that the 1st Team always went to the Vezina winner. And remember that the Vezina was simply awarded to the goalie of the team with the lowest GAA, like the modern Jennings Trophy.

I believe credit has to go to TheContrarianGoaltender for being the first to notice that the First Team All Star went to the clearcut starting goalie (>75% of the games played) with the lowest GAA 100% of the time from 1935-1956. It's highly unlikely that the goalie with the lowest GAA was the best goalie in the league year-in, year-out. Also note that the 2nd Team All Star was not attached to GAA like the 1st Team All Star was.

Credit goes to Sturminator for doing all the original research here on Brimsek.

1942-43: Brimsek widely considered the best goalie, despite Johnny Mowers' being awarded the 1st Team

Brimsek lost a close vote to Johnny Mowers for the 1st Team All Star: 12-14, despite placing 5th in Hart voting (Mowers didn't place). It appears that Brimsek was widely considered the best goalie in the league that year, however.

By the NHL players:

Returning NHL performers who have been turning up in various prairie rinks there last few weeks, concede that they have little quarrel with the all-star band of puckists collected in the Canadian Press vote this spring. They put up a stout argument on Frankie Brimsek's behalf for the goaltending assignment, but nod assent to all other choices from then on as they sum up the dream team this way:

Johnny Mowers: A fine goalkeeper playing behind the strongest team in the big-league. Worthy of all-star recognition, but the hockey players' goaltender is Frank Brimsek. They unanimously point to Brimsek as the king of custodians. "Frankie is our man, " they chorus."

The Leader Post, April 8, 1943

By NHL coaches and managers, including Mowers' own GM:

Detroit's Johnny Mowers can't miss winning the Vezina goal-tending award but he appears far back in the running for a National Hockey league All-Star berth...Judging by the talk of the visiting hockey masterminds, the Bruins' Frankie Brimsek still is the greatest goalie in pro hockey.

Mowers can not depend upon the vote of his own boss, Jack Adams. The latter rates Mowers as a very good goaltender, "But when I am called upon to name the best one, I must pick Brimsek," Adams explained. "If there ever has been a better goalie anywhere at any time than Brimsek, I've never seen him."

Adams sadly confessed that Brimsek gives the Bruins a goal and a half start before they even take to the ice..."The only reason why Mowers has had fewer goals scored against him is because our Red Wing defensemen give him much better support than the Bruins provide Brimsek," Jolly Jack points out....Adam's high opinion of Brimsek has been loudly seconded by Chicago's Paul Thompson, Ranger's Frank Boucher, and Canadiens' Dick Irvin...that group is almost as enthusiastic about Brimsek as Art Ross, who predicted that Frankie would be the greatest goalie in history long before he ever appeared in a major league net.

The Day, Feb 3, 1943

By Johnny Mowers and Turk Broda:

Johnny Mowers is about as safe a bet as you can get to win the George Vezina Trophy this season, but he is going to be slightly embarrassed if he does. All the glowing notices so far have been reserved for frigid Frank Brimsek and Turk Broda of the Toronto Maple Leafs.
...
But everybody who ever saw enough hockey to venture a prediction will tell you that Mowers is less efficient between the pipes than either Brimsek or Broda. Mowers himself hands the palm ungrudgingly to Brimsek and Broda was recently quoted as saying that Mr. Zero was tops in his book too, even though 126 pucks have been filtered in past the man Bun Cook discovered.

On the other hand, Broda is no slouch either. In a clutch, he is probably as smooth a worker as Brimsek although he moves his bulky form less quickly and is hardly as sharp on rebounds.

The Sunday Sun, Feb 2, 1943

1947-48: Brimsek loses the First Team on Tiebreak to Turk Broda, the Vezina Winner, while easily beating him in Hart voting

In the late 40s, the All Star teams were voted on by NHL coaches. Coaches couldn't vote for their own players, so the most votes a player could get was 5.

GOALTENDER: (54, 6-6-6) Turk Broda, Tor 19 (3-1-1); Frank Brimsek, Bos 19 (2-3-0); Bill Durnan, Mtl 9 (1-1-1); Harry Lumley, Det 7 (0-1-4)

Brimsek, however, was 2nd in Hart voting, while Broda didn't receive a single vote.

Here's an article from a game during the season. The writer heard rumors that Brimsek was starting to show his age so he kept a close eye on him, and concluded that he was still brilliant. It ends with this interesting tidbit:

All and all, Mr. Brimsek performed in a manner which should keep him nip and tuck with William Durnan of Montreal in the race for the Vezina Trophy and the top goaler's rating of the year. He certainly outfaced Mr. Broda, who is mentioned in some circles as a strong rival to these two greatest gate keeper's in the league's history.

Broda would go on to win his second Vezina and the 1st Team that almost seemed to automatically come with it. But note that he was quite clearly considered the third best to Brimsek and Durnan as late as 1948
The Lewiston Daily Sun, Nov 26, 1946


1940-41: Brimsek loses the First Team by a single point to Turk Broda, the Vezina Winner

As of now, there is no supporting evidence that this one is questionable, other than the 100% correlation between the 1st Team and the Vezina at the time.

GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Turk Broda, Tor 14; Frank Brimsek, Bos 13; Johnny Mowers, Det 2

We do, however, have reports of praise that was heaped on Brimsek in only his 3rd season:

Then, just in case you think the Boston rearguard isn't so good, let us consider the last line of the Bruin defence - Frankie Brimsek. As successor to the peerless Tiny Thompson, Brimsek was sensational as a rookie. Today Brimsek, all reports to the contrary, is a better goalie than he was then.

As the Boston club was held to a 2-2 tie by an inspired band Red Wings at Olympia last Sunday evening, Brimsek gave the best display of puck fending for two periods that this observer has seen all season. Right now we'd rate him as the best goalie in the league with Johnny Mowers of the Wings second and Turk Broda of the Maple Leafs third - and we are not just judging on the basis of their goals against records.

The Windsor Daily Star, Feb 11, 1941

In conclusion

I'll just quote Sturminator here:

I wouldn't normally make too much of the Vezina / 1st team all-star phenomenon, but the newspaper articles make it so obvious who the better goalie was and that for whatever reason the voters stuck with the Vezina winner, anyway, that it sort of calls the entire all-star system for goalies into question for that era. But once you see the papers and realize the obvious distortion, then a lot of results start to look strange. I mean...Turk Broda was only a 1st team all-star twice in his long career, the exact same years he won the Vezina, both times beating Brimsek by the thinnest of margins.

This is all very suspicious stuff. I think Brimsek is rightfully probably a 4 time 1st team / 4 time 2nd team all-star and one can quibble about another of the 2nd teams maybe being really a 1st. He also lost two prime years to the war, and if there is ever a scenario where we should count lost war years, it is for Brimsek, who was an all-star in the five years preceding the war, and in the three years after the war.

The thing about Brimsek is that if you think about it, all those 2nd team all-star selections in an era when the first-team selection almost always went to the Vezina winner is really impressive - moreso than it appears at first glance. What it means is that in a year where the Vezina winner wasn't one of the two best goalies, Brimsek had to be the best goalie in the league just to make the second team, because the second-best goalie was not represented, at all, on the all-star team. Brimsek made eight consecutive all-star teams, with a two year break for the war almost directly in the middle of his career.

I think people have undervalued Brimsek around here because of all the 2nd team appearances, which are deceptively good given the circumstances of his era. During Frank Brimsek's career, the winner of the Vezina trophy was the first team all-star every single season. That fact, alone, is extremely dubious, but when we combine it with multiple pieces of clear evidence that Brimsek was at times better than the Vezina winners...well, I think he starts to look more like a superstar and less like "that guy with a bunch of 2nd team all-star nods".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Frank Brimsek's All-Star record re-examined (year by year)

So from 1935-1956, the 1st Team All Star was the goalie who led the league in GAA (among goalies who played at least 75% of the games) 100% of the time. The 2nd Team All Star was NOT always the goalie who was 2nd. Does this mean we should take 2nd Teams as seriously as 1st Teams for this era?

Brimsek was top 2 in All Star voting every year for 10 years starting in his rookie year (1939), except the 2 seasons he missed due to World War 2.

1938-39: 1st Team
1939-40: 2nd Team
1940-41: 2nd Team
1941-42: 1st Team
1942-43: 2nd Team
1943-44: missed due to WW2
1944-45: missed due to WW2
1945-46: 2nd Team (missed 1/4 of the season due to WW2)
1946-47: 2nd Team
1947-48: 2nd Team

As indicated above, he was almost certainly cheated out of the 1942-43 1st Team, probably cheated out of the 1947-48 1st Team, and maybe cheated out of the 1940-41 1st Team.

So you have a guy who was a 2 x 1st Team, 6 x 2nd Team All-Star. But he probably should be a 4 x 1st Team, 4 x 2nd Team All-Star. Maybe even a 5 x 1st Team, 3 x 2nd Team All-Star... and that's not including the 2 prime years he missed due to World War 2.


-