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

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Enough about a have-not...re: Milt Schmidt being listed at defense on Hockey-Reference...

They get the majority of their position data from Dan Diamond.

Mr. Diamond says that he really only is aware of 15 games that Schmidt played at defense to start the 1949-50 season. So probably not a necessary distinction...

See attached newspaper clip...(The Globe and Mail, Nov. 19, 1949)

Schmidt.png

From The Gazette, October 22, 1949 game.

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Seems like injuries may have been a contributing reason to Schmidt starting the season on defence.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
- Totally unrelated to this round, but that's probably a decent place to ask : Why did Gardiner won the Vezina in 33-34? Wilf Cude had the better GAA. He played only 30 games, but ... that's a sizeable proportion of the season, no?

Gardiner was the starting goaltender of the team with the best GAA. Same way the modern Jennings is awarded - based on Team GAA, not individual GAA.

Gardiner was ill all season (not sure when the voting took place for the Vezina, I believe he was alive when it was awarded, but could be wrong). Either way I think he is the exception that proves the rule, he won this because of the unique circumstances surrounding his season.

There was no Vezina voting back then. Only All-Star voting.

But as indicated, in the years between Gardiner and Hall (who were both voted 1st Team AS at least once without winning the Vezina), nobody was ever voted 1st Team All-Star without also winning the Vezina. Highly suspicious.

But the 2nd Team winners seem mostly untethered from GAA, meaning those were largely based on watching the goalies play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kruezer

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
So even after my big Brimsek posts, I'm not entirely sure he makes my top 5 this round (though he might). He's definitely my next-best NHL goalie by a clear margin.

Anyone have any thoughts on the comparison of teammates Brimsek and Schmidt? At first glance, Schmidt has a better Hart record, but Brimsek was more consistent.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,609
28,846
Gardiner was the starting goaltender of the team with the best GAA. Same way the modern Jennings is awarded - based on Team GAA, not individual GAA.



There was no Vezina voting back then. Only All-Star voting.

But as indicated, in the years between Gardiner and Hall (who were both voted 1st Team AS at least once without winning the Vezina), nobody was ever voted 1st Team All-Star without also winning the Vezina. Highly suspicious.

But the 2nd Team winners seem mostly untethered from GAA, meaning those were largely based on watching the goalies play.
All-Stars were voted by the media the whole time? Outside of the NE (Boston, NY), I doubt that reporters were traveling a ton to all of the games, right? And they weren't really nationally televised. So the Vezina may have just been effective signalling for a guy you only saw 20% of the time.

Eh - as I think about that, the logic seems shaky. 35 games a year, you'd still see those guys 7 times a piece.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,254
2,736
- Totally unrelated to this round, but that's probably a decent place to ask : Why did Gardiner won the Vezina in 33-34? Wilf Cude had the better GAA. He played only 30 games, but ... that's a sizeable proportion of the season, no?

Vezina was based on team GA. Chicago allowed the fewest goals and Gardiner was their goaltender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
So even after my big Brimsek posts, I'm not entirely sure he makes my top 5 this round (though he might). He's definitely my next-best NHL goalie by a clear margin.

Anyone have any thoughts on the comparison of teammates Brimsek and Schmidt? At first glance, Schmidt has a better Hart record, but Brimsek was more consistent.

Brimsek is buoyed by comments suggesting he was already considered arguably the greatest goaltender of all time by the early 40's. I recall reading not long ago that Art Ross freely predicted he'd be the greatest ever back in his rookie season.

I'd like to dig a little more into Brimsek's pre-NHL development. Like Tretiak, it seems he must have at least some element of being self-taught. His Wikipedia page is a good read. Gives the impression that Brimsek probably could have been an NHL level goaltender earlier than he was. I wasn't aware that he was from the same hometown as Mike Karakas. A town in Minnesota producing two NHL goalies in the 1930s is interesting.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
So even after my big Brimsek posts, I'm not entirely sure he makes my top 5 this round (though he might). He's definitely my next-best NHL goalie by a clear margin.

Anyone have any thoughts on the comparison of teammates Brimsek and Schmidt? At first glance, Schmidt has a better Hart record, but Brimsek was more consistent.

I listed Brimsek well ahead of Schmidt when I was of sound mind. But I have little confidence when comparing players I never saw play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
Personally don't really understand the hype about Schmidt. Played mostly during weak years, only four seasons in top 10 points (same as Malkin and Forsberg, who were both higher in their respective seasons). The Hart and the Ross are nice. Three AS-1 as well.

But compare him to Malkin and Forsberg...I don't see it.

I think people need to think more about the Hart voting. Forsberg ever being only Hart-1 then Hart-7, Hart-8 and so on clearly doesn't give the whole truth with regards to some other players and Forsberg in comparison. Are we ranking the best players or the best careers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Personally don't really understand the hype about Schmidt. Played mostly during weak years, only four seasons in top 10 points (same as Malkin and Forsberg, who were both higher in their respective seasons). The Hart and the Ross are nice. Three AS-1 as well.

But compare him to Malkin and Forsberg...I don't see it.

I think people need to think more about the Hart voting. Forsberg ever being only Hart-1 then Hart-7, Hart-8 and so on clearly doesn't give the whole truth with regards to some other players and Forsberg in comparison. Are we ranking the best players or the best careers?

Seems more are ranking best careers.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Personally don't really understand the hype about Schmidt. Played mostly during weak years, only four seasons in top 10 points (same as Malkin and Forsberg, who were both higher in their respective seasons). The Hart and the Ross are nice. Three AS-1 as well.

But compare him to Malkin and Forsberg...I don't see it.

I think people need to think more about the Hart voting. Forsberg ever being only Hart-1 then Hart-7, Hart-8 and so on clearly doesn't give the whole truth with regards to some other players and Forsberg in comparison. Are we ranking the best players or the best careers?

Schmidt was also well known as a leader on the ice, was at least as good defensively as Forsberg, and seems to have been even more physical than Forsberg. All that said, I have him ranked just a little bit behind Malkin/Forsberg or Forsberg/Malkin, basically because of reasons you say.

There's a decent chance Schmidt waits a round, but I have him over Dionne, Seibert, and Geoffrion, at least.
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
Schmidt was also well known as a leader on the ice, was at least as good defensively as Forsberg, and seems to have been even more physical than Forsberg. All that said, I have him ranked just a little bit behind Malkin/Forsberg or Forsberg/Malkin, basically because of reasons you say.

There's a decent chance Schmidt waits a round, but I have him over Dionne, Seibert, and Geoffrion, at least.

To add, both Malkin and Forsberg have far superior playoff resumes.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Personally don't really understand the hype about Schmidt. Played mostly during weak years, only four seasons in top 10 points (same as Malkin and Forsberg, who were both higher in their respective seasons). The Hart and the Ross are nice. Three AS-1 as well.

But compare him to Malkin and Forsberg...I don't see it.

I think people need to think more about the Hart voting. Forsberg ever being only Hart-1 then Hart-7, Hart-8 and so on clearly doesn't give the whole truth with regards to some other players and Forsberg in comparison. Are we ranking the best players or the best careers?

I'm definitely coming around to the Forsberg>Schmidt point of view. Forsberg's biggest issue, as we know, was being healthy enough to play. But his per-game impact is pretty much unquestioned. If Schmidt had been a model of consistency throughout his career, it wouldn't be hard to for me to accept a slightly lower per-game impact as trade off for always knowing what you were going to get. But he has those as-of-now unexplained lulls throughout his career ('41, '48, '49 in particular) that Forsberg never really had.

I still like Schmidt over Malkin, however. While Forsberg was basically "Forsberg" every time he made it onto the ice from 1995-2006, Malkin cannot say the same. There are long stretches of Malkin's prime where he wasn't close to delivering the same impact as he did 2009, 2012, or 2017. Malkin also bothers me a little as a player who never really seemed to evolve into a more complete or versatile player as he matured.

This might be something Penguins fans can better shed light on, but it seems like the Malkin we got in 2009 is pretty much the same player we still have today. His teammate Crosby became appreciably better at practically everything besides generating offense as the years rolled on. But it seems like Malkin has been less willing or less able to improve on other aspects of his game. This hurts him in a stylistic comparison to Schmidt, whose game had no weaknesses, at least in the eyes of his contemporaries. I still recall the Red Storey (longtime referee from the Original Six era) quote from the Legends of Hockey series from the mid-1990s. Something to the effect of "I'm often asked to name my all-time all-star team, and I'll give my choices for each position. However, if it were possible, I would most prefer a team of five Milt Schmidt's. I could then throw my grandmother in goal, and we'd never worry about a thing".
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
This is only one of the reasons I stopped participating in this project. My vision of the Top 100 is very different from the people here.

Instead of complaining, why don't you state on why you think Fedorov should be a top 50, 75, 100 player on this list? If his name was Joe Bison and was from Montana and played for the Chicago Blackhawks, would you still think he was a top 100 type of player? It's nice to have your favorites ( everyone does), but not at the expense of this type of project. I'm probably the biggest Bobby Clarke & Eric Lindros fan on the HOH section, but I didn't vote Clarke high in this 1st round eligible, as there were better players available. Same with Lindros with the whole Forsberg debate when someone said that they had Lindros & Forsberg side by side. I said they were crazy and I had Lindros 55 spots lower then Forsberg.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
And I stopped.

Too far off.
Wouldn't then in your eyes the list benefit from you contribution? I wouldn't be your personal list, but it would be closer to it than without your participation.

This is a cheap cop out. How long before the Datsyuk complaints begin?
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,290
I actually agree with Sents on Feds, I think he's slightly underrated/underappreciated here, and that he probably should show up soon, and could try to make a case for it here when the voting closes for this round, but continuous whining about personal favorites isn't very productive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
So seriously... How did Seibert of all players become a candidate before the obviously superior Cleghorn?

Did someone make a passionate case for Seibert in the preliminary thread? I'll admit that I did a shit job of following the preliminary thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,797
754
Helsinki, Finland
Don't be surprised if our wait for Firsov and Mikhailov goes on. (And Bathgate. And Selänne. And Iginla...)

I don't mind "waiting" for Mikhailov, but I think Firsov should have been available already and should be ranked a fair bit above Mikhailov. Mikhailov has longevity over Firsov, but what else...? Blah blah blah (to be continued when it's relevant, that is).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
So even after my big Brimsek posts, I'm not entirely sure he makes my top 5 this round (though he might). He's definitely my next-best NHL goalie by a clear margin.

Anyone have any thoughts on the comparison of teammates Brimsek and Schmidt? At first glance, Schmidt has a better Hart record, but Brimsek was more consistent.
This a good place to start for my mid-week report. To begin with, I don't think The Panel went wrong by having Schmidt higher than Brimsek on the Composite List. I got 'em close, real close, but Schmidt is looking like he'll slot into position three on my ballot this go-round. Brimsek has greater consistency- Schmidt has more career-value. Brimsek took a hit from the War- Schmidt took a bigger hit from the War. Schmidt can have stretches where his offensive contributions flag- but unlike Malkin, he can help the team with big defensive presence when his offense goes dry.* He has that durability advantage over Forsberg. To me, he's the class of the Centers.

[I agree on Brimsek being the next-best option for Goaltenders after we advance Tretiak.]

Pilote- oh, Pierre Pilote... he's turning into one of those guys where I say "the more I look, the less I see." I think it's a legitimate question to ask if he even gets ONE Norris trophy if he's playing for one of the underclass O-6 teams like the Bruins or Rangers, rather than in Chicago, headmanning to Hull & Mikita. I hope time constraints won't get in the way of "showing my work" on a Pilote-Seibert direct-comparison... but suffice it to say that Seibert doesn't slink up to such a comparison, he stands strong- maybe stronger†.


*Malkin serves in other ways, as does Forsberg. Even when slumping, they still have to be accounted for-- and such an accounting results in a team-benefit by providing more opportunities for (respectively) Crosby and Sakic. This is a way to contribute that was NOT open for Dionne, to cite one. I have these three guys and Geoffrion on my "hope-to-see-you-next-round" tier.

†Edit- progress-report from inside the weeds: OMG/ITHNOC those late-30s Blackhawks teams had NO front-line scoring- I mean next to no offense whatsoever. I'd like to see Pierre Pilote try to lead Defensemen in scoring passing to that collection of :joker::joker::joker:s. I don't think anybody this side of Orr would've had a chance of making scorers out of those dudes. What a stench.:surrender
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Where’s everyone on Vladislav Tretiak vs. Peter Forsberg? I feel pretty good on them being on-deck in terms of their own position (though TDMM makes a compelling case for Brimsek), but head-to-head, they haven’t really been compared. I like the two primes argument that was made for Tretiak in an earlier round.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Had a look at Pilote's first Norris. I got the vibe that Pilote nailed it down via the 'Hank Sauer>Stan Musial' method: voters eventually wearied of x-ing the 'Harvey' box and changed-it-up.

I don't see ANYTHING in the metrics to suggest that Pilote was superior to Harvey that year.

Also took note of Pilote's last Norris- a defensible selection-- but they could have given it to a few guys that year. Can't figure out how Horton didn't get any consideration that campaign, though.

In fairness, Pilote looked to be a credible candidate for the "won't-be-seeing-you-for-a-while" Norris that was given to Howell in 1966-67.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->