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

[overpass]

I remember that game more for huge defensive errors and a total mental surrender (think Canada only had three or four shots on goal in the third period).

The final score was lopsided but the score was close for most of the first two periods. One of those games where saves made and not made early could mean a very different third period. Teammates and opponents had high praise for Tretiak’s play in the newspaper reports the next day.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The final score was lopsided but the score was close for most of the first two periods. One of those games where saves made and not made early could mean a very different third period. Teammates and opponents had high praise for Tretiak’s play in the newspaper reports the next day.

Again, I don't think he sucked. But he hardly stole that game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It wouldn't be the first time a great goalie was let go.

Dryden's reputation hangs largely on his 1971 performance, where he was perforated by goals and yet won the Conn Smythe because Boston was supposed to sweep the playoffs, win the Stanley Cup and outscore every team by five goals per game. Frank Mahovlich's production was largely forgotten in those playoffs. With some exceptions, whenever Dryden face a lot of shots, he needed his team to win a goal-scoring sprint in order to win the game.

Montreal had both Vachon and Tony O. I think they never needed to worry about dominating the 70's. In fact, they may have one an additional Stanley Cup if they kept either of them over Dryden, since Wayne Thomas was a poor replacement in goal in '74 and Dryden was kinda rusty when he came back in '75.

Not in return for spare parts for the Voyageurs.

Amongst the top 9 Canadiens forwards, Frank Mahovlich had by far the weakest +/- in the 1971 playoffs.

Dryden regularly outplayed Tony O head to head in the playoffs.

Montreal media never lamented the departure of Vachon or Tony O even though one print guy is Vachon's cousin.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Dryden regularly outplayed Tony O head to head in the playoffs.

I hate when people make it sound like one goalie was the opposition to another goalie. Esposito faced Montreal shooters and relied on his team's defense. Dryden faced Chicago's shooters and relied on his team's defense.

Amongst the top 9 Canadiens forwards, Frank Mahovlich had by far the weakest +/- in the 1971 playoffs.

I'll take his 14 goals and 27 points over his plus two rating. Plus minus... the most slippery of stats.

Montreal media never lamented the departure of Vachon or Tony O even though one print guy is Vachon's cousin.

As long as you keep winning, why would anybody complain.

Again, Dryden was a great goalie. I think it was too early for him to get in the last round, never mind how high he was actually voted in. Same with Tretiak. Still, they both comfortably made my top 100.

 

[overpass]

Again, I don't think he sucked. But he hardly stole that game.

Some quotes from the Montreal Gazette the next day (September 14, 1981):

Michael Farber on page 1 mentioned Tretiak in the third paragraph as a reason for victory.

Red Fisher spent half his column writing about Tretiak.

Scotty Bowman noted that scoring chances were almost even and gave Tretiak credit.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Some quotes from the Montreal Gazette the next day (September 14, 1981):

Michael Farber on page 1 mentioned Tretiak in the third paragraph as a reason for victory.

View attachment 179077

Red Fisher spent half his column writing about Tretiak.

View attachment 179079
View attachment 179083

Scotty Bowman noted that scoring chances were almost even and gave Tretiak credit.

View attachment 179085

I saw the game. I think it was easier to say that Tretiak stoned Gretzky, Lafleur and Bossy rather than say that our high-powered offense choked after we fell behind a little bit. And didn't Canada kick the Soviet's butt earlier in the tournament?

...and again, it's not that I'm saying that Tretiak didn't play well, it's just that he sure didn't steal an 8-1 game. He deserves to be on this list, but not yet.

 

[MXD]

This passes the fact-check (for the period 1933-34 to 1937-38), but isn't inimical to my point.

Over the three-year stretch 1936-37 to 1938-39, Chicago's team Goals For average was less than two. Chicago was last in Goals For all 3 seasons. The Goals For average for the rest of the league as a whole (who also played all three seasons- Maroons folded in that span) was 2.61.

Nearly ⅔s of a goal less than remainder-of-league average, for a 3-year span- during a time when 2.6 was ordinary; is a KreistAwful total.

Oh, of course. Chicago wasn't a great offensive team; they had pieces, just not enough of them.

But all this... would be neutral at best for Seibert, no?
On one hand, the Hawks lack the forward corps, hence Seibert is at a comparative disadvantage when compared to other D-Men.
On the other, Seibert was part of this team that failed to generate offence, and Seibert would spend LOTS of time on the ice. Ergo, Seibert probably had some issues himself generating offence.

 

[Theokritos]

Look at those poll results...the non-Montreal hockey players with substantial votes are Howe, Gretzky, Orr, and Tretiak.

But that was a poll for the "favourite athletes", right?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Seibert's early Ranger years suggest that he could be a fine offensive threat relative to peers at his position, IF he was provided with upfront talent with finishing capabilities and/or capacity to create space and threaten defenses.

[Don't know what to make of his performance in the 40s yet- still researching.]

(Standing by for that promised 'Defensive VsX' snippet suggested earlier. Should be revealing.)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

(Standing by for that promised 'Defensive VsX' snippet promised earlier. Should be revealing.)

I can post this if there's interest, but I've been hesitant because I haven't had time to review/validate it like I normally would (nor am I likely to have time in the near future). But if there's demand for a first attempt, I can post this later tonight.

 

[seventieslord]

I've got it too. Can post tonight.

 

[Captain Bowie]

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 **** job of following the preliminary thread.

I'm probably partially to blame. I now realize I had Cleghorn along with King Clancy criminally low on my initial list, and Seibert maybe a bit too high.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've got it too. Can post tonight.

I'm pretty sure we calculated these independently, so it would be interesting to compare the results and see how close they are.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Regarding the 3 modern C's up for vote, I had all 3 higher than even the #1 voting spot this round.

I am now thinking I did not punish Dionne quite enough for his lack of post-season or otherwise "when the chips were down" play. As a producer on a game to game a season to season basis he was outstanding. This comes through in his VsX among other statistical parameters. He will fall in the bottom half for me this round.

Forsberg and Malkin oh so close to me. Malkin I actually think is a better offensive producer at his best. Both have missed a fair bit of time. Both playoff montsers. I give Forsberg the slight edge still based on being an overall better player. But I don't think he'll hold onto the edge for long. One or two more semi-complete seasons from Geno and he'll pass him. But not quite yet.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

For future reference, at what point would you say you stopped being "of sound mind"?

It was around the end of August.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Why would he be up this early? Basically an average to above average player after his age 26 season. He'll be lucky to make a voting, let alone the list.

Dude had three 20 point playoffs after age 26 (one was 19 actually but whatever) during the DPE and was a key cog in a dynasty.

I don't see how that is remotely average.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh great, now playoffs matter...

We'll page you when Fedorov comes up, relax. For reference, we wrap in about two months...

 

[wetcoast]

But that was a poll for the "favourite athletes", right?

First thing I thought is how popular Tie Domi would do in a Leafs poll although that poll was very interesting.

 

[ted2019]

Dude had three 20 point playoffs after age 26 (one was 19 actually but whatever) during the DPE and was a key cog in a dynasty.

I don't see how that is remotely average.

I was talking about his regular season and I know that you knew that. He's still what I said he is, an average to an above average player after his age 26 season.

 

[seventieslord]

Earl Seibert's Defense Vsx: 100, 100, 96, 95, 83, 75, 71, 67, 60, 58. 5, 7, 10 year averages: 95, 89, 81.
Pierre Pilote: 169, 147, 136, 127, 103, 100, 100, 95, 93, 86 (136, 126, 116)
Brad Park: 143, 139, 100, 100, 87, 86, 84, 84, 83, 76. (114, 106, 98)
Sprague Cleghorn: 165, 100, 100, 100, 100, 89, 89, 87, 86, 85 (113, 106, 100)

For the record, I agree that Cleghorn should be ranked ahead of Seibert. And I am a huge Seibert fan.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I was talking about his regular season and I know that you knew that.

How exactly could I have gleaned that from your post?

Why would he be up this early? Basically an average to above average player after his age 26 season. He'll be lucky to make a voting, let alone the list.

The words "regular season" don't even appear.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Oh great, now playoffs matter...

I have never said otherwise.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Earl Seibert's Defense Vsx: 100, 100, 96, 95, 83, 75, 71, 67, 60, 58. 5, 7, 10 year averages: 95, 89, 81.
Pierre Pilote: 169, 147, 136, 127, 103, 100, 100, 95, 93, 86 (136, 126, 116)
Brad Park: 143, 139, 100, 100, 87, 86, 84, 84, 83, 76. (114, 106, 98)
Sprague Cleghorn: 165, 100, 100, 100, 100, 89, 89, 87, 86, 85 (113, 106, 100)

For the record, I agree that Cleghorn should be ranked ahead of Seibert. And I am a huge Seibert fan.

Nice work.

Also illustrates that the default point of reference unless specified is regular season play.

 

[VanIslander]

Earl Seibert's Defense Vsx: 100, 100, 96, 95, 83, 75, 71, 67, 60, 58. 5, 7, 10 year averages: 95, 89, 81.

To be clear: that is his offense, not defense. (Just so no one is tempted to reduce their judgements to points. In fact, it doesn't even tell the whole picture offensively, as Seibert was also known for his passing, in an era where assists, especially 2nd assists from dmen spurring rushes, were unrecorded).

Seibert was renowned defensively, much more so than Shore or Cleghorn, in terms of shotblocking and strength in checking.

 

[VMBM]

I saw Tretiak play about 20- 25 times. I recall him stealing just one game. It was the 3-3 1975 New Years Eve tie against the Montreal Canadiens. The Habs outclassed the Red Army in every imaginable facet of the game... except in goal. Dryden was absolutely horrible, letting in two soft goals and three in total on only 13 shots. Montreal had 38 shots on Tretiak, and should have scored about 8 goals. Without going too far off track here, that game has often been called the greatest game of all time - that's garbage. It was too one-sided to be called that. All three '87 Canada Cup final games were more riveting.

Err, Mikhailov's goal was scored from the slot (with the defencemen backing off too much), but yes, Dryden probably should have stopped it. But what about Aleksandrov's goal? As I recall, it was a 3-on-1 situation; maybe it was 'stoppable' (and Dryden did get a piece of it), but 'soft'?

I agree on the "greatest game of all-time" nonsense; it certainly wasn't that - except maybe for Montreal and Tretiak fans.