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

[overpass]

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

That’s a fair point. I would say there’s a difference between Montreal and Toronto fans. Montreal fans appreciated quality, as seen from the poll, where they voted for all time great Canadiens, hockey players, and athletes. Toronto fans have always preferred the hard workers, high visible effort types. You can see it going back over 100 years in Toronto hockey coverage. I blame/credit Toronto’s Methodist history.

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.

Renowned defensively, yes. Much more so than Shore or Cleghorn, I don’t think so. While Shore and Cleghorn were great rushers for most of their careers, they each had multiple years in their 30s where they were Hart contenders (and winners in Shore’s case) because of their defensive play.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Because of"...? That's a long way to go for me...

 

[seventieslord]

"Because of"...? That's a long way to go for me...

Cleghorn for sure was.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, that I'll buy...not so much with Shore...

 

[overpass]

Yeah, that I'll buy...not so much with Shore...

Shore won two Hart trophies while scoring less than 20 points in each season (1935-36 and 1937-38).

Tommy Gorman named Shore the best blocking defenceman in hockey in February of his 1935-36 Hart season, and Jim Hendy wrote after Shore’s 1937-38 Hart season that Shore had focused chiefly on defensive tactics.

Earl Seibert had only two top-five Hart finishes, one during a war season. Seibert outscored Shore in the 1937-38 regular season, but was only a second team all star, while Shore was a first team all star and won the Hart. I don’t think it’s likely that Earl Seibert was ever the top defensive defenceman in the league until Eddie Shore retired.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I know, we've been down the road on Shore already...but sub-20 points, was still just about the best in the league among d-men. His 19 points was 2nd among league d-men (21 Jerwa)...his 17 points was 6th among league d-men. The idea that Shore was best defensive defensemen in the league, in terms of pure defense, is not something I would buy for half a second...he may have been physical, fine, I can see that alluring some on-lookers...but let's not make any mistake about him being a stalwart defensive player to this degree. Even if there's a couple of anecdotes here and there hinting at it, in the grand scheme, that seems highly, highly unlikely...

 

[seventieslord]

Again, you're relying way to much on a f***ing highlight video.

 

[seventieslord]

again...

No one doubts he was the best offensive defenseman of his time. No one doubts he was tough and could hit. It's his defense that is being questioned. But Shore had defensive ability. It's pretty obvious from the results. He was the #1 defenseman for 13 years, on a team that only failed to be above average defensively twice. Overall, the Bruins averaged 14% better than the league defensively. Recall in my past study, that Lidstrom's wings were 11% better than average, Bourque's Bruins 10% and Potvin's Isles 16%.

Defensive consistency seemed to be the Bruins' strength. Aside from 1934, their results were remarkably steady. Offensively, over this time they were just as dominant, 13% better than average, but with results all over the map, with huge swings from season to season. the one constant was strong defense and the one player who was always there was Shore.

So what? They were good defensively, right? Well, he kinda was the most important player to those efforts. Every season from 1928 to 1939, Shore was the leading vote getter among defensive players on the Bruins, except for 1930 (Hitchman) and 1937 (Thompson). Also, in 1932 and 1934 no Bruins received any votes. Every other season, Shore was the only defenseman or goalie on Boston getting any credit in Hart voting.

In fact, his best hart voting seasons tend to correspond to the years Boston was most dominant defensively. Three of his four Hart wins were in three of Boston's five most dominant defensive seasons: 1938, 1936 and 1933.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Those words still fit into my narrative and my statements. When he tried to dial himself in defensively, he was rewarded with a treat. When he didn't, he generally wasn't. Sounds like an inconsistent defensive player (maybe bump him up from Byfuglien to Letang?) and therefore, one that isn't in the Hall "because of" his defensive ability...rather, he's in because he didn't abandon defense like it seems like Harry Cameron did or Housley (now in, of course...)

I guess maybe I'm lawyering this...for that I apologize. I'll give you guys the last word on the subject, whatever that is, so we can get back to Seibert and crew...

 

[MXD]

That’s a fair point. I would say there’s a difference between Montreal and Toronto fans. Montreal fans appreciated quality, as seen from the poll, where they voted for all time great Canadiens, hockey players, and athletes. Toronto fans have always preferred the hard workers, high visible effort types. You can see it going back over 100 years in Toronto hockey coverage. I blame/credit Toronto’s Methodist history.

... Comparative lack of talent would make sense too. I mean... Preferring talent would actually involve prefering another team.

 

[Theokritos]

Again, you're relying way to much on a ****ing highlight video.

Yes, with all due respect @Mike Farkas...

...and I really mean it: I don't doubt your scouting expertise, and in fact, the impressions and observations you share here speak for themselves. In my eyes they're assets that improve the quality of the overall discourse here and have a lot of value in the current top 100 project in particular. But...

...IMHO there is a risk the self-confidence of talent & skill evaluators unnoticedly turns into arrogance somewhere along the way. You say you only need to watch two or three games to get a proper grasp of a player: Well, I actually buy that and I even go on the record here as saying that it's admirable and enviable and really something I only wish I was capable of myself. And maybe it's precisely my own lack of ability or expertise that makes me spend a few more thoughts – perhaps a few too many? – on the general approach as a whole. And based on those mental gymnastics of mine, I would probably submit the following objection to the general approach:

Talent evaluation is reasonably and necessarily based on experience. Experience in playing hockey and, even more, experience in observing hockey. That is understood. It makes sense. It's even inevitable. That's what the textbook has to be based on. But experience doesn't necessarily (let alone exhaustively) account for special cases that break the proven rules in the book. Special cases such as special players. And in an all-time retrospective, we're certainly looking at a greater amount of special players than in the usual day-to-day perspective a scout is occupied with.

Are a few highlight reels enough to give fair appreciation to a player that we have some reason to believe was historically considered special? I'm not even going to say the answer is categorically no, but I'm sure it's not a categorical yes either. Understandably, we have to make do with what we have, but as a methodical principle, we should always keep in mind how little some of those historic video evaluations are unfortunately based on and that the takeaway can't be anything but highly provisional. Every statement referring to those pieces of evaluation have to come with that disclaimer. I emphasize that because the danger of overlooking it in the midst of a lively debate is greater than the danger of repeating it too often.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

I too was swayed by strong arguments for Tretiak in the previous round, especially the notion that he had a peak in the early 80s that met or exceeded his previous high-water mark. I don't want to overvalue the opinion of one or two posters, but at the same time they are certainly more qualified to evaluate Tretiak than I am. I also give Tretiak credit for overcoming an environment that for whatever reason struggled mightily to produce great goaltenders with the same proficiency as great forwards or defensemen. Tretiak is one of the hardest players to evaluate that we've come across IMO. I really couldn't fault anybody for where they place him on their ballot.

Tretiak came into this round at the top of the pile for me, and I haven't seen reason yet to question that, though I think newcomer Brimsek is right neck-and-neck with him. I've been pretty well sold on Forsberg. While he has longevity issues, and I've been somewhat hard on guys who do, he tempers it with his consistency when he was healthy. I think this is an appropriate spot for him, and that's a bit higher than I had him originally.

I expect both of them to be in my top 5.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Here follows the portion of the project where the sometimes dreaded "real-life" gets in the way. I find myself away from home, tucking into the web when I can- and hope that the current situation proves temporary. I'm thinking it would be prudent to send a "mail-in" ballot, so-to-speak (although I recognize that the polls are legitimately open)- which is a break from my normal pattern of letting all the discussions play out before my survey.

Top of the ballot this Round is important! That guy will be a 'Top-50-of-All-Time" designee. It hurts my heart that one, or the other, or (gasp, eek!) both of Tretiak and Conacher will not be a Top-50 placing.

Those who forgive Forsberg's durability issues and shuffle Conacher to the middle or bottom half of this ballot should be required to give us 15 seconds of soft-shoe and close out with jazzhands.

Schmidt and Brimsek have led me to "Old-El-Paso-Girl" territory... why not both?

The ongoing Seibert research has been interesting so far. In short, there are reasons to question even a couple of his All-Star placings (in that he shouldn't have been considered that high[!]), but then there were those couple of times where he finished behind a Center-hybrid (Goodfellow). Those two put together look like they wash, to me. The fact that Seibert finished behind the losing Gordie Drillon for 1938 in both Retro-Smythe projects is something of a sick joke. I'll trust that The Panel has baked this risible bit of foolery into the cake already.

 

[wetcoast]

Here follows the portion of the project where the sometimes dreaded "real-life" gets in the way. I find myself away from home, tucking into the web when I can- and hope that the current situation proves temporary. I'm thinking it would be prudent to send a "mail-in" ballot, so-to-speak (although I recognize that the polls are legitimately open)- which is a break from my normal pattern of letting all the discussions play out before my survey.

Top of the ballot this Round is important! That guy will be a 'Top-50-of-All-Time" designee. It hurts my heart that one, or the other, or (gasp, eek!) both of Tretiak and Conacher will not be a Top-50 placing.

Those who forgive Forsberg's durability issues and shuffle Conacher to the middle or bottom half of this ballot should be required to give us 15 seconds of soft-shoe and close out with jazzhands.

Schmidt and Brimsek have led me to "Old-El-Paso-Girl" territory... why not both?

The ongoing Seibert research has been interesting so far. In short, there are reasons to question even a couple of his All-Star placings (in that he shouldn't have been considered that high[!]), but then there were those couple of times where he finished behind a Center-hybrid (Goodfellow). Those two put together look like they wash, to me. The fact that Seibert finished behind the losing Gordie Drillon for 1938 in both Retro-Smythe projects is something of a sick joke. I'll trust that The Panel has baked this risible bit of foolery into the cake already.

With all due respect Forsberg played at an elite level for double the time period that Conacher did.

Also Forsberg easily has a top 20ish all time playoff resume to boot.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Here follows the portion of the project where the sometimes dreaded "real-life" gets in the way. I find myself away from home, tucking into the web when I can- and hope that the current situation proves temporary. I'm thinking it would be prudent to send a "mail-in" ballot, so-to-speak (although I recognize that the polls are legitimately open)- which is a break from my normal pattern of letting all the discussions play out before my survey.

Top of the ballot this Round is important! That guy will be a 'Top-50-of-All-Time" designee. It hurts my heart that one, or the other, or (gasp, eek!) both of Tretiak and Conacher will not be a Top-50 placing.

Those who forgive Forsberg's durability issues and shuffle Conacher to the middle or bottom half of this ballot should be required to give us 15 seconds of soft-shoe and close out with jazzhands.

Schmidt and Brimsek have led me to "Old-El-Paso-Girl" territory... why not both?

The ongoing Seibert research has been interesting so far. In short, there are reasons to question even a couple of his All-Star placings (in that he shouldn't have been considered that high[!]), but then there were those couple of times where he finished behind a Center-hybrid (Goodfellow). Those two put together look like they wash, to me. The fact that Seibert finished behind the losing Gordie Drillon for 1938 in both Retro-Smythe projects is something of a sick joke. I'll trust that The Panel has baked this risible bit of foolery into the cake already.

Where do you stand on Forsberg vs Conacher purely as hockey players? As in, forget about longevity or durability or "career value" type considerations. I believe that Forsberg was a little more dynamic and varied in his skill set, but want to make sure I'm not selling Conacher short.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Where do you stand on Forsberg vs Conacher purely as hockey players? As in, forget about longevity or durability or "career value" type considerations. I believe that Forsberg was a little more dynamic and varied in his skill set, but want to make sure I'm not selling Conacher short.

Center vs winger dynamic.

More is expected from the center but competition at center is greater.

 

[ted2019]

voted

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Center vs winger dynamic.

More is expected from the center but competition at center is greater.

True, and I actually recall Forsberg's play style more closely resembling that of a winger than a center, at least in the offensive zone. One of his strengths was winning puck battles along the boards, something often associated with wingers more than centers.

 

[MXD]

Where do you stand on Forsberg vs Conacher purely as hockey players? As in, forget about longevity or durability or "career value" type considerations. I believe that Forsberg was a little more dynamic and varied in his skill set, but want to make sure I'm not selling Conacher short.

Charlie Conacher was a goalscoring outlier.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Voted, this group was lame.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Charlie Conacher was a goalscoring outlier.

Would Forsberg be a play-making outlier? 4th all time in assists per game. I agree that Conacher's goal scoring ability was likely the best attribute either player brought to the table.

 

[VanIslander]

Voted.

Judgements are beginning to vary but at least every candidate is clearly top-100 all time.

The bottom half of this project ought to see some polarizing candidates.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Not sure if this is too late, but I'll post it anyway (if nothing else, it documents why I changed my mind since my initial list).

I'm starting to come around to the viewpoint that Forsberg > Schmidt. I ranked Schmidt around ten spots higher in my initial list, but now that I'm doing a deeper dive, I'm wondering why.

Schmidt had one dominant scoring title victory (Forsberg had an Art Ross, but it was by a small margin over Naslund and Thornton) - but aside from that, Forsberg looks better when comparing any other pairing of seasons (ie 2nd best vs 2nd best, etc). Forsberg probably had tougher competition during this period as well.

It's true that Schmidt missed time due to injuries, but that doesn't help him much in this comparison - he was only in the top ten in points per game five times. Forsberg accomplished that eight times in a span of ten seasons (the exceptions were 2000, which was a disappointment, and 2002, when he didn't play at all, but led the playoffs in scoring).

Schmidt's playoff resume is a mixed bag but generally favourable, but Forsberg's is clearly better. I'd also consider Forsberg at least as good defensively (am I wrong on this point?)

So the two arguments for Schmidt would be having a much better Hart trophy voting record, and giving him credit for time served during WWII.

The Hart trophy argument is a valid one, I think. Forsberg's Hart trophy voting record has always been much weaker than you'd expect for a player of his calibre (before you say it's due to injuries, he registered zero or a trivial number of votes in five of the six seasons where he missed no more than ten games). Still, Forsberg's Hart trophy voting record underrates him (the same is true of Roy and Sakic - all victims of vote-splitting due to the definition being "most valuable"). But Schmidt is the top candidate this round based on this metric and I think it takes a lot of re-imagining to envision Forsberg surpassing him here.

I'm less convinced about the WWII argument. I agree, in principle, that we should give credit to players who missed time due to serving in the military. But last week I contrasted Schmidt with Apps, who was very consistent before and after the war. Schmidt missed time both seasons leading up his service (and was only hovering around the lower end of the top ten in per-game scoring), and was only in the top ten in scoring (or PPG) in one of the first five seasons after he came back. Simply put, Schmidt was inconsistent and I'm not really sure what he would have done if he had three more prime years. Maybe he has another season like 1940 or 1951 - but who's to say he wouldn't have a disappointing year like 1941, or 1946, or 1949? The point is, I'm not convinced on how much ground he would make up relative to Forsberg.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Not sure if this is too late, but I'll post it anyway (if nothing else, it documents why I changed my mind since my initial list).

I'm starting to come around to the viewpoint that Forsberg > Schmidt. I ranked Schmidt around ten spots higher in my initial list, but now that I'm doing a deeper dive, I'm wondering why.

Schmidt had one dominant scoring title victory (Forsberg had an Art Ross, but it was by a small margin over Naslund and Thornton) - but aside from that, Forsberg looks better when comparing any other pairing of seasons (ie 2nd best vs 2nd best, etc). Forsberg probably had tougher competition during this period as well.

It's true that Schmidt missed time due to injuries, but that doesn't help him much in this comparison - he was only in the top ten in points per game five times. Forsberg accomplished that eight times in a span of ten seasons (the exceptions were 2000, which was a disappointment, and 2002, when he didn't play at all, but led the playoffs in scoring).

Schmidt's playoff resume is a mixed bag but generally favourable, but Forsberg's is clearly better. I'd also consider Forsberg at least as good defensively (am I wrong on this point?)

So the two arguments for Schmidt would be having a much better Hart trophy voting record, and giving him credit for time served during WWII.

The Hart trophy argument is a valid one, I think. Forsberg's Hart trophy voting record has always been much weaker than you'd expect for a player of his calibre (before you say it's due to injuries, he registered zero or a trivial number of votes in five of the six seasons where he missed no more than ten games). Still, Forsberg's Hart trophy voting record underrates him (the same is true of Roy and Sakic - all victims of vote-splitting due to the definition being "most valuable"). But Schmidt is the top candidate this round based on this metric and I think it takes a lot of re-imagining to envision Forsberg surpassing him here.

I'm less convinced about the WWII argument. I agree, in principle, that we should give credit to players who missed time due to serving in the military. But last week I contrasted Schmidt with Apps, who was very consistent before and after the war. Schmidt missed time both seasons leading up his service (and was only hovering around the lower end of the top ten in per-game scoring), and was only in the top ten in scoring (or PPG) in one of the first five seasons after he came back. Simply put, Schmidt was inconsistent and I'm not really sure what he would have done if he had three more prime years. Maybe he has another season like 1940 or 1951 - but who's to say he wouldn't have a disappointing year like 1941, or 1946, or 1949? The point is, I'm not convinced on how much ground he would make up relative to Forsberg.

Excellent comparison. I'm not sure about the bolded, though.

Schmidt was renown for his all-around play, and the strong Hart results in seasons where he wasn't anything special from an offensive production standpoint seem to back this up. Forsberg has the Selke votes, but from a period of time where it seemed the award was often slanted in favour of elite offensive forwards with strong plus/minus ratings. To use present comparables, I see Forsberg as more of a Crosby level of player when it comes to defensive play, while Schmidt would be closer to a Patrice Bergeron.

 

[wetcoast]

Again, you're relying way to much on a ****ing highlight video.

Perhaps this is the case but without alot of video from that era, are to disregard what is pretty obvious and just take onlookers written words aas 100% reliable?

I know, we've been down the road on Shore already...but sub-20 points, was still just about the best in the league among d-men. His 19 points was 2nd among league d-men (21 Jerwa)...his 17 points was 6th among league d-men. The idea that Shore was best defensive defensemen in the league, in terms of pure defense, is not something I would buy for half a second...he may have been physical, fine, I can see that alluring some on-lookers...but let's not make any mistake about him being a stalwart defensive player to this degree. Even if there's a couple of anecdotes here and there hinting at it, in the grand scheme, that seems highly, highly unlikely...

Shore went really high, mainly on reputation, in my opinion and a serious indepth look at him seemed lesser than where some of the evidence led to.