Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 12

[Hockey Outsider]

Pronger was better defensively than Lidstrom in the 1999-2000 season. Almost all the voters thought so and I would agree. Pronger was considered a Norris favourite and a Hart candidate all season for his defensive play and breakout passing leading the Blues to a huge season. Lidstrom was a strong #2 who had a Norris-worthy season that just didn’t measure up to Pronger’s season.

Agreed. During the 2000 season, Pronger was on the ice for significantly fewer ES goals against than Lidstrom (about 40% fewer) - despite playing on a (slightly) weaker team. Lidstrom got about 6% more ES ice time, but that doesn't come close to explaining the difference.

On the PK, they were on the ice for almost exactly the same number of goals against, with Pronger playing about 17% more PK ice time.

Pronger was unbelievably good at stopping opponents from scoring that year.

 

[overpass]

Agreed. During the 2000 season, Pronger was on the ice for significantly fewer ES goals against than Lidstrom (about 40% fewer) - despite playing on a (slightly) weaker team. Lidstrom got about 6% more ES ice time, but that doesn't come close to explaining the difference.

On the PK, they were on the ice for almost exactly the same number of goals against, with Pronger playing about 17% more PK ice time.

Pronger was unbelievably good at stopping opponents from scoring that year.

An article in the April 10, 2000 Sports Illustrated notes that Pronger had shut down the league’s top scorers unusually well.

Inside The NHL

“At 6'6" and 220 pounds, Pronger takes control of a game with his formidable strength and reach. The puck may enter the Blues' zone on an opponent's stick, but it most often comes out on Pronger's. He had been on the ice for a minuscule 43 even-strength goals-against this season, and he has helped hold the NHL's top five scorers--the Penguins' Jaromir Jagr, the Panthers' Pavel Bure, the Flyers' Mark Recchi, the Sharks' Owen Nolan and the Blackhawks' Tony Amonte--without an even-strength point in 14 games.”

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In what way do you think that he is over rated?

Well he is the best playoff performer up this round and was excellent at his peak, although he had issues with consistency in the regular season in terms of being elite year in year out.

interesting parallels with fedorov. maybe boom boom geoffrion too.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As far as I can tell, Cleghorn’s leaving Ottawa was because the league transferred him to Hamilton in an effort to balance the league. Wikipedia doesn’t mention it but I think I remember reading something about a salary limit of which Ottawa was in violation. Cleghorn refused to report to Hamilton, so he ended up playing in Toronto and then getting traded to Montreal. I wouldn’t say he was discarded...Ottawa would have liked to keep him, and tried to do so, even though they had George Boucher, star of the 1920 Cup final, ready to step in on defence.

His departure from Montreal was ostensibly because Montreal was making their team an all-French squad. (Howie Morenz was billed as being of Swiss descent, which I suppose was close enough to French for Leo Dandurand’s scheme.) Maybe if Sprague hadn’t enraged Dandurand with his dirty play, they would have gone back to the Norman conquest to find a French ancestor for M. Cleghorn. In any case the papers all said Cleghorn was sold because the Canadiens were going French, and Boston paid them well to secure his services.

And of course Cleghorn left the Wanderers only because the team was disbanded after their arena burned down.

See the link about Cleghorn's Ottawa days:

Montreal Canadiens Legends: Sprague Cleghorn

 

[wetcoast]

interesting parallels with fedorov. maybe boom boom geoffrion too.

I'm not sure why Boom boom keeps dropping like a rock and people are still fretting over the lack of Firsov and pumping up conacher and those 5 years.

Also Marcel Dionne has hardly been mentioned.

I get that Teeder is the superior playoff performer but he has exactly 4 top 10 finishes, in a much smaller league to boot.

Kennedy 4,5,5,9
Dionne 1,2,2,2,3,4,5,7

Even if Dionne is the worst playoff performer of any player we are going to debate here, those regular season totals scream that he needs to go in this round.

 

[ted2019]

Chris Pronger's strength was defending the slot against a North/South offence.

2010 SC Finals against Chicago the wheels locked-up.

We must've watched a different finals because Pronger was great against the Blackhawks. 4 assists and a +3 in the finals, while logging a tick shy of 30 mpg at 35 years old. Yeah, he sucked.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There's a few things that make my ears perk up on Pronger.

His Hart season - probably the weakest Hart win since the Norris came around. Offensive stats tanked to a point that was the lowest Art Ross winner since expansion, and Hasek missed significant time, so it had to go to somebody. Lidstrom had better offensive stats, is a better defender, but Pronger had a super high +/- on the best team in the league.

Pronger is the one guy where if you take out his peak season, his resume looks like it's probably not even HHOF-worthy (forget top 100).

spits drink

I guess I'm not shocked to see Pronger available this soon, but I really don't see why he would appear before Stevens, or even Chara. Had all the physical tools, but was only able to put it all together out on the ice in isolated bursts.

agree, but bonus points for those bursts being well-timed i guess (post-lockout playoffs)

I've got a lot of time for Chris Pronger, actually. I give him a lot of credit for being able to transition into a new era in his 30's and not only not miss a beat...but he went on a run where everything he touched turned to absolute gold...

nodding vigorously. pronger was built for the DPE and his most memorable moments were after it.

An average Edmonton Oilers team would have won a Cup with him had Roloson not been injured in game 1 of the SCF...which is a weird statement to ever make, but all they needed was above average goaltending to win that series...very next year, he goes to Anaheim - who is a good team, really good, nothing special in net

screeching halt. what?

 

[Canadiens1958]

We must've watched a different finals because Pronger was great against the Blackhawks. 4 assists and a +3 in the finals, while logging a tick shy of 30 mpg at 35 years old. Yeah, he sucked.

Not my point. Pronger was not strong against an East-West offence. Game 5 he was a -5.

 

[solidmotion]

And I don't care much about Bathgate either. I mean... I think he's better than Dionne, but if you only get it done with bad teams, it leaves a stigma.

he did score the cup-winning goal for the leafs in 64. not saying it matters a ton, obviously he wasn't a top player for them, but he did do that.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I wanted to dig deeper into Kennedy's reputation as a playoff legend. Here's how he performed in each of the playoff series where his team won the Stanley Cup (this is just from box scores, so I can't speak to his defensive play, leadership, etc):

1945

In the first round, Kennedy helps lead the Leafs to a huge upset against Montreal (the Habs finished 28 points ahead in the standings - absolutely massive during a 50 game season). In the first game, Kennedy scored the sole goal, unassisted, with less than a minute to go in the third period. He scores the opening goal in the next game (the Leafs win 3-2). Kennedy goes scoreless in a 4-1 loss in game three. He records one assist (not on the game-winner) in the 4-3 OT victory. He scores one goal in a blowout loss in game five. The only disappointment? He's scoreless in the decisive game six. Still, he led the Leafs in goals, and tied for the team lead in points.

The Leafs are also underdogs against Detroit. They must have shocked the hockey world with three straight shutouts (Kennedy scores the first of the Leafs' two goals in the second game). Detroit storms back with three straight wins. Hard to fault him in game 4, as he scores two goals in the first period only a few minutes apart. In game 7, the Leafs win the Stanley Cup, but Kennedy's scoreless. Overall, Kennedy decisively leads the team in goal-scoring this series (he's the only Leaf with more than one goal!) He also leads the SCF in overall scoring.

1947

This time, Kennedy's Leafs are heavy favourites against Detroit. It was a weird series. The Leafs needed overtime to win game 1 (Kennedy gets two assists, including the game-winner). Detroit demolishes Toronto 9-1 in the next game (Kennedy scoreless). Then the Leafs pummel the Wings by a combined score of 14-3 to finish the round (Kennedy has a goal and an assist). Kennedy is tied for second on the team in scoring behind, surprisingly, defensive specialist Nick Metz.

In the finals, the Leafs face Montreal (the slight favourites on paper). The team trade blowouts in the first two games - Kennedy got a goal and an assist in the first two minutes of game 2, which the Leafs ended up winning 4-0. In game 3, Kennedy scores an insurance goal late in the third period to make it 4-2. Kennedy's scoreless in the next two games, close ones where the teams trade victories. The Leafs win the Cup in game 6. Kennedy assists on the tying goal in the second period, then scores the Cup-winning goal with just over five minutes to go in the third. Kennedy ties for the team lead in goals and points this series.

1948

The Leafs are significant favourites against the Bruins on paper. The Leafs win the first game 5-4 in overtime; Kennedy assists on the tying goal with less than five minutes to go. In the next game, Kennedy single-handledy demolishes the Bruins, scoring four goals. I want to be clear that none of these are blowout goals - one opened the scoring, two of them re-established a lead after Boston tied the game, and the last of them (scored barely halfway through the contest) gave the Leafs a two-goal lead. Kennedy has another excellent performance in game 3, with a goal and two assists (only the last helper, which made it 4-1 with exactly 13 minutes to go, can be considered gratuitous). Kennedy's held scoreless in the Leafs' game 4 loss. In the decisive game 5, Kennedy assists on the tying goal in the first period, and scores the series-winning goal in the third period. This may have been Kennedy's best series - 10 points in five games (in a low-scoring era), with nearly every point being important to the outcome of the game.

Next, Toronto played Detroit in the finals. They finished five points behind the Leafs in the standings, but were swept. Kennedy has an assist in game 1 (on a goal that made it 5-1 late in the second). He was held scoreless in game 2, a comfortable Toronto win. He assists on the insurance marker late in the 3rd period in game 3. Kennedy scores two goals in the decisive fourth game (the opening marker, and one that turned this into a route). A quieter series for Kennedy.

1949

The Leafs regressed in the standings and faced off against a much stronger Boston club. Kennedy is scoreless in the Leafs' first two victories. They lose game 3 in overtime, but it's hard to blame Kennedy - he scored the opening goal, assisted on a goal that cut Boston's lead to one late in the second, and assisted on the tying goal with eight minutes to go in the third. In game 4, Kennedy records two assists - on the go-ahead goal midway through the second, and an insurance marker late in the third. He's scoreless in the decisive fifth game. Kennedy ties for the team lead in scoring.

In the finals, the Leafs play the Red Wings for the second year in a row. Detroit is a much superior team on paper (18 points higher in the standings), but Toronto sweeps. Kennedy is scoreless in game 1, which went to overtime. He assists on two important insurance goals in game 2. He scores what proves to be the game-winner partway through the second period in game 3. He's scoreless in game 4. A less impressive performance for Kennedy.

1951

This time the Leafs are enormous favourites (33 point advantage in the standings). The Leafs are shut out in game 1. Game 2 is called a tie (anybody know why?) - Kennedy is scoreless. He's shut down entirely in games 3 and 4 (both wins) - so that's now four straight pointless games. He scores one goal in game 5 (which made it 4-0 halfway throug the 3rd - probably not the most important goal). In the blowout game 6, Kennedy scores the opening goal, then assists to make it 5-0 halfway through the third. This is by far the least impressive series for Kennedy - arguably just one "significant" goal in six games against a heavy underdog.

The Leafs play a much weaker Habs team in the finals. This series is significant because all five games went to overtime. The Leafs win the first game; Kennedy assisted on the opening goal just fifteen seconds into the game. The Leafs lose game 2, but Kennedy assisted on the Leafs' first goal late in the second to cut the lead to one, and then scores the tying goal halfway through the third. In game 3, Kennedy scores the overtime goal. Kennedy assists on the opening goal in game 4 (also less than a minute into the match). In the decisive game 5 (this was the one where Bill Barilko scored the overtime winner - as popularized by The Tragically Hip), Kennedy assists on the tying goal midway through the second. He finished tied for second on the team in scoring.

Overall assessment

During these five years, Kennedy played in all 53 of the Leafs' games. He scored 25 goals and 24 assists for 49 points. If we look at the span of seven seasons from 1945 to 1951 (so this includes 1946, when the Leafs missed the playoffs, and 1950, a first round loss which I didn't cover above), Kennedy leads all players in playoff assists and points, and is runner-up to Maurice Richard in goals. He's third in points per game, behind only the Rocket and Max Bentley (minimum 40 games).

Kennedy's playoff resume is like the anti-Dionne. One thing that jumps out is he frequently scores or assists the opening goal. That might not have meant much in the high-scoring eighties, but scoring the opening goal in his low-scoring era was more important (it's late but if I've added this correctly, he scored or assisted on the opening goal 10 times in 53 games). He also came up big - he scored or assisted on 8 goals in overtime, or winning or tying goals in the third (that excludes insurance goals altogether). Kennedy was consistent (he just had that one bad stretch in the first round in 1951). Furthermore, as I've shown, he rarely recorded points in blowouts - there are a few, but I'd be willing to bet it's a lower percentage than most other playoff performers we'd rank around his level ie Sakic, Messier, Lafleur.

(Despite what I said on the first page - that his 1955 Hart trophy was probably just a retirement gift - Kennedy will get a serious look at my top three for this round).

"First goals" scored or assisted (first goal of the game - not just for the Leafs)

1. 1945 (round 1, game 1) - scores first & only goal of game
2. 1945 (round 1, game 2) - scores first goal
3. 1945 (round 2, game 2) - scores first goal
4. 1947 (round 2, game 2) - scores and assists on first two goals in first two minutes of game
5. 1948 (round 1, game 2) - scores opening goal in his four-goal game
6. 1948 (round 2, game 4) - scores first goal
7. 1949 (round 1, game 3) - scores first goal
8. 1951 (round 1, game 6) - scores first goal
9. 1951 (round 2, game 1) - assists on first goal less than a minute into the game
10. 1951 (round 2, game 4) - assists on first goal less than a minute into the game

Winning or tying goals in 3rd period or OT (insurance goals excluded entirely, even if important)

1. 1945 (round 1, game 1) - scores game's only (and therefore) winning goal, a minute left in 3rd
2. 1947 (round 1, game 1) - assists on OT winner
3. 1947 (round 2, game 6) - scores Cup winning goal with five minutes to go in third
4. 1948 (round 1, game 1) - assists on tying goal with five minutes to go in third
5. 1948 (round 1, game 5) - scores series-winning goal in third
6. 1949 (round 1, game 3) - assists on tying goals with eight minutes left in third (Leafs lose in OT)
7. 1951 (round 1, game 2) - scores tying goal halfway through third (Leafs lose in OT)
8. 1951 (round 1, game 3) - scores OT winner

 

[Theokritos]

Firsov discussion moved to general project thread.

 

[overpass]

See the link about Cleghorn's Ottawa days:

Montreal Canadiens Legends: Sprague Cleghorn

Dec 31 1920 Cleghorn leaving Ottawa - Newspapers.com

This article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix from Jan 1, 1921 states that the league ordered Sprague Cleghorn to leave the Senators. Cleghorn was sent to the Toronto club because Ottawa was in violation of the salary limit.

Cleghorn to Toronto 1921 - Newspapers.com

This article in the Ottawa Citizen from January is about Cleghorn finally reporting to Toronto. He played the first few games of the season in Ottawa and then he sat out several games as a holdout, but he finally came to terms with Toronto and joined them for the second half of the season. He was reported to receive the highest salary ever paid to a hockey player.

Before the 1921-22 season, Cleghorn’s rights were assigned to Hamilton. He refused to report and they traded him to Montreal.

Cleghorn to Canadiens - Newspapers.com

Cleghorn has an eventful summer in 1921 as his wife filed for divorce. She claimed his salary for his off-ice position in sporting goods was $5000/year, which his employer denied.

Sprague Cleghorn divorce salary - Newspapers.com

I haven’t found anything in the papers to back up Pelletier’s story that Ottawa got rid of Sprague Cleghorn willingly, or that Cleghorn was taking his revenge on Ottawa for cutting him loose. Reports were that Cleghorn was reassigned by the league office because Ottawa was over the salary limit.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dec 31 1920 Cleghorn leaving Ottawa - Newspapers.com

This article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix from Jan 1, 1921 states that the league ordered Sprague Cleghorn to leave the Senators. Cleghorn was sent to the Toronto club because Ottawa was in violation of the salary limit.

Cleghorn to Toronto 1921 - Newspapers.com

This article in the Ottawa Citizen from January is about Cleghorn finally reporting to Toronto. He played the first few games of the season in Ottawa and then he sat out several games as a holdout, but he finally came to terms with Toronto and joined them for the second half of the season. He was reported to receive the highest salary ever paid to a hockey player.

Before the 1921-22 season, Cleghorn’s rights were assigned to Hamilton. He refused to report and they traded him to Montreal.

Cleghorn to Canadiens - Newspapers.com

Cleghorn has an eventful summer in 1921 as his wife filed for divorce. She claimed his salary for his off-ice position in sporting goods was $5000/year, which his employer denied.

Sprague Cleghorn divorce salary - Newspapers.com

I haven’t found anything in the papers to back up Pelletier’s story that Ottawa got rid of Sprague Cleghorn willingly, or that Cleghorn was taking his revenge on Ottawa for cutting him loose. Reports were that Cleghorn was reassigned by the league office because Ottawa was over the salary limit.

So we have evidence of an early 1920s NHL Salary Cap.

Rest remains to be verified.

 

[MXD]

His departure from Montreal was ostensibly because Montreal was making their team an all-French squad. (Howie Morenz was billed as being of Swiss descent, which I suppose was close enough to French for Leo Dandurand’s scheme.) Maybe if Sprague hadn’t enraged Dandurand with his dirty play, they would have gone back to the Norman conquest to find a French ancestor for M. Cleghorn. In any case the papers all said Cleghorn was sold because the Canadiens were going French, and Boston paid them well to secure his services.

And of course Cleghorn left the Wanderers only because the team was disbanded after their arena burned down.

It's started as something like "... you know, it's possible, and it kinda fits with the establishment of the Maroons".

But... Morenz? Really? I'll have to ask for some supporting evidence here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1921 Sprague Cleghorn.

Two key points. After the Montreal Wanderers folded, Sprague Cleghorn played for Ottawa but remained NHL property:

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Seems all teams had failed to honor player commitments to Hamilton:

Ottawa Citizen - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

 

[Hockey Outsider]

More context on Kennedy's playoff scoring...

To give more context to my post on Kennedy, I looked up the same details for Joe Sakic's two Smythe worthy runs - 1996 and 2001. Why Sakic? Like Kennedy, he played in a low-scoring era and shared ice time with another top center.

For Sakic, I counted him scoring or assisting on 10 first goals, and scoring or assisting on 8 tying or winning goals in the 3rd or overtime - exactly the same numbers as Kennedy, but with Sakic it was a sample size of 43 games (not 53). So Sakic is better on a per-game basis, but overall Kennedy seems to stack up reasonably well against him.

I also looked at Messier (specifically his 1988, 1990 and 1994 runs). Higher scoring era, but I wanted some additional context. In 64 games, he scored or assisted on a staggering 20 first goals, and had 5 clutch goals/assists as I've (very narrowly) defined them. First goals were worth less in the higher-scoring eighties though. Overall Kennedy compares fairly well.

Finally, I looked at Crosby (again a similar context to Kennedy - sharing ice time on a deep team in a low-scoring era). I looked at 2008, 2009 and 2017 - 68 games total. He scored or assisted on 23 first goals, and scored or assisted on 12 clutch goals as I've defined them.

Overall, for first goals, Crosby leads the way with 0.34 per game, Messier had 0.31, Sakic had 0.23, and Kennedy actually lagged behind with 0.19.

For clutch goals (again, based on my very narrow definition) - Sakic scored 0.19 per game, Crosby 0.18, Kennedy 0.15, and Messier lags with 0.08.

Now that I've done some additional digging, I think Kennedy's results are a bit less impressive than I first thought. But keep in mind that I've cherry-picked his results against eight Smythe-worthy runs from three of the top playoff performers of the past forty years. The fact that he stacks up reasonably well against them (even if he's behind) reflects well on him.

 

[MXD]

More context on Kennedy's playoff scoring...

One thing here : is it raw numbers?
Because I'm suspecting that playoff scoring was lowest in Kennedy's era. I mean, take 44-45. The Leafs won the Cup while scoring LESS than 2 goals per game, which is something that probably could never possibly happen during Crosby and Sakic's career (much less Messier).

 

[MXD]

... Also, an interesting tidbit regarding the 1945 playoffs which is PROBABLY worth a seperate thread : According to HR, the Leafs scored 24 goals and allowed 30.

Anybody else can think of a team winning the SC despite a negative playoff Goal-Differential? Let alone what's actually a somewhat significant goal differential (-6 in 13 games).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

One thing here : is it raw numbers?
Because I'm suspecting that playoff scoring was lowest in Kennedy's era. I mean, take 44-45. The Leafs won the Cup while scoring LESS than 2 goals per game, which is something that probably could never possibly happen during Crosby and Sakic's career (much less Messier).

Correct, those are all raw numbers - not adjusted for era. So that would make Kennedy's numbers more impressive (not a huge adjustment relative to Sakic or Crosby, but certainly a meaningful one relative to Messier).

... Also, an interesting tidbit regarding the 1945 playoffs which is PROBABLY worth a seperate thread : According to HR, the Leafs scored 24 goals and allowed 30.

Anybody else can think of a team winning the SC despite a negative playoff Goal-Differential? Let alone what's actually a somewhat significant goal differential (-6 in 13 games).

I'm pretty sure the 1945 Leafs are the only team to win the Stanley Cup with a negative goal differential in the playoffs.

Goal differential is a really good predictor of success over the long term, but it's less meaningful over small sample sizes. The Leafs had a lot of close victories - in fact, seven of them were one-goal wins, and three of them were 1-0 victories. They had one blowout loss (10-3 against Montreal) which singlehandedly wiped out the positive goal differential from all but one of their wins.

 

[overpass]

It's started as something like "... you know, it's possible, and it kinda fits with the establishment of the Maroons".

But... Morenz? Really? I'll have to ask for some supporting evidence here.

Regarding Morenz:
Biography – MORENZ, HOWARD WILLIAM (William F., Howie) – Volume XVI (1931-1940) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography

“Dandurand hired him, maintaining that the Canadiens had priority in the selection of French Canadian players and that, since his grandparents were of Swiss origin (that was a myth: they were actually of German extraction), Howie had to be considered a French Canadian. In this way Howie slipped through the fingers of the local team, the Toronto St Patricks.”

And

Cleghorn to Boston - Newspapers.com

“Together with the release of his brother Odie...is stated to be one of the first moves by Canadiens’ management to make an all French-Canadien team.”

 

[DannyGallivan]

Initial takes:

Dionne: His offensive stats, including exceptionally high multiple 100 point seasons and overall career numbers guarantees that he's high on my list this round.

Geoffrion: Early sniper, checks all the offensive boxes, key cog in perhaps the greatest dynasty of all time. It's his turn.

Conacher: Well, I've always valued peak seasons. I think Charlie has waited long enough.

Bathgate: Not going to penalize him for being mired with the Rangers. He was far more than a trivia answer (who's shot broke Plante's face and began the series of events that led to the eventual development of the goal mask). He has an outside shot of making it in this round for me. Plus he's a Winnipegger, and everybody loves Winnipeggers!

Pronger: Dominant defenseman who made every team he played on much better. I have him on the bubble going into this round, but he may sneak in for me.

Cleghorn: Love the myth/legend around this player. Looking for more insight on just how talented/effective he was. Right now, I know him more for his frontier-spirit viciousness than his sublime skills.

Mahovolich: Always respected his offensive prowess. Although I'm not a fan of plus/minus stats, his defensive numbers were often suspect. Very doubtful that he gets in for me this round (although I'll still have fun defending him... he was a well-earned super star of his day and had the gaudy offensive numbers).

Brimsek: One of two players who may rise considerably from where I had them on my list.

Seibert/Horton: Can't see either of them making it this round for me.

Kennedy: Here's the other player who I am going to keep a very open mind on. I may have had him very underrated on my original list of 120. I'm looking forward to reading more arguments in favour of Teeder.

 

[MXD]

Regarding Morenz:
Biography – MORENZ, HOWARD WILLIAM (William F., Howie) – Volume XVI (1931-1940) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography

“Dandurand hired him, maintaining that the Canadiens had priority in the selection of French Canadian players and that, since his grandparents were of Swiss origin (that was a myth: they were actually of German extraction), Howie had to be considered a French Canadian. In this way Howie slipped through the fingers of the local team, the Toronto St Patricks.”

And

Cleghorn to Boston - Newspapers.com

“Together with the release of his brother Odie...is stated to be one of the first moves by Canadiens’ management to make an all French-Canadien team.”

Well, the first seems to be some really obvious fertilizer of bovine origins in other to fleece the St.Patricks.

Fair enough for the second. Though, to be honest, reading this, it may have been, at this point, a sound move to sell Cleghorn while he still had some value. Cleghorn would still have fuel in the tank for one great season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A few quick comments before I (re)post long things about Brimsek and Cleghorn:

VsX results

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7YR	10YR
Marcel Dionne	116.2	115.1	112.1	100.0	100.0	93.3	86.5	86.3	85.7	79.6	103.3	97.5
Andy Bathgate	109.9	106.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	98.7	93.0	92.5	85.6	70.2	101.1	95.6
Charlie Conacher	121.3	120.9	100.0	96.0	95.0	75.0	65.1	52.3	52.3	46.8	96.2	82.5
Bernie Geoffrion	105.6	101.4	88.8	88.5	87.3	79.5	78.3	70.4	70.2	63.9	89.9	83.4
Frank Mahovlich	93.3	90.1	89.4	88.1	87.9	84.5	81.4	81.1	72.9	71.8	87.8	84.1
Ted Kennedy	95.2	92.4	76.7	75.4	72.2	70.3	69.2	63.8	62.3	60.7	78.8	73.8
Chris Pronger	66.0	62.1	52.8	52.2	51.8	50.5	49.0	43.6	43.0	40.6	54.9	51.1
Earl Seibert	53.5	53.2	47.7	45.5	44.4	38.9	37.2	35.0	34.7	34.1	45.8	42.4
Tim Horton	50.8	45.2	40.0	37.4	37.2	36.6	35.9	35.7	33.7	32.6	40.4	38.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bathgate was the last remaining player with a seven-year VsX score of over 100.

As I've repeated for several weeks now - Conacher's five-year score is excellent, but there's a huge drop-off after that. (Not saying that as a strike against him - he's fallen far enough - but I wanted to point it out).

I (slightly) prefer Bathgate to Dionne

Bathgate sure has a lot of similarities with Dionne. I lean Bathgate (a little) higher than Dionne because

1) I think that it was easier for a "bad team scorer" to put up lots of points in the late 1970s/early 1980s vs his competition than in the late 1950s/early 1960s because of the respective styles and qualities of the league at the times. In other words, when Dionne played, there were lots more crappy teams that still played wide open styles than when Bathgate played. IMO, this counteracts the slight edge in VsX that Dionne has.

2) Perhaps more importantly, while both players have poor postseason scoring records, I find Bathgate's a bit more excusable, again, because of the way the league was in the original 6 period - specifically, Bathgate's Rangers were doormats for 30-some years. You had Detroit, Montreal, and Toronto. Then you had Boston (first half of O6) or Chicago (second half of O6). The Rangers were such an afterthought, that a few years before Bathgate came to town, they voluntarily gave up home games in the playoffs the one year because the circus was at MSG.

3) While Bathgate's drop in playoff scoring is pretty Dionne-like, he at least led his own team in playoff goals and points by a bit of a margin during his absolute best years: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Mahovolich: Always respected his offensive prowess. Although I'm not a fan of plus/minus stats, his defensive numbers were often suspect. Very doubtful that he gets in for me this round (although I'll still have fun defending him... he was a well-earned super star of his day and had the gaudy offensive numbers).

If you actually look at Mahovlich's numbers (whether top 10 finishes or VsX or whatever), they actually aren't nearly as gaudy as his reputation would have. I realize some of that is because he played for a Punch Imlach coached Toronto team that was super-defense-first. But some of it IMO speaks to him being a bit overrated.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pronger's competition for the 1999-00 Hart

Pronger probably deserved the 1999-00 Hart, but largely because the competition was too injured that year to actually compete.

Look at all the players who missed games that year: Hasek (only played 35 of 82 games), Jagr (missed 19 games), Sakic (missed 22 games), Forsberg (missed 33 games), Lindros (missed 27 games). It's like a who's-who of the guys who normally competed for the Hart at the time.

Or look at actual Hart voting that year.

1) Chris Pronger 396 (25-9-11-8-4) Played 79 games
2) Jaromir Jagr 395 (18-22-9-4-4) Played 63 games.
3) Pavel Bure 346 (11-18-16-9-3); Played 74 games.
4) Olaf Kolzig 139 (2-3-12-10-8); Played 73 games.
5) Owen Nolan 62 (1-0-3-7-16); Played 78 games.

Not exactly a murderer's row of competition. Jagr lost the Hart by 1 point 396-395, despite missing almost a quarter of the year. None of Bure, Kolzig, or Nolan ever finished top 5 in Hart voting outside of 1999-00. I realize Bure at least had some star power, but he wasn't normally the kind of player to pick up Hart votes, and he missed 8 games anyway.

I'm seriously not sure what makes Pronger's 1999-00 season better than Stevens' 1993-94.

 

[sr edler]

1) Chris Pronger 396 (25-9-11-8-4) Played 79 games
2) Jaromir Jagr 395 (18-22-9-4-4) Played 63 games.
3) Pavel Bure 346 (11-18-16-9-3); Played 74 games.
4) Olaf Kolzig 139 (2-3-12-10-8); Played 73 games.
5) Owen Nolan 62 (1-0-3-7-16); Played 78 games.

I didn't realize Bure was that "close". If (yeah, I know) he had played a full season that year he most likely would have scored 60+ goals and 100+ points and would have won the Ross (yeah, a tainted one because Jagr, but nonetheless), and most likely would have gotten a lot of Jagr's votes. You can still say Pronger was better that year, but Bure played on a worse team and could have gotten some votes on being more valuable to his team (the actual meaning of the award). I'm glad he missed those games though because you don't want tainted awards.

I realize Bure at least had some star power, but he wasn't normally the kind of player to pick up Hart votes

Because they were given to Adam Graves instead.