Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 13

[BenchBrawl]

It's true that beyond the trophy, Vézina is not a big name in Montreal based on my personal experience.People will talk of Plante, Dryden, Roy.Not of Vézina.I'm not sure most people know who he is, though I could be wrong.Just an intuition.

Aurèle Joliat seems like someone most people would vaguely know played for the Montreal Canadiens.But, Joliat is already an era closer to us.Actually Joliat's name seems unusually well-known for a name from the 30s.Again, only an impression.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The more info the better, but I at least feel like non-hometown sources praising a player are worth more than hometown sources.

Yes but in this case C1958 is saying that the hometown is NOT praising him, which is different than just picking between two sources of praise IMO.

I've seen the cheerleading of hometown newspapers at work when researching for the Ottawa dynasty.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There were several other English language dailies. The Montreal Herald with Elmer Ferguson and the Montreal Daily Star with Baz O’Meara were two English papers that were probably more prominent than the Gazette at the time. We use the Gazette now because the archives are in Google Archives.

I was mixed up - NOW the Gazette is the only English language traditional Montreal newspaper?

The old Montreal Standard looks to be English speaking too. Vezina's wiki page says: "the Montreal Standard referred to him as the "greatest goaltender of the last two decades" in their obituary."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes but in this case C1958 is saying that the hometown is NOT praising him, which is different than just picking between two sources of praise IMO.

I've seen the cheerleading of hometown newspapers at work when researching for the Ottawa dynasty.

Vezina's Wikipedia page is well sourced, and it would lead one to the opposite conclusion of C1958.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Vezina's Wikipedia page is well sourced, and it would lead one to the opposite conclusion of C1958.

Fair enough.I'm not that well-versed in Vézina (and goalies in general), I just wanted to chime in if I could help with the french articles.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I was mixed up - NOW the Gazette is the only English language traditional Montreal newspaper?

The old Montreal Standard looks to be English speaking too. Vezina's wiki page says: "the Montreal Standard referred to him as the "greatest goaltender of the last two decades" in their obituary."

Montreal Standard was a weekly(Saturday) great photos.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Vezina's Wikipedia page is well sourced, and it would lead one to the opposite conclusion of C1958.

Not if you know Montreal newspapers from the twenties.

The Standard would not make the top 10 so reverting back to the original point, why the top newspapers were not as lavish in their praise of Vezina.

 

[overpass]

Regarding the Macleans rankings, we should probably consider how much these hockey experts had actually seen every player play. I don’t mean to question their hockey knowledge, but the only way to see players play back then was in person. Leagues were regional rather than national and teams played fewer games. Statistics were not kept and published as consistently. While I expect many of these selectors did get to see most or even all the great players, it might only have been a handful of games for some of them.

Keeping this in mind, you would expect to see a wide variety of opinions about the best players. Which is, in fact, what we see in the article. Even Frank Nighbor was not picked for many teams. The consensus reached about greats like Morenz and Shore may only have been possible when all the top talent was gathered in a single league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Regarding the Macleans rankings, we should probably consider how much these hockey experts had actually seen every player play. I don’t mean to question their hockey knowledge, but the only way to see players play back then was in person. Leagues were regional rather than national and teams played fewer games. Statistics were not kept and published as consistently. While I expect many of these selectors did get to see most or even all the great players, it might only have been a handful of games for some of them.

Keeping this in mind, you would expect to see a wide variety of opinions about the best players. Which is, in fact, what we see in the article. Even Frank Nighbor was not picked for many teams. The consensus reached about greats like Morenz and Shore may only have been possible when all the top talent was gathered in a single league.

So basically, the only thing relevant to Vezina (when comparing apples to apples) is Vezina beating Benedict 5-2, since they played in the same league at the same time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Scott Stevens' 1993-94 season in brief

• NJ Devils had the 2nd best record in the league and the 2nd best offense. Stevens led then in regular season scoring: 1993-94 New Jersey Devils Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
• Stevens led all defensemen in the league in even-strength scoring, even as he finished 5th in overall league scoring among defensemen.
• Stevens' +53 was #1 in the league (and way ahead of any teammate)
• We don't have any coach's polls from that season, but on 3 polls taken in the previous 2 seasons, Stevens finished 3rd to Bourque/Chelios as "best defensive defenseman."
• Bourque won the 1993-94 Norris in one of the closest votes ever: NORRIS: Ray Bourque 199 (26-21-6); Scott Stevens 195 (24-23-6); Al MacInnis 60 (4-6-22); Sergei Zubov 15 (0-2-9); Brian Leetch 10 (0-2-4); Chris Chelios 3 (0-0-3); Paul Coffey 1 (0-0-1); Nicklas Lidstrom 1 (0-0-1); Sandis Ozolinsh 1 (0-0-1); Larry Murphy 1 (0-0-1)
• Bourque's advantage over Stevens in 1993-94 was entirely in powerplay scoring (where Stevens was never great - Bourque beat him out by double digits there).

 

[DannyGallivan]

• NJ Devils had the 2nd best record in the league and the 2nd best offense. Stevens led then in regular season scoring: 1993-94 New Jersey Devils Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

• Stevens led all defensemen in the league in even-strength scoring, even as he finished 5th in overall league scoring among defensemen.

• Stevens' +53 was #1 in the league (and way ahead of any teammate)

Surprising that he didn't garner more Hart votes that year. Why did his scoring/point totals fall off a cliff for the remainder of his career?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Surprising that he didn't garner more Hart votes that year. Why did his scoring/point totals fall off a cliff for the remainder of his career?

He was struggling coming out of the 1995 lockout, so Lemaire told him to forget scoring and focus only on defense. Lemaire started took him off PP1 and used him strictly defensively at even stength. It worked so well in the playoffs that they never went back.

Devils were so committed on having Stevens focus on D that a few years later when injuries piled up, they briefly used Colin White of all people on the PP rather than Stevens.

------

To put it another way, one reason Stevens was so good at lining guys up for big hits is because he redirected his skating ability and hockey smarts towards catching guys.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Running out of time, so this will be more brief than I originally intended.

Scott Stevens' 2000 Smythe winning playoffs

Before the finals:

The 2000 Stanley Cup finals can be summed up in two ways: 1) You play the New Jersey Devils, you take a number, and then you wait patiently until your name is called to get your butt kicked by defenseman Scott Stevens. Among the Devils, Stevens is the Great Satan, the authority figure responsible for meting out
punishment. Whenever some high-flying Einstein on the opposition makes the mistake of keeping his head down as he carries the puck into the New Jersey zone, Stevens will starch him. His hits are hard, scary and legal. (#2 is about how great Brett Hull was playing with 9 goals and 11 assists)

Stevens is the most effective hitter in the NHL because of his balance, his timing and his ability to read the play--"Scott's just like one of those fighter pilots who gets someone in his
sights, locks in and boom," says Devils defenseman Ken Daneyko--and Lindros had his head down while stickhandling through traffic at the blue line, an embossed invitation for
disaster. An older and smarter Stevens had simply stepped in to deliver the blow. Now he was looking for neither praise nor thanks, but an exit. The Hit had obliterated Lindros, but it also overshadowed
everything else about Stevens's dominating Game 7 performance. In the first period Stevens hip-checked hulking center Keith Primeau behind the Devils net, blocked four shots and actually caught a fifth, fielding an Adam Burt drive from the point as if it had been some broken-bat flare to shortstop. Brodeur, in the New Jersey net, said, "Wow, what a save." Stevens was putting on the greatest one-game display by a defenseman that Devils assistant coach Jacques Caron had ever seen. "Given the circumstances, absolutely," Caron says. "Remember, I go back to the days of Bobby Orr." Smoking one of the biggest, most powerful forwards in the NHL was only part of it.

"I've never seen a player so physically dominating," Holik says. "Teams were like, 'Oh, hey, let's not go this way, there's Scott Stevens.' I played with Scott against Sundin's line, and you could see them coming at you because they didn't want to come at Scotty. He makes a difference."

Collision Course The convergence of the Devils' hard-hitting Scott Stevens and the Stars' supersniper Brett Hull will have a major impact on what promises to be a memorable final series

After the Conn Smuythe was awarded:

Stevens, one of nine remaining members of New Jersey's 1995 title team, anchored the Devils' championship run by stopping the opponent's top offensive threat in every round. He helped silence Pavel Bure (one goal), Mats Sundin (no goals) and John LeClair (no goals) as New Jersey eliminated Florida, Toronto and Philadelphia to reach the finals.Against the Stars, Stevens was just as much of a presence. He helped limit Brett Hull and Mike Modano to a combined seven points, and routinely blocked scoring chances by Hull, who scored just two goals in the finals.

"There was no doubt in my mind that if we won the Cup, Scotty was going to be our MVP," said Arnott, whose Cup-best four goals made him an MVP candidate. "I think from the first round on, he led the way. He punished people"

Playoffs 2000:Stevens hits jackpot with Conn Smythe

 

[Captain Bowie]

A lot of focus on Vézina so far, and fair enough. I feel comfortable having him in the middle of the vote this round. I have Dionne/Geoffrion/Bathgate top 3, still playing with the order.

I feel Seibert has waited around long enough, will probably be right behind the 3 F's.

Not as much discussion on the other defencemen, they are currently populating the latter half of the list before Teemu and Frank bring up the rear.

 

[BenchBrawl]

As of right now I'll vote every defensemen in my Top 5 and every forwards out of it.

Scott Stevens is my #1.

All those defensemen shouldn't go too far after Pronger, and the forwards leave me cold.Not impressed with Selanne in the playoffs.Dionne and Bathgate, no comment.Geoffrion great producer, but a complementary piece, not a generator.The numbers Hockey Outsider provided for Mahovlich were terrible.I don't know why he's even eligible.Same with Selanne to be honest.Geoffrion is the one with the best chance to crack the Top 5 among forwards.Vézina somewhere in the Top 5 with the defensemen.

Edit: Actually I am too severe with Geoffrion.He will probably make my Top 5.

 

[Captain Bowie]

As of right now I'll vote every defensemen in my Top 5 and every forwards out of it.

Scott Stevens is my #1.

Almost exact opposite as me, cool.

I mean, there are maybe 1 or 2 other forwards I would consider voting ahead of most of those guys, but the 3 F's at the top are due this round.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Haven't noticed a lot of talk about MacInnis (at least while I've been around). With all due respect to Scott Stevens, Seibert and Horton, I currently have MacInnis as my top ranked d-man of this round. He only had two minus seasons in 23 years, and both were only -1. He checks all the boxes: Stanley Cup; Norris (plus runner up three times); Smythe; four 1st team and three 2nd team all stars; big offensive numbers; great peak, prime and longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Stevens will be my top dman, but I'm still uncertain as to him vs Geoffrion or Bathgate. Vezina likely top 5, probably not #1. Not sure of the order of Seibert and Horton, though they will e fairly high for me.

Re MacInnis, in the defensemen project, I believe @overpass argued that he could be ranked higher than Coffey because

1) MacInnis/Coffey/Bourque/Leetch all had similar PP results as the "next best" modern pointman after Bobby Orr.

2) Coffey racked up way more even stength points than the rest of them, but MacInnis' adjusted plus/minus was a lot better than Coffey.

Two negatives to MacInnis:

1) His career PK usage is disappointing - well below Brian Leetch even (caveat - Leetch was overworked for NYR).

2) MacInnis' result from those coaching polls I posted earlier are disappointing.

@MXD, didn't you earlier say something like you think we are underrating Horton?

 

[overpass]

Stevens will be my top dman, but I'm still uncertain as to him vs Geoffrion or Bathgate. Vezina likely top 5, probably not #1. Not sure of the order of Seibert and Horton, though they will e fairly high for me.

Re MacInnis, in the defensemen project, I believe @overpass argued that he could be ranked higher than Coffey because

1) MacInnis/Coffey/Bourque/Leetch all had similar PP results as the "next best" modern pointman after Bobby Orr.

2) Coffey racked up way more even stength points than the rest of them, but MacInnis' adjusted plus/minus was a lot better than Coffey.

Two negatives to MacInnis:

1) His career PK usage is disappointing - well below Brian Leetch even (caveat - Leetch was overworked for NYR).

2) MacInnis' result from those coaching polls I posted earlier are disappointing.

@MXD, didn't you earlier say something like you think we are underrating Horton?

I was impressed by MacInnis’s regular season plus-minus results. Still am. I do think he was better on the PP than Coffey, while not being a defensive liability. He had huge career value by any measure, as a Norris contender right to the end of his career. But I was a bit disappointed by the playoff plus-minus vs team for MacInnis posted by Hockey Outsider.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I might be too harsh on MacInnis since I can only remember the Blues portion of his career as far as live viewings, but he just didn't strike me as one of the top 70 players of all time. His playoff numbers are pretty good from an individual perspective, but team-wise I think it has to be considered somewhat disappointing. Calgary repeatedly imploded in the playoffs, never passing the first round in the 90s, during MacInnis' peak. St. Louis usually just went as far as their regular season ranking would have you expect, no real signature playoff run from the team or the player during his tenure there. Somewhat like Geoffrion, I have MacInnis as more of a high-end complimentary player than a true team anchor like Scott Stevens was at times.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Perusing the ATD board, I accidentally ran into this:

The Montreal Daily Mail's 1914 All-Star Team (32 voters):

Goal: Georges Vezina (21 votes)
Point: Harry Cameron (12 votes at point, 5 at cover point)
Cover point: Sprague Cleghorn (10 votes at cover point, 6 votes at point)
Centre: Newsy Lalonde (11 votes at C, 2 votes at RW, 1 vote at LW)
Left wing: Jack Darragh (12 votes at LW, 10 votes at RW, 1 vote at C)
Right wing: Jack Walker (6 votes at RW, 10 votes at LW, 1 vote at C)

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rKkjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JEEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3215,193676

It was a fan vote by the way.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Almost exact opposite as me, cool.

I mean, there are maybe 1 or 2 other forwards I would consider voting ahead of most of those guys, but the 3 F's at the top are due this round.

Like+please vote this Round.

There are some interesting things to be said for the Defensemen, of course, as there are all the other players this Round. Some meandering thoughts follow--

Three of the four Defensemen under discussion entered the NHL as teenagers*- [Seibert barely so... but he appears NHL-capable the year before. There is a story behind his not reaching the NHL sooner- and it seems to me like it involves his father and a wad-o-cash...]

Al MacInnis is the first Maritimer up for discussion since the nomination of Crosby- and indications are he will be the last one, too. [To restate, Gordie Drillon was listed by no-one.]

Will we have a comparison more direct- this entire project- than the MacInnis-Stevens comparison?! They played the same position, entered the league one year apart, left the league the same year, and are separated in age by less than a year.

Tim Horton had a 10 year span where he played all of the games eight times and missed one game once. This isn't surprising- he does have a reputation for being a complete rock. We do have another player in our discussion who had a 10 year span with all games played in nine of them. Who's that? Bathgate.

Speaking of Bathgate, he has a specialist-skill that you won't find in a review of H-R. What's that? Power-play Assists. He really makes the counter spin in that category. Don't know how much that means in the scheme-of-things... but I'm again left wondering how much more could have been accomplished if he simply had above-average teammates.

[*late edit due to temporary lack-of-focus re: Horton. The fact that the other three Blueliners put in, oh, about half-a-decade's worth NHL-quality of play before Horton got in the NHL shows as an obvious point of separation, to me.]

 

[Captain Bowie]

I might be too harsh on MacInnis since I can only remember the Blues portion of his career as far as live viewings, but he just didn't strike me as one of the top 70 players of all time. His playoff numbers are pretty good from an individual perspective, but team-wise I think it has to be considered somewhat disappointing. Calgary repeatedly imploded in the playoffs, never passing the first round in the 90s, during MacInnis' peak. St. Louis usually just went as far as their regular season ranking would have you expect, no real signature playoff run from the team or the player during his tenure there. Somewhat like Geoffrion, I have MacInnis as more of a high-end complimentary player than a true team anchor like Scott Stevens was at times.

89 was certainly MacInnis' peak, he won the Conn Smythe and Calgary won the cup. To artitrarily start counting from the following year is unfair. They went to the finals in 86 as well with a young MacInnis who lead the team in assists and tied for the scoring lead.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

89 was certainly MacInnis' peak, he won the Conn Smythe and Calgary won the cup. To artitrarily start counting from the following year is unfair. They went to the finals in 86 as well with a young MacInnis who lead the team in assists and tied for the scoring lead.

Outside of those two seasons though, Calgary's track record in the playoffs was atrocious. They were ousted as favorites in the first round in 87, 90, 91, 93, and 94. Swept in the second round, as favorites, in 1988. Some hard questions have to be asked of the key players. We didn't let Ovechkin off the hook for Washington stubbing their toe repeatedly up until last year. New Jersey of the late 90's followed a similar trend after their 1995 Cup win, but then righted the ship and won two more Cups. If somebody is waffling between Stevens and MacInnis, this is one of those details that might tip the balance.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Going back and watching MacInnis, which I've been doing a lot of this week, I'm actually much more impressed by late-career MacInnis than late 80's MacInnis...the Calgary version wasn't nearly as in control as he was in St. Louis I feel like...he matured well as a player, his puck poise, his skill level, his skating, his defensive acumen, they all seemed to improve well into his 30's to my eye, which is pretty rare...

At the end of the day, I probably overrated him on my round 1 list...I'm not sure how I feel about him versus Stevens at this point...