Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

[TheDevilMadeMe]

as an observer, i'd say if the process is indeed more important than the list itself then the pools should be kept small to ensure close discussion of each player, instead of struggling to do keep on top of a larger pool of guys in each round.

Do you think we struggled to keep on top of a slightly larger pool in the 2009 project or any of the positional projects?

Anyway, I'm not going to push for this if there is such resistance...

But I'm honestly surprised to see any resistance to slightly expanding the pool of players as we move along. It's what we did in literally every other project on this forum I've been a part of, and it would address what seems to be pretty widespread dissatisfaction over the available candidates for the last few rounds.

 

[The Macho King]

as an observer, i'd say if the process is indeed more important than the list itself then the pools should be kept small to ensure close discussion of each player, instead of struggling to do keep on top of a larger pool of guys in each round.

I think the opposite has happened though. Often we have already gone over a player the first time they were up, so there isn't much discussion the second time.

In hindsight, I'd have preferred bigger pools. But it is what it is.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Do you think we struggled to keep on top of a slightly larger pool in the 2009 project or any of the positional projects?

Yes, I thought there was too much going on in the 2008 and 2009 projects - particularly because they devolved into side conversations about groups of positions as opposed to cross-positional discussion.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Joe Malone's NHL Career

1918: The famous 44-goal season for Malone, still the highest goals-per-game average in league history, surely will never be broken. When I was ten years old, I wondered why Malone wasn't considered just as good as Wayne Gretzky on the basis of this season. Quebec did not ice a team this year, so Malone transferred to Montreal and played on the wing with Newsy Lalonde at center. He easily led his team and the league in goals. The playoffs were disappointing for the Canadiens. They lost 10-7 to Toronto in a two game/total goals series. Lalonde scored 4 goals, but cost his team with many penalties. Malone was quiet with just a single goal.

1919: Kind of the opposite of the previous year. Malone missed much of the regular schedule, and scored just 7 goals in 8 games. But Phantom Joe came alive in the playoffs, scoring 6 times in the best-of-seven league playoff. Montreal defeated Ottawa, who were without Frank Nighbor for three games. In spite of his good showing in the league playoffs, Malone did not travel with the team to Seattle to play for the Stanley Cup; apparently he was still bothered by his injury. This was perhaps fortunate, as the Influenza epidemic went on to ravage the Canadiens, killing Joe Hall in the process.

1920: Quebec returned to the NHL and Malone was transferred back to them. This season saw a return to his form from two years prior, as he led the NHL with 39 goals, narrowly beating out Lalonde. He was the lone bright spot on a terrible Bulldogs roster that finished 4-20-0.

1921: This was mostly a repeat of the previous season, the only difference being that Quebec had transferred to Hamilton. Malone didn't report to the Tigers until four games had been played. He ended up with 28 goals in 20 games, fourth place in the scoring race (goal scoring leader Babe Dye had 35 in 24 games). The Tigers didn't provide Malone with any better support than Quebec had and they finished in last place again.

1922: The last great season for Malone, which was once again spent as the lone star on a weak Hamilton team. He finished fourth in goals once again, a handful behind Denneny, Dye, and Punch Broadbent.

1923: Malone was traded back to the Canadiens, but seems to have only been used as a substitute. He had only a single goal in 20 games, a pretty shocking drop compared to the previous season. The Canadiens lost their opening playoff game to Ottawa, and starting C Odie Cleghorn was moved back to defense for the second game to take the place of his suspended brother. This pressed Malone back into the starting lineup, and he is described as playing a great game and nearly led Montreal to a surprise upset (they actually won the game 2-1, bust lost the series 3-2 on total goals).

This is an odd situation to fully grasp. Montreal was a good team (2nd place), but still scored the fewest goals in the league. Substitutes saw pretty limited use in this era, but it seems strange that Malone wasn't given more of a chance. I can't find any mention of an injury, but it's certainly a possibility. It doesn't seem like he was washed-up in terms of ability based on the strong performance in the biggest game of the season. Montreal traded for him after they sent Lalonde packing to Saskatoon, so evidently they must have at least planned on using him as a starting player before the season began.

1924: Malone played the first 9 games of a season as a substitute and then retired. The NHL (somewhat oddly) credits him with a Stanley Cup win for this season, but he did not participate past January.

---

How does Malone compare to some of the other candidates?

At this point I'm inclined to rank him over Cy Denneny. Both were great goal scorers, but it's hard to overlook how much extra support Denneny had from the team around him. Malone did win two Stanley Cups as the co-best player on his team. As we've discussed in this thread, newspaper reports of Ottawa games from the 1920's seem to paint Nighbor and the Ottawa defensemen as bigger factors in their success than Denneny. Were Malone's late-career scoring exploits the result of the "bad team scorer" phenomenon? No, I don't think we can say that. In the era of limited substitution, it seems being the top player surrounded by weak teammates was a clear disadvantage. Unlike future eras where it could inflate stats (lone star gets extra ice time, all the PP time, etc). Plus, Malone lit it up on Newsy Lalonde's wing in 1918, so even with an all-time great linemate, he was still the primary goal scorer.

What about Selanne? There are parallels to Selanne's peak years being spent on a thin Anaheim team. Malone's career and Selanne's pre-lockout career are actually pretty darn similar. Malone might have a "star power" edge here. Despite primarily playing for defunct franchises, history has remember the Phantom very well. Of course, Malone still holds the NHL record for his 7-goal game and this might play a big part in that. He had the good timing of peaking in the very first days of the NHL when scoring was still extremely high for a few years. If the NHL included the NHA as part of their historical record (and they were really only different in name), Malone's scoring exploits wouldn't look quite as remarkable.

What about the goaltnders? I did state my support for all three of them earlier. But in going through Malone's record, those nagging questions about the overall quality of the position in that day were still apparent. As late as the early 1920s, Hamilton replaced their regular goaltender, who had struggled badly throughout the season, with defenseman Harry Mummery. He played two games in net and didn't fare any worse than the incumbent. Ottawa's "kitty-bar-the-door" defensive tactics in the early 20's also received mention. Is this any different than New Jersey playing the trap in front of Brodeur? It seems a little more extreme than that. I'm now pretty well convinced that Vezina should rank ahead of Benedict. But I'm starting to think maybe Malone should be ahead of both of them. He just seems like a more important player, though with the caveat that scorers are easier to quantify than goaltenders.

Dit Clapper? Malone has a decently long career, but can't touch Clapper for longevity. The Bruin by all accounts was a more well-rounded player, and of course excelled at two positions. Malone was clearly more impressive as a forward though; Clapper was almost never an elite offensive player. Do Clapper's great years as a defenseman bridge the gap? Possibly. Boston underachieved through the 1930s, but then won two Cups in three seasons when Clapper shifted back. Of course, this coincided with Brimsek and Schmidt's arrival and Cowley's peak as well. Cowley and Brimsek consistently beat Clapper in Hart voting in the 1940s. Would Malone have been behind Tommy Smith and/or Jack McDonald on the NHA Bulldgos when they were strong? We really have no way of knowing.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

With regards to expanding the pool of candidates, I think there's one key consideration, and only the screeners could answer it:

There has been general dissatisfaction with who is/isn't available in the last two rounds. There is a logical disconnect here, because we ourselves decided the candidates based on round one lists. So my question would be, were there a bunch of outlier rankings provided by list-makers who have either not contributed to the discussion, or have only done so in specific discussions? I'm not in favour of changing the rules mid-project; however, if Candidate X is being withheld in favour of Candidate Y, and the only reason for this is because a couple non-participants (submitted lists, then vanished) ranked Y way higher than everybody else, this is a situation that can probably be rectified in good faith.

 

[quoipourquoi]

With regards to expanding the pool of candidates, I think there's one key consideration, and only the screeners could answer it:

There has been general dissatisfaction with who is/isn't available in the last two rounds. There is a logical disconnect here, because we ourselves decided the candidates based on round one lists. So my question would be, were there a bunch of outlier rankings provided by list-makers who have either not contributed to the discussion, or have only done so in specific discussions? I'm not in favour of changing the rules mid-project; however, if Candidate X is being withheld in favour of Candidate Y, and the only reason for this is because a couple non-participants (submitted lists, then vanished) ranked Y way higher than everybody else, this is a situation that can probably be rectified in good faith.

The most obvious way to check would be to compare a player’s ranking on the aggregate to their ranking if we sorted by median. Both columns will be provided at the end of the project. A player like, I don’t know... FIRSOV for instance, may actually only have a very, very vocal minority who even want him eligible at this point.

At any rate, no one stands out as having a particularly good median but with a disadvantageous aggregate ranking.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Do you think we struggled to keep on top of a slightly larger pool in the 2009 project or any of the positional projects?

tbh, i don't really remember my feeling either way. but i'll just say that i'm enjoying the detail this time around... whether that's a function of the format or because you/we have all this knowledge from the previous projects to build on is an open question.

 

[sr edler]

Timo's not available for voting (yet)

I'm waiting impatiently for Timo Jutila to show up. Participants seems to have a weak spot for defensemen, so he should appear any round now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's where I'm at now.

Definitely top 5

Tim Horton - fantastic two-way player and fantastic playoff performer. Led the 1962 Cup winners in scoring. Anecdotally, his physical strength head to head vs Gordie Howe is a big reason Toronto had Detroit's number in the 1960s. No Norris trophies, but his record is as good as anyone left except...

Al MacInnis - best overall Norris record left, though he did play at a time when voters tended to favor offensive guys. Argubably the 2nd best PP defenseman ever after Orr. Not much of a penalty-killer, but developed into a good two-way guy at even strength. He's fallen quite a bit from previous projects, as recent numbers presented have shown him in a somewhat lesser light, especially in the playoffs. But I think it's time for him. Better regular season player than Pronger, Stevens, or Horton, and it's not like his playoff record is bad - it's just more mixed than their's. Like Horton, he has incredible career value.

Georges Vezina - Another player with massive career value. Also seemed to have a lot more star power than any other early goalie. Seems a healthy majority of observers considered him better than fellow NHL goalie Clint Benedict. Note that when Charlie Gardiner was taking over in the early 1930s, observers asked whether he had surpassed Vezina. Gardiner is the only goalie I'd even consider over Vezina, and he's not an option.

Probably top 5

Teemu Selanne - kind of a boring pick, but he's the best offensive player available. Great international record takes some of the sting of a playoff record that could only be labelled as "incomplete." Teemu is my default #4, unless someone else really wows me.

_____________________

Definitely not top 5

Bill Durnan - His regular season dominance doesn't wow me enough to add him, considering his lack of longevity and playoff issues. Among short career Canadiens, I prefer Dickie Moore, who had some real standout playoffs at least. Needs to have some separation between Brimsek (who just went recently) and Durnan. Needs to be under the clearly superior Charlie Gardiner. A few years ago, when this forum focused on goaltenders only, Durnan placed 14th, under Brimsek, Vezina, Gardiner, Benedict, and Broda. IMO, that's a much more appropriate spot for him than here. Durnan's early candidacy is the single biggest departure from the HOH Top Players by position lists, and something we still have time to fix.

Cy Denneny - Among early era guys who are often overrated (my own opinion, of course) because of the limited stats available, I have been much more convinced of Joe Malone's worthiness this round than Denneny's. I just can't get over how Denneny just seems like an afterthought in everything I've read about the Senators. I'm not sure where I want to vote Denneny, but I'm pretty sure it's under Malone.

Clint Benedict - Not the worst candidate, but I feel there needs to be some separation between Vezina and him, and Vezina isn't even in yet. I will probably rank him over his teammate Denneny, however.

Frank Mahovlich - My god, his plus/minuses in the playoffs are terrible compared to his teammates. That's a big problem, as his supposedly fantastic playoff performances are traditionally a major reason he gets ranked as high as he does. His regular season stats are quite pedestrian for an offense-only player at this point; I realize playing for the mega-defensive Toronto team is a big reason for that. It's just that, without a big playoff boost, I have a hard to ranking him on the same level as, say, a Selanne or a Malone.

On the fence (This is where I'm the most open to arguments)

Dit Clapper - This is much higher than I originally had him, but I'm starting to warm up to him. His All-Star record at RW and D combined is actually very good. I'm just not sure if that's the right way to look at him... But then with such a unique resume, what is the right way to look at him?

Joe Malone - Skated into this spot (more or less) during the centers project without much discussion at all. This time, I'm pleased that, whenever Joe gets added, we finally had a pretty detailed discussion of his career. Like Clapper, this is higher than I originally had him. His record breaking goal-scoring season is very overrated, as he actually didn't beat the competition that year by all that much. I do appreciate that he had legit star power, and I have found arguments in his favor to be more convincing than Denneny, at least.

Dickie Moore - I actually hate adding yet another 50s Canadien at this point, and Moore's longevity is pretty bad. But man, was he ever thought of highly during his career. I'm going to post a little bit of the pros and cons of Moore a little later, for myself, as much as anyone else.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Do we find the candidates from the past few rounds underwhelming because we had a bad list initially? Or is it because we're now looking at players who have more flawed resumes (explaining why they haven't appeared sooner)?

I looked at my initial list for the top five players not already up - Bill Gadsby, Zdeno Chara, Johnny Bower, Nels Stewart, and Brian Leetch. All flawed in different ways, and although some of them would make my top three this round, I don't think they're clearly better than the best five currently up for voting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Do we find the candidates from the past few rounds underwhelming because we had a bad list initially? Or is it because we're now looking at players who have more flawed resumes (explaining why they haven't appeared sooner)?

I looked at my initial list for the top five players not already up - Bill Gadsby, Zdeno Chara, Johnny Bower, Nels Stewart, and Brian Leetch. All flawed in different ways, and although some of them would make my top three this round, I don't think they're clearly better than the best five currently up for voting.

New data - NHL archives, research, digitalization intersecting with old project creates conflicting views and results.

Also the over reliance on offensive performance at the expense of overall or defensive play is slowly changing.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

This is the first round for me where there's a clear divide between large groups of candidates. There's been a few rounds where a player is a clear 1st or a clear NR, but not until now is there such a separation between two groups of 5-6 players.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Where is everyone at on Dickie Moore? I'm having trouble placing him, personally. There's definitely a discrepancy between how he is remembered purely as a hockey player versus his case on paper. He tends to be very well remembered in the hockey establishment. The Hockey News had him way up at #31 on their list from the 1990s. People who watched him live speak highly of him.

Normally I'd be inclined to take their word for it, and make my own adjustment for the all the missed time and incomplete seasons.

But the thing that bugs me a bit is that the same hockey establishment that raved about Moore long after his retirement doesn't seem to have been quite so enamored with him while he was actually playing.

Moore's first big full season was 1956-57, when he finished 8th in scoring. Ted Lindsay understandably took the 1st AST selection, but given Moore's reputation as a strong all-around player it seems from afar that he should have been likely choice for the 2nd team. Yet that went to Boston's Real Chevrefils, who finished well back of Moore in scoring. And I could be mistaken, but I believe I've seen it stated before that Chevrefils was a one-dimensional scorer.

This has already been touched on, but we also have Moore's surprisingly weak Hart Trophy results from his two Art Ross seasons. In the first of these he had what amounted to little more than a few fringe votes. His linemate Henri Richard (I believe Richard was his regular center at this time?) did receive significant support for the award, however. He fared little better in 58-59, a distant fifth place in voting, despite setting a new record for points in a season. Teammate Jean Beliveau (who only had a few points less, to be fair) was third.

I also noticed that Moore was not inducted to the Hall of Fame until 1974, despite retiring in 1968. Maybe this is me making something out of nothing, but why the wait? For context, Boom Boom Geoffrion was inducted two years sooner despite retiring the same year. There was no cap on induction class sizes at this time. They inducted five in that '72 class, but then only three players in '73. Two of which were long-since-eligible Chuck Rayner, and Tommy Smith, several years deceased. So there wasn't some log jam keeping Moore out. This is probably nothing, but struck me as a little curious nonetheless.

The last thing I noticed was that Moore scored a lot of his goals on the PP. Around 40% over the course of his five-year peak. That's fine; they all count. But we've given Doug Harvey a good portion of credit for driving Montreal's offense from the blueline. And we've acknowledged that Geoffrion's booming shot, hence his nickname, was a key weapon. Has Moore been overlooked for how important he was to that PP, or was there some "right place, right time" going on here? The scant Hart support might hint at that. Moore's PP production fell off a cliff the same year Harvey went to New York, while his ES scoring remained similar to previous years.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Where is everyone at on Dickie Moore?

I have the impression of him as an on-time nominee. Maybe a bubble guy. Also have convinced myself that i misstepped placing Mahovlich ahead of him on my Prelim List. Ultimately, we're not judged on what we're capable of doing.

Of all the knocks on Moore, the one I care least about is that 'he lacked longevity.' He's a 200 foot Winger. He gets in the corners. He takes hits to make plays. His style of play shortened his career but that very style worked to the benefit of his team. Hell, he carried it around with the nickname- "Digging Dickie."

I'm more concerned that we may have a little 'Albedo-Bailey' element here. Béliveau missed enough time that we might be able to open that window and see how Moore did in his absence, and assuage (or reinforce) my concerns on that front. If nothing changes, I can see Moore as someone I'd have very high on my ballot next round.

The last thing I noticed was that Moore scored a lot of his goals on the PP. Around 40% over the course of his five-year peak. That's fine; they all count.

Since I'm coming from the point-of-view that I've spent more time than anyone making semi-sneering references to "power-play-dependency," my review of Moore's era leads me to the conclusion that Moore's Power Play production was not out of line with the general run of such production from finishing Wingers.

Somewhat peripherally related to this, I'd noted that league Power Play production carried on strong even after the end of the "All-You-Can-Eat" Power Play. I've been walking around with an explicatory hypothesis- one that I might try to confirm sometime. Maybe it's possible that after the rule change, referees were actually more inclined to call infractions, feeling as though they weren't necessarily determining the entire outcome of the game with such calls.

A couple of passing thoughts on a pair of nominees, before I go. These are not "arguments" in the normal sense- just bits of triviata I'll leave before I "head-to-the-Library" again:

1) Benedict is kind of the "anti-Clapper" inasmuch as he waited a VERY long time before being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Were there still old-timers who viewed the "Praying Bennie" routine as borderline-cheating? Were there people who docked him for his alcohol-fueled exit from Ottawa?

2) Is there a more famous Finnish team than Jokerit? Famous as they are, they were once a 2nd-tier team in their own country. Then, along came Selänne, through their Junior arm.
Then, they were a top-of table 2nd tier team.
Then, they were a First-Division team.
Then, they were Champions of their National League- all before Selänne played his first NHL-game. I would say that he was fully NHL-capable during that run...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Where is everyone at on Dickie Moore? I'm having trouble placing him, personally. There's definitely a discrepancy between how he is remembered purely as a hockey player versus his case on paper. He tends to be very well remembered in the hockey establishment. The Hockey News had him way up at #31 on their list from the 1990s. People who watched him live speak highly of him.

Normally I'd be inclined to take their word for it, and make my own adjustment for the all the missed time and incomplete seasons.

But the thing that bugs me a bit is that the same hockey establishment that raved about Moore long after his retirement doesn't seem to have been quite so enamored with him while he was actually playing.

Moore's first big full season was 1956-57, when he finished 8th in scoring. Ted Lindsay understandably took the 1st AST selection, but given Moore's reputation as a strong all-around player it seems from afar that he should have been likely choice for the 2nd team. Yet that went to Boston's Real Chevrefils, who finished well back of Moore in scoring. And I could be mistaken, but I believe I've seen it stated before that Chevrefils was a one-dimensional scorer.

This has already been touched on, but we also have Moore's surprisingly weak Hart Trophy results from his two Art Ross seasons. In the first of these he had what amounted to little more than a few fringe votes. His linemate Henri Richard (I believe Richard was his regular center at this time?) did receive significant support for the award, however. He fared little better in 58-59, a distant fifth place in voting, despite setting a new record for points in a season. Teammate Jean Beliveau (who only had a few points less, to be fair) was third.

I also noticed that Moore was not inducted to the Hall of Fame until 1974, despite retiring in 1968. Maybe this is me making something out of nothing, but why the wait? For context, Boom Boom Geoffrion was inducted two years sooner despite retiring the same year. There was no cap on induction class sizes at this time. They inducted five in that '72 class, but then only three players in '73. Two of which were long-since-eligible Chuck Rayner, and Tommy Smith, several years deceased. So there wasn't some log jam keeping Moore out. This is probably nothing, but struck me as a little curious nonetheless.

The last thing I noticed was that Moore scored a lot of his goals on the PP. Around 40% over the course of his five-year peak. That's fine; they all count. But we've given Doug Harvey a good portion of credit for driving Montreal's offense from the blueline. And we've acknowledged that Geoffrion's booming shot, hence his nickname, was a key weapon. Has Moore been overlooked for how important he was to that PP, or was there some "right place, right time" going on here? The scant Hart support might hint at that. Moore's PP production fell off a cliff the same year Harvey went to New York, while his ES scoring remained similar to previous years.

1956-57 Moore had his breakout season, replacing Olmstead on the PP. Only Canadien top 6 forward who was healthy the full season:

1956-57 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Real Chevrefils:

Réal Chevrefils - Wikipedia

1956-57 was his breakout season. Especially strong after Sawchuk left the Bruins mid season. Reflected in AST voting.

1961-62. Off season knee injury limited Moore during the season.

Canadiens PP production dropped by 16 goals. Beliveau missed 27 games:

1961-62 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Canadiens1958]

Power plays.

One of the rewarding aspects of the project is reading various theories about the history of hockey.

1956-57 introduction of the one PPG per penalty rule. Theorists posit that referees called more penalties. Not so. League PIMs were down by 449 minutes in 1956-57.

 

[pappyline]

Here's where I'm at now.


Frank Mahovlich - My god, his plus/minuses in the playoffs are terrible compared to his teammates. That's a big problem, as his supposedly fantastic playoff performances are traditionally a major reason he gets ranked as high as he does. His regular season stats are quite pedestrian for an offense-only player at this point; I realize playing for the mega-defensive Toronto team is a big reason for that. It's just that, without a big playoff boost, I have a hard to ranking him on the same level as, say, a Selanne or a Malone.

This really doesn't make much sense me. Are we sure the calculations are correct. If Mahovlich's numbers are so bad, would it not follow that his linemates would have bad numbers? Kelly was his centre in Toronto. Were Kelly's numbers bad also? He played on a line with Howe & Delvecchio with Detroit. were their numbers bad? i am not sure who his regular linemates were with Montreal.

Having watched both Mahovlich & Selanne. I cannot see Selenne being ranked higher.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Dickie Moore

Kyle already covered a lot of this, but I was already planning this post, so here it is:

Reasons Moore should be added soon:

1. A two-time Art Ross winner with a very complete game.

His NHL100 profile says it all: "He came by the nickname "Digging Dickie" honestly, his tremendous work in the corners done with disregard for the peril that often awaited him. And it was this bulldog tenacity that made Moore one of the unsung superstars of his day, a brilliant two-way forward who was a key member of six Stanley Cup champions during his time in Montreal (1951-63) and winner of the Art Ross Trophy in 1957-58 and 1958-59 as the NHL's leading scorer."

2. Ranked very high by the 1998 THN Top 100 list.

That list has its problems, but it is the best source we have for what the hockey establishment thought of players they had seen play from approximately 1950-1990. Moore ranked #32. Compared to other Canadiens from their dynasties, Maurice Richard was #5, Harvey #6, Beliveau #7, Lafleur #11, Plante #13, Robinson #25, Dryden #26, Henri Richard #30, Geoffrion #42

List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Excellent playoff record

Over the course of Moore's career with the Canadiens (1952-1963), he ranked 3rd in leaguewide playoff scoring behind Bernard Geoffrion and Gordie Howe: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Moore was 2nd behind Geoffrion on the 1956-1960 dynasty in playoff points. 3rd in playoff PPG behind Geoffrion and Beliveau (who missed playoff games in the span): Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

A 37 year old Moore led the 1967-68 St Louis Blues in playoff scoring as they reached the Cup finals by winning the playoffs in the Expansion Division: 1967-68 St. Louis Blues Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Reasons Moore should not be added yet:

1. For Moore's first Art Ross, he was outscored by his own center, Henri Richard, at even strength

1957-58. Moore: 84 points, 49 ES points. H Richard: 80 points, 60 ES points

2. Weak Hart record, even as he won Art Rosses.

1957-58
HART: (315/324, 138-155)
1. Gordie Howe, Det RW 105 (47-58)
2. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 70 (11-59)
3. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 41 (27-14)
4. Henri Richard, Mtl C 40 (30-10)
5. Glenn Hall, Chi G 37 (23-14)
6. Bill Gadsby, NYR D 9
7. Camille Henry, NYR C 6
8. Dickie Moore, Mtl LW 4
9. Fleming Mackell, Bos C 3
10. seven players with one point

1958-59
HART: (324/324, 135-139)
1. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 133 (67-66)
2. Gordie Howe, Det RW 60 (36-24)
3. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 36 (0-36)
4. Terry Sawchuk, Det G 34 (31-3)
5. Dickie Moore, Mtl LW 11 (1-10)
6. Tod Sloan, Chi C 10
T7. Ed Litzenberger, Chi RW 7
T7. Ted Lindsay, Chi LW 7
9. Don McKenney, Bos C 6
10. Jacques Plante, Mtl G 5
T11. Glenn Hall, Chi G 3
T11. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 3
T13. Bernie Geoffrion, Mtl RW 2
T13. Tom Johnson, Mtl D 2
T13. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 2
T16. Doug Mohns, Bos D/LW 1
T16. Marcel Pronovost, Det D 1

Note that a fellow Canadien (H Richard, then Beliveau) finished 2nd to Moore in scoring in each of his Art Ross years, and it was the teammate who finished just behind Moore in scoring to finish well above him in Hart voting each year. In 1957-58, H Richard clearly received credit for driving the line at even strength. Did Beliveau receive more credit than Moore in 1958-59 for driving the PP unit?

3. Limited number of strong regular seasons, and they correlate strongly to playing on the best team of all-time.

Top 20 point finishes: 14th (1956), 8th (1957), 1st (1958), 1st (1959), 11th (1960), 8th (1961), 19th (1963)

Moore's 1st finish as a top 20 scorer wasn't until 1955-56 at the age of 25. 1955-56 also just happened to be Beliveau's really huge season.

Then just 8 years later, Moore would retire (due to injuries) for the first time at the age of 32. He came back twice (first with Toronto, then with St. Louis), but his only notable accomplishment outside Montreal was his playoff performance in St. Louis in 1967.

4. NOT ranked as high by Red Fisher.

The great Montreal journalist Red Fisher ranked the top (non-goalie) Canadiens he had ever seen play.

Here's his list:

1. Jean Beliveau
2. Maurice Richard
3. Guy Lafleur
4. Doug Harvey
5. Henri Richard
6. Larry Robinson
7. Bernie Geoffrion
8. Bob Gainey
9. Dickie Moore
10. Serge Savard

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This really doesn't make much sense me. Are we sure the calculations are correct. If Mahovlich's numbers are so bad, would it not follow that his linemates would have bad numbers? Kelly was his centre in Toronto. Were Kelly's numbers bad also? He played on a line with Howe & Delvecchio with Detroit. were their numbers bad? i am not sure who his regular linemates were with Montreal.

Having watched both Mahovlich & Selanne. I cannot see Selenne being ranked higher.

I'm not trying to bash Mahovlich (this will be my last post on his playoff plus/minus), but here's the data, since you're asking a fair question:

On the Leafs (1960 to 1967), there were five forwards who played 63-73 games. Keon was on the ice for 26 ES GA; Armstrong for 31; Mahovlich for 52; Kelly for 51; and Pulford for 46. (Keon played 63 games; the others were on the ice for 70, 70, 72 and 73 - so the difference can't be explained by games played). He was on the ice for fewer goals (both ES and in total) than Kelly, Keon and Armstrong (and fewer ES goals for than Pulford), so his plus/minus looks bad in comparison.

He just played one season in Detroit but was on the ice for 7 ES GA compared to 5 for Delvecchio and 4 for Howe. They were all on the ice for 1 ES GF. Small sample though.

On the Habs from 1971 to 1974, he was one of five forwards to play all 49 games. He was on the ice for 59 ES GA; the other for forwards were on the ice for 36, 38, 39 and 40. His offensive results were somewhat better though (ranking 3rd of five).

Unless the NHL's recently released data is wrong, it looks like Mahovlich bled even-strength goals against in the playoffs with alarming consistency.

He was a very good special teams player though, which isn't reflected in the numbers above. He was 6th in playoff PP scoring over the span of his career, and played a fair bit on the PK for a non-defensive-specialist forward.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not trying to bash Mahovlich (this will be my last post on his playoff plus/minus), but here's the data, since you're asking a fair question:

On the Leafs (1960 to 1967), there were five forwards who played 63-73 games. Keon was on the ice for 26 ES GA; Armstrong for 31; Mahovlich for 52; Kelly for 51; and Pulford for 46. (Keon played 63 games; the others were on the ice for 70, 70, 72 and 73 - so the difference can't be explained by games played). He was on the ice for fewer goals (both ES and in total) than Kelly, Keon and Armstrong (and fewer ES goals for than Pulford), so his plus/minus looks bad in comparison.

He just played one season in Detroit but was on the ice for 7 ES GA compared to 5 for Delvecchio and 4 for Howe. They were all on the ice for 1 ES GF. Small sample though.

On the Habs from 1971 to 1974, he was one of five forwards to play all 49 games. He was on the ice for 59 ES GA; the other for forwards were on the ice for 36, 38, 39 and 40. His offensive results were somewhat better though (ranking 3rd of five).

Unless the NHL's recently released data is wrong, it looks like Mahovlich bled even-strength goals against in the playoffs with alarming consistency.

He was a very good special teams player though, which isn't reflected in the numbers above. He was 6th in playoff PP scoring over the span of his career, and played a fair bit on the PK for a non-defensive-specialist forward.

I know the numbers speak for themselves, but its really hard to imagine a left winger having that much of a negative impact on ES goals allowed. Not to mention he was on 6 Cup winners and a +266 in the regular season for his career.

 

[pappyline]

I'm not trying to bash Mahovlich (this will be my last post on his playoff plus/minus), but here's the data, since you're asking a fair question:

On the Leafs (1960 to 1967), there were five forwards who played 63-73 games. Keon was on the ice for 26 ES GA; Armstrong for 31; Mahovlich for 52; Kelly for 51; and Pulford for 46. (Keon played 63 games; the others were on the ice for 70, 70, 72 and 73 - so the difference can't be explained by games played). He was on the ice for fewer goals (both ES and in total) than Kelly, Keon and Armstrong (and fewer ES goals for than Pulford), so his plus/minus looks bad in comparison.

He just played one season in Detroit but was on the ice for 7 ES GA compared to 5 for Delvecchio and 4 for Howe. They were all on the ice for 1 ES GF. Small sample though.

On the Habs from 1971 to 1974, he was one of five forwards to play all 49 games. He was on the ice for 59 ES GA; the other for forwards were on the ice for 36, 38, 39 and 40. His offensive results were somewhat better though (ranking 3rd of five).

Unless the NHL's recently released data is wrong, it looks like Mahovlich bled even-strength goals against in the playoffs with alarming consistency.

He was a very good special teams player though, which isn't reflected in the numbers above. He was 6th in playoff PP scoring over the span of his career, and played a fair bit on the PK for a non-defensive-specialist forward.

Fair enough. I never thought you were going out of your way to bash Mahovlich. You do realize though a lot of people are jumping at these numbers to downgrade the Big M.

There is some consistency to the numbers. Kelly & M played together and have the same GA. The same for Armstrong & Keon. Big difference between the 2 lines though which looks odd to me.. Also Pulford's high GA looks a little odd based on his reputation as a defensive centre. Some of it may have to do with match ups. I believe the Kelly line was usually matched up against the Beliveau line.

Who really knows how accurate this data is. I think to much emphasis is being placed on it. Based on the eye test the Big M was a magnificent player. And I wasn't a fan.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

A 37 year old Moore led the 1967-68 St Louis Blues in playoff scoring as they reached the Cup finals by winning the playoffs in the Expansion Division

37 year old dickie moore who hadn’t played in three years. and his team played the most games but they were also probably the most defensive team so it’s still pretty impressive that he could be second in playoff goals and points, just one behind the winner in both categories.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

37 year old dickie moore who hadn’t played in three years. and his team played the most games but they were also probably the most defensive team so it’s still pretty impressive that he could be second in playoff goals and points, just one behind the winner in both categories.

Yeah...

Without those playoffs, I'd honestly question whether he was at least partly a product of the dynasty

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I see Moore's 1968 playoffs as a nice feather in his cap, but I think we have to remember that he was playing in the expansion division. All but one of his points came against Philadelphia or Minnesota, teams mostly composed of players who were not NHL regulars prior to the expansion.

 

[Sanf]

I know that some of this is trivial in ranking top 100 players, but few comments.

He wasn’t some unknown quantity between his injury in the early 1930s that led to the Maple Leafs releasing him and his eventually joining the NHL. Consider the Dick Irvin line about Durnan when he was holding down an accounting job: “It was obvious the amateur team had much better goaltending than the professional team that played in the same building.”

Even just on the technical side of things, his lateral movement was fantastic and his ability to switch stick hands to the context of the opposition attack is more or less unreplicated.

Yes Irvin was interested him already earlier. This clip is from the late 1940-1941 which was his first in Quebec senior league.

Montreal Gazette March 4, 1941
Of Durnan, Irvin says. "He is big, has style and perhaps possesses the pro complex to greater extent than any of the others." If Royals should be knocked out by Ottawa, it wouldn't be a great surprise if Durnan is offered a Habitant contract. The other amateur goalies Irvin has in mind are Paul Bibeault and Coney Dion but Durnan is the one he prefers above all.

Start of the 1943-1944 was a very good point to start pro career. Legs Fraser, another highly touted amateur goalie on Canadiens list, skipped the season before. Paul Bibeault was in army (and actually participated on Bruins camp "just for fun"). Durnan´s only competition in camp was promising 17 year old Gerry McNeil. Technically Bert Gardiner was still their property but Canadiens didn´t have room in their plans for him.

Now ofcourse later both Bibeault and Fraser came back later but neither could challenge Durnan. Bibeault was actually pretty decent goalie and being French-Canadian a fan favourite. In the start of the 1944-1945 part of the crowd was chanting "WE WANT BEE-BOO". Legs Fraser was one of the most wanted amateur goalies (Happy Day had one of his scouts watching Fraser perform in the Habs nets last week and is convinced that the giant Westerner might win the Stanley cup for the Leafs if they could secure him.)

Could be a reaction to Lumley playing the full season and Durnan missing 10 games. If anything, this raises eyebrows on Brimsek’s 2nd Team.

Brimsek missed the first 1/3 of the season due to the war.

Competiton among goalies in 1945-46 was almost as bad as the true war years.

Re: Brimsek in 1945-46, I'm not sure what we can make of the fact that writers had 2/3 of a season of Brimsek as (barely) better than a full season of young Lumley, while coaches didn't.

It's fair (and apparently not uncommon) to have that opinion, but if the two of them hypothetically had the same calibre of backup goalie, we could see how they did compared to those backups.

Goaltender	Team	Year	GP	W	L	T	GAA
Frank Brimsek	Boston	1946	34	16	14	4	3.26
Paul Bibeault	Boston	1946	16	8	4	4	2.81
Paul Bibeault	Montreal	1946	10	4	6	0	3.00
Bill Durnan	Montreal	1946	40	24	11	5	2.60

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Not enough sample size to conclude that Durnan > Brimsek based off of this alone, but the Transitive Property of Paul Bibeault at least suggests that it wasn't necessarily superb defense that was driving those low GAA totals in Montreal.

Yeah I have always thought that Brimsek´s second team All-Star on that season is bit odd. Now looking at what Overpass posted it may have been bit reputation selection? You can´t blame Brimsek of being bit rusty after being out from skates 16 months. But still the fact is Bibeault was outplaying him before his recall to Montreal.

The Winnipeg Tribune, 1946-02-06
Durnan´s Injury Aided Brimsek

It seems as though Bill Durnan´s injured hand, which has kept him out of play for a month, while it has not been particularly helpful to Montreal Canadiens at least proved benificial to Frankie Brimsek, Mr. Zero of the Boston Bruins.

Frankie was not doing particularly well on his return from the armed services and had to be content with sharing the goal-keeping job with Paul Bibeault. At that time, Bibeault was more popular than Brimsek, and drew the assignments in Boston Garden. Paul of course still was nominally property of Montreal Canadiens.

When Durnan suffered his broken hand, Bibeault was recalled immediately and Brimsek took over the goalie assignment for the Bruins.

Then Bruins was content with a fourth-place spot in the national hockey league standings, but in the past month have won eight and lost four games to soar right to the top. Brimsek seeme to have recovered that skill that won him the title of Mr. Zero, but he might still have been playing second fiddle to Bibeault if Paul had not been recalled by Montreal.