Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 15

[VMBM]

Nice job BoM.

Not a generational change as such but one caused by the IIHF harmonizing their rules to NHL rules starting in the fall of 1969.

This is the major sticking point with Firsov. Your table shows that a fair number of Firsov contemporaries - A. Yakushev, Kharlamov, Ragulin,amongst them transitioned to the harmonized rules while others including Firsov did not.

So incredibly misleading. Firstly, I'd rather say that Firsov was one of the rare players of his generation who DID transition to the new rules, or at least I haven't seen yet any evidence of otherwise.

Yakushev and Kharlamov were many years younger than Firsov. And when they got older, whoops, they too were eventually ousted from Team USSR; e.g. Yakushev did not play on the national team after the 1979 World Championship (and even in that tournament he had been reduced to a mediocre fourth-liner) when he was roughly the same age as Firsov in 1972. So should we say about him that he was not able to make a transition to the 'new decade of hockey', or rather notice that he was already past his prime at 30-32, like so many other Soviet players before and after him? Furthermore, it is well documented and has been mentioned many times that the coaching change after the 1972 Winter Olympics was the crucial reason why Firsov was not seen on the national team anymore, including the 1972 Summit Series; the bad blood between Firsov and Bobrov as well as Firsov's age and decline being the obvious factors.

Whatever, I guess those who are 'somewhere in the middle' regarding this debate will decide whether he will be voted in this round.

 

[MXD]

To be honest, other than the post I quoted earlier on, and that was mostly because it was a very short post, I'm done reading non-factual posts on Firsov.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Thoughts on our new nominees...

Count me on the side who is favourable to the polarizing Brett Hull. Yes, he was a one-way player. But if he was a two-way player, we'd probably have discussed him several rounds ago. Hull's 5-year peak saw him score goals at clip that might be as good as anyone in history. Contemporary offense-only winger Teemu Selanne being voted in before Hull was even eligible is difficult for me to understand. Hull meets or exceeds him in almost every category IMO. Underrated playoff career as well. Hull usually showed up when the chips were down.

Jari Kurri is an easy comparable with Cy Denneny, both elite goal scorers on dynasties. I'd lean towards Kurri due to his reputation as a strong defensive player, although this may not be entirely fair to Denneny, who suffers somewhat from lack of information (and our limited ability to properly contextualize the info that is available). Denneny did add some muscle to an Ottawa lineup that featured Frank Nighbor and Eddie Gerard, two clean-playing stars who would have needed some protection from the Cleghorns and Lalondes of the world.

Out of the dynasty skaters though, I have to place Mahovlich at the head of the pack by this point. I think we've done a good job of not just defaulting to what the hockey establishment thought of certain players for whom we've had reasons to question. In Mahovlich's case, the consistently bad ES performance in the playoffs. But there reaches a point where re-evaluation starts to morph into revisionism, and I think we might be approaching that area. To paraphrase @TheDevilMadeMe from last round, the Hockey News Top 50 list (later expanded to 100) was a good barometer of what the hockey establishment thought of players from the post-war era up to the fall of the iron curtain. Mahovlich was #26 on that list, ahead of seven other Original Six players that we've already ranked.

I like Broda as a candidate in this round. I had Durnan second on my ballot last round (clearly minority opinion), and I don't think there's much separating him from Broda. My opinion of Benedict is still somewhat unstable. The fact that he was actually showing up drunk for playoff games towards the end of his Ottawa career is difficult to excuse.

Firsov has had as much discussion as any player in this project by now, so I don't have a whole lot to add. I think it is clear that he was part of a crossover generation, so I like to view him with the same lens that I view the generation of North Americans circa World War I. Not quite the Nighbor generation equivalent (that would be Kharlamov, Mikhailov, etc.), but better than the Bowie/McGee generation (that would be Bobrov, Sologubov, etc.). Joe Malone is actually a pretty strong parallel. He was a star right away, and excelled for a long enough time to establish that he was good enough not to be supplanted by the next incoming generation. But he did then decline quite rapidly, going from scoring race threat to substitute player to retirement in the span of a couple seasons. Much the same as Firsov, who was Soviet League MVP in 1971, but was then absent from the Summit Series less than two years later. In both cases, the sudden end of their elite status doesn't seem to be an erosion of skill; Firsov seemed to be out of favour with the Red Army coaching staff. Malone, I've yet to uncover a good reason as to why Montreal traded for him, but then only used him sparingly.

 

[Batis]

Folks, no-one is saying Bowman's statement is the final gospel. It is being taken with a grain of salt, otherwise Firsov would have to rank in the mid-20s of the top 100 list or higher.

Since we don't have a direct comparison between Firsov and the NHL, we either leave him out of the top 100 completely or we look for circumstantial evidence. Like Firsov's prime (- 1972) overlapping with the primes of players like Kharlamov (1968 -) and Firsov being considered the superior player until 1971. Like Veli-Pekka Ketola saying that Firsov was a better overall player than Kharlamov. Like the coaches of the Canadian national team putting the Soviet team on par with the NHL (minus the SC finalists) and claiming Firsov would be one of the very few Soviets who could play in the NHL despite of the different styles. Like Marshall Johnson saying Firsov might have been the greatest player he has seen. Like Bowman claiming Firsov was the best Russian player he had seen.

Thanks to your bio we of course also have Kharlamov calling Firsov the number one player in Soviet hockey history in 1979 and Tarasov saying that Firsov in his opinion was the greatest forward of the 1960's even when comparing him to the Canadian professionals.

Valery Kharlamov (1979):
"My teammates and I believed that Anatoly Firsov was the number one player in Soviet hockey, not only in his time but also in the history of our sport."

Anatoly Tarasov (1974):
"In my opinion Firsov was the best forward of the 1960s, even if you compare him with the Canadian professionals."

I would agree with Kharlamov and his teammates that up until 1979 Firsov was the number one player in Soviet hockey history (being passed by Makarov and Fetisov later on in my opinion) and while I don't fully agree with Tarasov it is certainly some high praise from a figure that knows more about Firsov than most.

As for other circumstancial evidence there is also that Nedomansky, who had a very extensive prime overlap with Firsov in the late 60's/early 70's where Firsov very clearly was considered the superior player, managed to finish tied for 11th in goalscoring in the NHL at age 34 and was among the top of the players in his age group in the NHL for a number of years. If prime Firsov was the far superior player than prime Nedomansky and the old version of Nedomansky managed to finish tied for 11th in goalscoring in the NHL and was among the most productive players in his age group for a number of years it makes me think that the sky would be the limit for prime Firsov in the NHL. Here is a post from the Winger project on that subject.

To get some kind of idea of how Firsov might have done in the NHL lets look at another European star of the late 60's/early 70´s. Vaclav Nedomansky who came over to play in North America at the age of 30. After spending a couple of years adjusting to the North American game playing in the WHA, where he finished 3rd in goalscoring in his best season (75/76), Nedomansky managed to put up two quite impressive seasons for his age in the NHL.

In 78/79 a 34 year old Nedomansky was tied for 11th place in goalscoring with 38 goals and finished 28th in overall scoring with 73 points. Phil Esposito was the only player in Nedomanskys age group who finished ahead of him in scoring and goalscoring with 78 points and 42 goals.

In 79/80 Nedomansky was tied for 30th place in goalscoring with 35 goals and tied for 37th in overall scoring with 74 points. Phil Esposito with 78 points was once again the only player in his age group who outscored him but this time Nedomansky scored the most goals of everyone his age or older.

After that season Nedomansky started to really decline but he still remained one of the most productive players in his age group and actually one of the only players his age to play in the league. In 81/82 Nedomansky and Dave Keon were the only players in the league who were 37 years old or older. That year Nedomansky led his age group in scoring with 40 points in 68 games to Keons 19 points in 78 games. If we include players who were one year younger than Nedomansky he was still in second place after Wayne Cashman who had 43 points. In the 82/83 season Nedomansky was the oldest skater in the league and this time he also led all players who were one year younger than him with his 31 points in 57 games compared with Serge Savards 20 points in 76 games and Wayne Cashmans 15 points in 65 games.

Considering how reasonably well Nedomansky did in the NHL at age 34/35 despite having had to adjust to a new style of playing hockey after the age of 30 it seems very likely that he would have been able to be a true star in the league if he would have come over to make those adjustments in his early 20´s.

Now lets look at how Nedomanskys international career (1965-1974) compares to Firsovs (1964-1972) when it comes to awards, all star selections and scoring finishes in WHCs and Winter Olympics.

WHC All Star Selections
Firsov x5
Nedomansky x3

WHC Best Forward Award
Firsov x3
Nedomansky x1

WHC/Olympics Top 10 Scoring Finishes
Firsov 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 7, 7
Nedomansky 2, 2, 4, 4, 7, 9, 10

 

[DannyGallivan]

That requirement would mean he'd already be voted in, probably since a while, but I digress.

maybe... probably... perhaps... IF we assumed all that. Then again, a lot of people thought he should have been voted in already.

Yet, players who's tangible achievements we are aware of (no guessing required) have yet to be voted in. The Big M isn't in yet, and this is the first we're seeing of Hull and Kurri. Durnan's trophy case was packed, but people talk about the poor quality of opposition he faced (probably/arguably still better than Firsov's).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

maybe... probably... perhaps... IF we assumed all that. Then again, a lot of people thought he should have been voted in already.

Yet, players who's tangible achievements we are aware of (no guessing required) have yet to be voted in. The Big M isn't in yet, and this is the first we're seeing of Hull and Kurri. Durnan's trophy case was packed, but people talk about the poor quality of opposition he faced (probably/arguably still better than Firsov's).

Firsov's competition for his last couple Soviet Player of the Year awards included early prime Kharlamov (already on our list) and Maltsev.

 

[seventieslord]

Can we get a "Firsov circumstantial evidence megapost", maybe? I've read so many things now, some of which make him out to be a top 20 player ever, some which indicate it's late for him, some that indicate it's early, some which indicate he's not top 100. I'd like to weigh it all to make an informed vote, but it's scattered in lot of places now.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Firsov's competition for his last couple Soviet Player of the Year awards included early prime Kharlamov (already on our list) and Maltsev.

Durnan beat out a number of players already on our list in Hart voting in 1946, 1949, and 1950. I think both Durnan and Firsov ought to rank highly in this round, and it would be inconsistent to apply a weak competition penalty to only one of them.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Durnan beat out a number of players already on our list in Hart voting in 1946, 1949, and 1950. I think both Durnan and Firsov ought to rank highly in this round, and it would be inconsistent to apply a weak competition penalty to only one of them.

We're well past the point here where anyone really racks up the Hart voting record.

Besides, Hull has the best Hart record this round.

 

[wetcoast]

Can we get a "Firsov circumstantial evidence megapost", maybe? I've read so many things now, some of which make him out to be a top 20 player ever, some which indicate it's late for him, some that indicate it's early, some which indicate he's not top 100. I'd like to weigh it all to make an informed vote, but it's scattered in lot of places now.

Perhaps it could also include his scoring finishes domestically as well since the Soviet voters seem to place a huge emphasis on tournament scoring over domestic in their results.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

We're well past the point here where anyone really racks up the Hart voting record.

Besides, Hull has the best Hart record this round.

But I'm talking about the inconsistency of taking Soviet MVP voting at face value, while dismissing similar voting in the post-war NHL. Is Firsov beating Kharlamov (#43 on our list) in MVP voting substantially different than Durnan ranking ahead of a prime Ted Lindsay (#38 on our list) in consecutive seasons in 1949 and 1950? Maybe it is, but I'd need to hear a reason why.

 

[Batis]

Perhaps it could also include his scoring finishes domestically as well since the Soviet voters seem to place a huge emphasis on tournament scoring over domestic in their results.

I brought up Firsovs domestic scoring in my general overview post on the first page. The problem with the domestic scoring numbers from the 60's/early 70's is of course the very stingy assist records which certainly clearly hurt a great playmaker like Firsov when compared to someone like Starshinov. Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 15

 

[MXD]

maybe... probably... perhaps... IF we assumed all that. Then again, a lot of people thought he should have been voted in already.

Yet, players who's tangible achievements we are aware of (no guessing required) have yet to be voted in. The Big M isn't in yet, and this is the first we're seeing of Hull and Kurri. Durnan's trophy case was packed, but people talk about the poor quality of opposition he faced (probably/arguably still better than Firsov's).

The player you described has litterally beaten Bobby Hull in his prime. More than once.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But I'm talking about the inconsistency of taking Soviet MVP voting at face value, while dismissing similar voting in the post-war NHL. Is Firsov beating Kharlamov (#43 on our list) in MVP voting substantially different than Durnan ranking ahead of a prime Ted Lindsay (#38 on our list) in consecutive seasons in 1949 and 1950? Maybe it is, but I'd need to hear a reason why.

If the case for Firsov was entirely Or even mostly based on Soviet player of the Year voting, then I would never vote him over his countryman Mikhailov. He'd be at or near the bottom of my vote this round.

But there's more to it than that - his World Championships award record. His World Championships statistics (they actually recorded assists in the WCs). Video. Experts analysis of his play style (much more complete player than Kharlamov).

And last but not least - people who watched him play put him on a similar pedestal to Kharlamov and Tretiak. A step above the "next tier" Soviets like Mikhailov amd Maltsev. That might not matter to you (and if it doesn't, it's understandable), but it matters a lot to me - these players did have overlapping careers, so I think the "collective eye test" does say a lot.

 

[sr edler]

Count me on the side who is favourable to the polarizing Brett Hull. Yes, he was a one-way player. But if he was a two-way player, we'd probably have discussed him several rounds ago. Hull's 5-year peak saw him score goals at clip that might be as good as anyone in history. Contemporary offense-only winger Teemu Selanne being voted in before Hull was even eligible is difficult for me to understand. Hull meets or exceeds him in almost every category IMO. Underrated playoff career as well. Hull usually showed up when the chips were down.

What do you mean "if he was a two-way player", what made Brett Hull Brett Hull was because he wasn't anything resembling. I'll also say I agree with the notion that Selänne went a round too early, but the waters are pretty muddy at the moment and every player seems to have flaws. By the way, I saw Hull against Bure in the 94–95 playoffs, and while Hull put up nice numbers (not as nice as his teammate Shanahan though) Bure won that duel too (as he did against playoff Selänne).

Denneny is probably an antique Brett Hull. What makes Selänne a more attractive choice than both of them are skating/play driving abilities and set up skills. Kurri is also a more attractive choice than Denneny/Hull because of his all-round-ability and scoring prowess.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If the case for Firsov was entirely Or even mostly based on Soviet player of the Year voting, then I would never vote him over his countryman Mikhailov. He'd be at or near the bottom of my vote this round.

But there's more to it than that - his World Championships award record. His World Championships statistics (they actually recorded assists in the WCs). Video. Experts analysis of his play style (much more complete player than Kharlamov).

And last but not least - people who watched him play put him on a similar pedestal to Kharlamov and Tretiak. A step above the "next tier" Soviets like Mikhailov amd Maltsev. That might not matter to you (and if it doesn't, it's understandable), but it matters a lot to me - these players did have overlapping careers, so I think the "collective eye test" does say a lot.

It does matter to me; I think I had Firsov ahead of every Soviet besides Fetisov and Makarov on my original list. My issue is with the logical inconsistency of mentioning his competition for MVP voting as a point in his favour, but dismissing Durnan's strong Hart record (for players at this stage of the project) as a product of weak competition. Durnan beat out Kharlamov-level players too.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

looking at their careers, not just '90 - '94 hull vs. '96 - '99 selanne, wouldn't one come to the conclusion that brett hull's defensive contributions were at least as good if not probably better than selanne's?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It does matter to me; I think I had Firsov ahead of every Soviet besides Fetisov and Makarov on my original list. My issue is with the logical inconsistency of mentioning his competition for MVP voting as a point in his favour, but dismissing Durnan's strong Hart record (for players at this stage of the project) as a product of weak competition. Durnan beat out Kharlamov-level players too.

The top goalies in the Original 6 era got Hart votes.

Two of them who have no chance of even making our list actually won the thing!

Hart voting

Chuck Rayner: 1st (1950), 4th (1947), 7th (1949)
Al Rollins: 1st (1954), 2nd (1953), 8th (1951)
Bill Durnan 2nd (1949), 3rd (1946), 5th (1950)

Anyway, Durnan's Hart record helps show that he had a better regular season prime than Turk Broda - though Broda kills Durnan in both longevity as an impact player and playoffs. In the goalies project, those two were considered a tossup, with Broda narrowly beating Durnan out for 13th on the list. Anyway, unless something big changes, those two will likely be the bottom 2 on my list.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

looking at their careers, not just '90 - '94 hull vs. '96 - '99 selanne, wouldn't one come to the conclusion that brett hull's defensive contributions were at least as good if not probably better than selanne's?

Again, it comes back to the broken tables of the HOH wingers project - Selanne's R-on/R-off were decent - showing that he helped drive possession. Hull's were terrible. That said, Hull's playoff R-on is much better than his regular season equivalent, so Hull's no auto last place for me anymore.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

What do you mean "if he was a two-way player", what made Brett Hull Brett Hull was because he wasn't anything resembling. I'll also say I agree with the notion that Selänne went a round too early, but the waters are pretty muddy at the moment and every player seems to have flaws. By the way, I saw Hull against Bure in the 94–95 playoffs, and while Hull put up nice numbers (not as nice as his teammate Shanahan though) Bure won that duel too (as he did against playoff Selänne).

Denneny is probably an antique Brett Hull. What makes Selänne a more attractive choice than both of them are skating/play driving abilities and set up skills. Kurri is also a more attractive choice than Denneny/Hull because of his all-round-ability and scoring prowess.

Everyone does have flaws at this point, but few have a strength as prominent as Hull's goal scoring ability. I find it a little surprising that this has seemingly carried such modest weight in the minds of some voters. The guy scored 350 goals in five seasons. That's an average pace of 70 goals/season. The NHL was still easy to score in during the early 90's, but not the ridiculous levels of the early and mid-80's either. Mike Bossy, whose calling-card was his magnificent goal scoring prowess, put up 312 during his best 5-year stretch, for comparison. With Potvin manning the point in a higher scoring era. Charlie Conacher was perhaps a similar level of goal-scoring prodigy, and we elected him to the list long ago, with little substance beyond his five great goal scoring seasons. (And for the record, I don't think we overrated either Bossy or Conacher).

I'm not even certain Hull will be in my top 5 candidates this round, but it seems odd that a guy who absolutely blew away the competition in terms of a high-value skill, during an era that we've deemed very strong on the basis of how many players we've listed that played in it, seems to be such an afterthought in some circles.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So incredibly misleading. Firstly, I'd rather say that Firsov was one of the rare players of his generation who DID transition to the new rules, or at least I haven't seen yet any evidence of otherwise.

Yakushev and Kharlamov were many years younger than Firsov. And when they got older, whoops, they too were eventually ousted from Team USSR; e.g. Yakushev did not play on the national team after the 1979 World Championship (and even in that tournament he had been reduced to a mediocre fourth-liner) when he was roughly the same age as Firsov in 1972. So should we say about him that he was not able to make a transition to the 'new decade of hockey', or rather notice that he was already past his prime at 30-32, like so many other Soviet players before and after him? Furthermore, it is well documented and has been mentioned many times that the coaching change after the 1972 Winter Olympics was the crucial reason why Firsov was not seen on the national team anymore, including the 1972 Summit Series; the bad blood between Firsov and Bobrov as well as Firsov's age and decline being the obvious factors.

Whatever, I guess those who are 'somewhere in the middle' regarding this debate will decide whether he will be voted in this round.

Kuzkin, Ragulin, Starshinov also,transitioned playing for the Soviets in the 1972 Summit Series. Firsov was offered a similar opportunity that he turned down. Ironic how Firsov is still protrayed as a "team player" regardless. You fail to mention that Firsov turned down the opportunity. Incredibly misleading? Readers willdecide.

Yakushev playing into 1979 is a valid point.Age is not. Not a question of how old players were but who they played with and against. Simply Yakushev played against much better opposition from 1972 into 1979 then Firsov ever did. Yakushev regularly faced top NHL players from various nations, on International and NHL rinks.1976 touryou see Yakushev being targeted by the Sabres on their smaller rink, yet producing reasonably well. Yakushev was playing with his head-up. No such evidence for Firsov exists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Current thoughts

1. Anatoli Firsov - I think he was probably as good as Kharlamov. But probably is not the same as definitely, so he deserves to be ranked lower than Kharlamov. But how much lower? IMO, he's already a bit too low. I understand not everyone feels this way and that's fine. But I also feel there are a small number of voters who won't even attempt to look past the "didn't play against the NHL" thing, and I feel that's misguided. Firsov's prime does overlap with those of Kharlamov and Maltsev by a few years.

2. Joe Malone - lots of star power, great goal scorer, seems to have driven the play more than Denneny or Hull

3. Dit Clapper - perhaps the player I've risen on the most since I constructed my round one list.

If you combine his All-Star records at D and RW, his combined record looks similar to MacInnnis or Horton: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

Clapper's competition for RW spot in the 1930s was quite strong. Removing Bill Cook and Charlie Conacher from the leader boards, and Clappers RW AS record would go from 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, to 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, albeit over what would then be otherwise weak competition: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

4. Frank Mahovlich - he deserved to fall but IMO this is probably enough. Longevity and consistency as an impact player is very good at this stage - 9 times 1st or 2nd Team NHL All-Star. Great playoff scorer, even as his overall ESGA isn't good.

5. Jari Kurri - amazing two-way player. Scored 102 points (8th in the NHL) the season after Gretzky left. No, I don't think Kurri hits 68 or 71 goals without Gretzky, but he may have had more assists.

And Kurri made a key offensive contribution that doesn't show up on the scoresheet - by taking the defensive responsibilities that normally belong to a center, he allowed Gretzky to play farther up ice and go all-in on offense.

6/7. Cy Denneny and Clint Benedict - I see Denneny as a slightly better version of Brett Hull. As far as proverbial crimes go, it would be a misdemeaner to see Benedict go over Charlie Gardiner, but at least it wouldn't be a felony like the other 2 goalies.

8. Brett Hull - I still don't like the fact that he was mostly useless when he wasn't scoring goals. And that includes puck possession. But finding out he didn't bleed goals against in the playoffs like he did in the regular season is enough to bump him over Broda and Durnan for me.

9/10. Turk Broda and Bill Durnan. Quite frankly, it would be a felony if either of these guys went over Charlie Gardiner.

Broda was never really the best in the league. In his long, HHOF career, he was 1st Team AS twice - the two seasons he happened to lead the league in GAA.

As for Durnan - here's my long post on why he wasn't as good as his All-Star record appeared at first glance: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

The bullet point version:

1. The Canadiens were much less affected by WW2 than any other team
2. When Durnan played, the 1st Team AS went to the starting goalie with the lowest GAA by default (while the 2nd Team AS wasn't as tied to GAA).
3. Durnan's first 3 1st Team AS nods were won by default - 2 over sub-AHL competition during WW2, the 3rd over 2/3 of a season of Frank Brimsek who still finished 2nd over the garbage that was there the full season.
4. Even contemporary sources wondered whether Durnan was a product of WW2
5. His playoff record is disappointing, relative to how stacked his team was
6. Durnan retired in the middle of the 1950 playoffs, seemingly because he couldn't handle the pressure
7. While Durnan led the NHL in GAA 6 times, his cumulative statistical record doesn't stand out:

• Parent: 5 seasons, 169.5 GVT in 262 GP, 0.65 GVT/GP
  Bower: 7 seasons, 190.0 GVT in 345 GP, 0.55 GVT/GP
  Esposito: 7 seasons, 223.1 GVT in 433 GP, 0.52 GVT/GP
  Durnan: 5 seasons, 147.7 GVT in 283 GP, 0.52 GVT/GP
  B. Smith: 10 seasons, 199.8 GVT in 419 GP, 0.48 GVT/GP
  Belfour: 5 seasons, 138.4 GVT in 309 GP, 0.45 GVT/GP

 

[Canadiens1958]

Current thoughts

1. Anatoli Firsov - I think he was probably as good as Kharlamov. But probably is not the same as definitely, so he deserves to be ranked lower than Kharlamov. But how much lower? IMO, he's already a bit too low. I understand not everyone feels this way and that's fine. But I also feel there are a small number of voters who won't even attempt to look past the "didn't play against the NHL" thing, and I feel that's misguided. Firsov's prime does overlap with those of Kharlamov and Maltsev by a few years.

2. Joe Malone - lots of star power, great goal scorer, seems to have driven the play more than Denneny or Hull

3. Dit Clapper - perhaps the player I've risen on the most since I constructed my round one list.

If you combine his All-Star records at D and RW, his combined record looks similar to MacInnnis or Horton: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

Clapper's competition for RW spot in the 1930s was quite strong. Removing Bill Cook and Charlie Conacher from the leader boards, and Clappers RW AS record would go from 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, to 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, albeit over what would then be otherwise weak competition: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

4. Frank Mahovlich - he deserved to fall but IMO this is probably enough. Longevity and consistency as an impact player is very good at this stage - 9 times 1st or 2nd Team NHL All-Star. Great playoff scorer, even as his overall ESGA isn't good.

5. Jari Kurri - amazing two-way player. Scored 102 points (8th in the NHL) the season after Gretzky left. No, I don't think Kurri hits 68 or 71 goals without Gretzky, but he may have had more assists.

And Kurri made a key offensive contribution that doesn't show up on the scoresheet - by taking the defensive responsibilities that normally belong to a center, he allowed Gretzky to play farther up ice and go all-in on offense.

6/7. Cy Denneny and Clint Benedict - I see Denneny as a slightly better version of Brett Hull. As far as proverbial crimes go, it would be a misdemeaner to see Benedict go over Charlie Gardiner, but at least it wouldn't be a felony like the other 2 goalies.

8. Brett Hull - I still don't like the fact that he was mostly useless when he wasn't scoring goals. And that includes puck possession. But finding out he didn't bleed goals against in the playoffs like he did in the regular season is enough to bump him over Broda and Durnan for me.

9/10. Turk Broda and Bill Durnan. Quite frankly, it would be a felony if either of these guys went over Charlie Gardiner.

Broda was never really the best in the league. In his long, HHOF career, he was 1st Team AS twice - the two seasons he happened to lead the league in GAA.

As for Durnan - here's my long post on why he wasn't as good as his All-Star record appeared at first glance: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

The bullet point version:

1. The Canadiens were much less affected by WW2 than any other team
2. When Durnan played, the 1st Team AS went to the starting goalie with the lowest GAA by default (while the 2nd Team AS wasn't as tied to GAA).
3. Durnan's first 3 1st Team AS nods were won by default - 2 over sub-AHL competition during WW2, the 3rd over 2/3 of a season of Frank Brimsek who still finished 2nd over the garbage that was there the full season.
4. Even contemporary sources wondered whether Durnan was a product of WW2
5. His playoff record is disappointing, relative to how stacked his team was
6. Durnan retired in the middle of the 1950 playoffs, seemingly because he couldn't handle the pressure
7. While Durnan led the NHL in GAA 6 times, his cumulative statistical record doesn't stand out:

• Parent: 5 seasons, 169.5 GVT in 262 GP, 0.65 GVT/GP
  Bower: 7 seasons, 190.0 GVT in 345 GP, 0.55 GVT/GP
  Esposito: 7 seasons, 223.1 GVT in 433 GP, 0.52 GVT/GP
  Durnan: 5 seasons, 147.7 GVT in 283 GP, 0.52 GVT/GP
  B. Smith: 10 seasons, 199.8 GVT in 419 GP, 0.48 GVT/GP
  Belfour: 5 seasons, 138.4 GVT in 309 GP, 0.45 GVT/GP

Truism in every sport since people started competing. " To be considered amongst the best, you have to play against the best."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Truism in every sport since people started competing. " To be considered amongst the best, you have to play against the best."

I think the disagreement then is over just how much credit to give playing against Kharlamov, Maltsev, etc.

I think it was @MXD who said the end of Firsov's career retroactively validates what he did before.

 

[overpass]

Again, it comes back to the broken tables of the HOH wingers project - Selanne's R-on/R-off were decent - showing that he helped drive possession. Hull's were terrible. That said, Hull's playoff R-on is much better than his regular season equivalent, so Hull's no auto last place for me anymore.

If there’s a case for Brett Hull having a bigger impact than regular season plus minus R-ON/R-OFF, it’s based on him being a player who picked his spots in terms of effort.

Mark Messier was already discussed as a player who went through the motions at times in the regular season. Hull may have been another one, at least when it came to certain parts of the game.

I posted a study on the By the Numbers forum some time ago about timely goalscoring from the great goal scorers. The numbers were lost in the site transition, but Hull graded out highly in terms of having a high % of his goals either tying the game or taking the lead, and a relatively low % of his goals were scored with a 2+ goal lead. You can see on nhl.com that Hull was second only to Jagr in career regular season first goals. In the playoffs, Hull is tied with Gretzky for the most GWG, and he’s only 1 behind Gretzky for the most first goals.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...pe=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=firstGoals

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...&optionDraftPickMax=291&sort=gameWinningGoals