Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 16

[MXD]

Keon and Richard were very similar players playing in the same era.

... But Richard was more than just a bit clearly better.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

... But Richard was more than just a bit clearly better.

I don't think so.

 

[wetcoast]

Keon and Richard were very similar players playing in the same era.

I realize that but think it's a bit of a trap over such a long period of history and the nature of the project. I say this from personal experience.

It's easy to see why the 2 groups being close make sense since there were similar and played in basically the same era but that is also not looking at players in the other 100 years.

In the larger and more historical context it's easier to see Crosby and Ovechkin are 10 spots apart, when only looking at them post lockout one tends to think that they should be closer.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Keon and Richard were very similar players playing in the same era.

I was actually hoping Keon and Fedorov might come up together.

The playoff R-on/off numbers for Fedorov were interesting. It seems his team let him down on a few occasions, while he was surprisingly average compared to his teammates when they did win. For those that can remember, was he Bowman's centre of choice against opponent top lines, or did this fall more to Yzerman?

 

[GlitchMarner]

i think fedorov's problem is he was so visually gifted that he gets overly penalized for his inconsistency, because a guy who skates like that, with that obvious hockey sense, shooting ability, etc. should never finish behind modano in scoring, let alone for every season from '97 to 2003.

To be fair, Modano had all those attributes as well (elite skating ability, hockey sense, shooting ability) and also had size.

 

[sr edler]

To be fair, Modano had all those attributes as well (elite skating ability, hockey sense, shooting ability) and also had size.

Modano also had that flowing fair golden boy hair. Only thing missing: a pair of white Nike skates.

Fedorov had higher offensive upside than Modano though, but Modano's one of the slightly underrated centers of his era. Kind of a Zetterberg to a more flashy Datsyuk.

 

[sr edler]

Forsberg had a better career, but Lindros was the better player before getting brained.

Both Forsberg and Fedorov were smarter players than Lindros with higher on ice awareness. The biggest reason Lindros lacks in longevity is because he couldn't play a full season in his prime to save his life.

...maybe if this was the Top-100 Hockey Players of 1994-1996 list.

So a three year peak is an exceptionally short one now?

 

[Hobnobs]

It's strange how Fedorov was legitimately a fantastic player who tends to be overrated at the same time. People talk like he was 1994 Fedorov all the time, but he took way too many nights off. I guess his better consistency in the playoffs erases that for a lot of people.

He actually didnt take that many nights off. Its something that has grown out proportion here on HFboards because people constantly goes to the extremes when debating players.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

We have a new Marmite-Nominee this Round- and his name is Sergei Fedorov

For every person who's declared that it's too early for him, there's likely a person who believes he's somewhat overdue for consideration. For every person who thinks it's much too early for him, there's probably someone who thinks he's markedly overdue. Earlier, there had been public declarations of people leaving him entirely off of their Prelim List. When the Composite-List is revealed, it sure would make for a fascinating little Standard Variation analysis.

I'm in the camp of those who believe that he's overdue. Still, when the project wraps up, I'd like to spend a little time on just what it is about this player that impels us to make such disparate conclusions. In the meantime, I'll post later, exploring why it looks to me like he compares favorably to the others up for discussion at this time- and not descend into comparisons with the already-inducted... and yet-to-be nominated.

The players I had at positions 61, 64, and 65 on my Prelim List are (alphabetically, not [necessarily] ordinally) are Boris Mikhailov, Charlie Gardiner, and Sergei Fedorov. Perhaps I could be talked out of having Mikhailov this high... but this looks like my podium, to begin with.

This has GOT to be the first Vote where NO defensemen are up for consideration, right? [And forgive the digression, but] who would we be talking about in this range, IF we were discussing Defensemen? Maybe one or two overseas guys who have almost no prospect of making the Final List, probably. [Just my opinion.] Bill Gadsby, of course. Other than possibly Gadsby, it just doesn't seem odd that we have no Defensemen up for consideration.

Three placings separated Joliat and Kurri, per my chart. Nestled between them was Dickie Moore. I had a major re-think on Moore- and was at peace with him going around both of them. Did I under-value Kurri? Maybe.

I have a soft-spot for the Max Bentley story. As I've hinted before, I believe we've already advanced at least one person inferior to him. Still, it feels to me like he arrives on-time-- but it wouldn't take a lot for me to consider that I should tier him up a bit.

I was re-reading the Wingers Project- and saw where TDMM described Cy Denneny as a "Rich Man's Brett Hull." Fair, that- and I'll take the Rich Man's version over the middle-class version every time.

I suppose I should work out whether my initial impression placing Durnan ahead of Turk Broda is the most defensible one, in the distasteful event that it will actually matter this Round.

Are we really in immediate peril of advancing Brett Hull this Round?! My count on un-nominated players ahead of Br. Hull was reduced last Round. It now stands at 33. At least we didn't nominate anyone south of him, so my last-place Vote is secure.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He actually didnt take that many nights off. Its something that has grown out proportion here on HFboards because people constantly goes to the extremes when debating players.

I'm one of the people that often recognizes how players are characterized on here.. but the truth is Fedorov often left you wanting more, especially on the offensive side, for a guy of his ability.

 

[Hobnobs]

I'm one of the people that often recognizes how players are characterized on here.. but the truth is Fedorov often left you wanting more, especially on the offensive side, for a guy of his ability.

Leaving you wanting more is not indicative of taking nights off. No Red Wing forward scored more points than him besides Shanahan who needed almost a full season of games to be ahead by 74 points. Thats just what the Wings system was. No forward was in a position to dominate in scoring. Kozlov is a great example of this. He went from being a .90ish PPG player to .60ish in one season. And I can assure you that Fedorov had more defensive responsibilities than him.

Im fairly certain that his PPG would be better if A) him and Bowman didnt screw around and B) if he wasnt the constant main defensive guy on his lines tasked with shadowing while still providing offense.

Don't you find it weird that the season after Bowmans retirement Fedorov jumped back up to being a PPG+ player again?

 

[danincanada]

Leaving you wanting more is not indicative of taking nights off. No Red Wing forward scored more points than him besides Shanahan who needed almost a full season of games to be ahead by 74 points. Thats just what the Wings system was. No forward was in a position to dominate in scoring. Kozlov is a great example of this. He went from being a .90ish PPG player to .60ish in one season. And I can assure you that Fedorov had more defensive responsibilities than him.

Im fairly certain that his PPG would be better if A) him and Bowman didnt screw around and B) if he wasnt the constant main defensive guy on his lines tasked with shadowing while still providing offense.

Don't you find it weird that the season after Bowmans retirement Fedorov jumped back up to being a PPG+ player again?

There's definitely something to this. It was more about ice-time and opportunity with Fedorov. Bowman loaded him up with ice-time in '94 partly due to Yzerman getting injured and he just ran with it. Lewis gave him a bit more rope as well in '02-03 like you said and he had a great season.

The only way to reason with this Leafs fan is to point at Gilmour. Why didn't Dougie/Killer play every year like he did in '93 and '94? Was he lazy and/or shouldn't that have "left people wanting more" the rest of his career? Go to adjusted stats over their careers and you'll notice both had two big offensive years. The two are very similar in this regard yet no one says those types of things about Gilmour.

 

[Canadiens1958]

There's definitely something to this. It was more about ice-time and opportunity with Fedorov. Bowman loaded him up with ice-time in '94 partly due to Yzerman getting injured and he just ran with it. Lewis gave him a bit more rope as well in '02-03 like you said and he had a great season.

The only way to reason with this Leafs fan is to point at Gilmour. Why didn't Dougie/Killer play every year like he did in '93 and '94? Was he lazy and/or shouldn't that have "left people wanting more" the rest of his career? Go to adjusted stats over their careers and you'll notice both had two big offensive years. The two are very similar in this regard yet no one says those types of things about Gilmour.

No, they just recognize that Gilmour would sulk and quickly get traded.

 

[sr edler]

You don't trade prime Fedorov though. Just like a royal family wont trade its crown jewels. Would a GM have matched a $38 million offer sheet on Gilmour? Or even made one? Better then to trade him for Mike Bullard or Gary Leeman.

 

[overg]

The playoff R-on/off numbers for Fedorov were interesting. It seems his team let him down on a few occasions, while he was surprisingly average compared to his teammates when they did win. For those that can remember, was he Bowman's centre of choice against opponent top lines, or did this fall more to Yzerman?

Most times, the answer really was "both of the above," because Bowman preferred to roll his lines rather than straight up line match. Having said that, there were times when Bowman went for a more head-to-head match-up against an ultra-elite center, and on those occasions it was often either Fedorov matching up or a line stacked with both Yzerman and Fedorov. So to the extent the Wings went for a "top line match-up," it would probably be fair to say Fedorov was their guy. But most of the time (especially in their successful playoff runs), the Wings went with a steady four line rotation instead of a specific match-up.

@overg to be honest I had never heard that Fedorov had a rep as a diver.

Fortunately, I don't think this reputation stood the historical test of time, having largely been subsumed by the idea that Fedorov was an underachiever for much of his career. But the diving thing was played up quite a bit by rival press, and somewhat weirdly, ESPN, during the late 90's and early 2000's.


As far as the over-arching dilemma of Fedorov, I think the issue is largely that he tended to play to the level of his competition. Assign him to take over a game or go head-to-head against the top centers of the time, and he would and could literally be the best player in the world. But ask him to give 100% in a normally shifted, four-line-rotation, and he'd become an above-average second line center.

And as mentioned by others, the other thing with him was that he was one of the most physically gifted skaters the NHL has ever seen. He was fast as hell, but also incredibly strong on his skates. A good passer, with good hockey sense and strong puck-handling skills, plus a wide variety of excellent shots (he had both a wicked wrist shot and an accurate cannon of a slapshot). Extremely good at skating backward, with an innate sense of defensive awareness. Not afraid to go into the corners or along the boards, and strong enough to come away with the puck more often than not. Basically, he had almost all of the talent in the world to completely control games. And if he'd had the drive to always use that talent, he almost certainly would have entered this list before Forsberg, if not even quite a bit higher than that. When he was on, he was that good. He just wasn't on nearly enough.

So where you rank Fedorov should have a lot to do with how much you value "peak" or "talent" versus "consistency" or "total body of work." If you're the type who highly values big time play in big time situations, Fedorov is a great pick. But if you prefer players who you can always count on, game in, game out, who always put the needs of the team before his own, and who made the most of the tools they had, his ranking should suffer accordingly.

 

[bobholly39]

Are we really in immediate peril of advancing Brett Hull this Round?! My count on un-nominated players ahead of Br. Hull was reduced last Round. It now stands at 33. At least we didn't nominate anyone south of him, so my last-place Vote is secure.

I don't get your dislike for Hull.

741 goals - 4th all time
103 Playoff goals - 4th all time
0.584 career goals per game 8th all time
Strong playoff resume overall - with some clutch moments
Strong international resume overall - clutch as well
20 NHL seasons (or 18 if you take out low games played) - very decent longevity, and very consistent producer overall throughout
I can go on with scoring finishes and a lot more.

I just don't get it. You should really try and make a case for why he's so low, or why you have so many others ahead of him. I know he's somewhat 1 dimensional - but he was great at that 1 dimension and we've already ranked a lot of other 1 dimensional players too.

 

[danincanada]

No, they just recognize that Gilmour would sulk and quickly get traded.

When did Gilmour sulk and quickly get traded? From what I heard him getting traded from St. Louis had more to do with a baby sitter, and I'm from Toronto and never heard stories of sulking when he left town. It was more about a veteran team that imploded so they cleaned house. After Toronto he was past his prime so those trades weren't about sulking either. Was the Calgary to Toronto trade about sulking?

 

[Hobnobs]

Most times, the answer really was "both of the above," because Bowman preferred to roll his lines rather than straight up line match. Having said that, there were times when Bowman went for a more head-to-head match-up against an ultra-elite center, and on those occasions it was often either Fedorov matching up or a line stacked with both Yzerman and Fedorov. So to the extent the Wings went for a "top line match-up," it would probably be fair to say Fedorov was their guy. But most of the time (especially in their successful playoff runs), the Wings went with a steady four line rotation instead of a specific match-up.

Thats semi-true. Bowman preferred to roll his lines, yes, absolutely. But in 02 he rode Fedorov hard that playoffs He was third in ice among NHL forwards that year. Same in 01. In other playoffs its more or less the same but with Yzerman up there as well.

Edit: I just realised you probably meant during the regular season. So you're absolutely right.

 

[MXD]

Fortunately, I don't think this reputation stood the historical test of time, having largely been subsumed by the idea that Fedorov was an underachiever for much of his career. But the diving thing was played up quite a bit by rival press, and somewhat weirdly, ESPN, during the late 90's and early 2000's.

My theory is that "diver" was basically a shorter-form for "skilled european".

 

[sr edler]

I also never heard the diver thing with Fedorov. Forsberg on the other hand...

 

[MXD]

I don't get your dislike for Hull.

741 goals - 4th all time
103 Playoff goals - 4th all time
0.584 career goals per game 8th all time
Strong playoff resume overall - with some clutch moments
Strong international resume overall - clutch as well
20 NHL seasons (or 18 if you take out low games played) - very decent longevity, and very consistent producer overall throughout
I can go on with scoring finishes and a lot more.

I just don't get it. You should really try and make a case for why he's so low, or why you have so many others ahead of him. I know he's somewhat 1 dimensional - but he was great at that 1 dimension and we've already ranked a lot of other 1 dimensional players too.

It goes back to what I said in the previous thread : suppose Hull scores 10% less goals, but get 15% more assists and play a somewhat more well-rounded game.

Your first three statements are now moot (the last three still stand), despite the fact that "my" version of Brett Hull would definitely be a better player. And I frankly can't think of a more one-dimensionnal skater that might become available.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Both Forsberg and Fedorov were smarter players than Lindros with higher on ice awareness. The biggest reason Lindros lacks in longevity is because he couldn't play a full season in his prime to save his life.

Lindros was better. He was also made of glass. Never mind his concussion issues, everything fell apart on that guy, from shoulders and knees to even a freak collapsed lung.

 

[DannyGallivan]

My theory is that "diver" was basically a shorter-form for "skilled european".

Kovalev's fans would agree with you.

 

[Troubadour]

I also never heard the diver thing with Fedorov. Forsberg on the other hand...

From the Google groups in the 90s:

Fedorov simply doesn't play dirty. So he receives less punishment,
but he does dive every
once in a while like every smart player to help his team just not as often as
Forsberg or Jagr.

poor Pronger getting a little knock
on his helmet for another Detroit penalty giing the Blues a 5-3 for
the BEGINNING of the third??? The blues were diving all night. Isn't
this the same team who CRYED endlessly about Fedorov diving a mere two
years ago????? Guess you guys ahve learned not only how to play the
Red Wings style of hockey

While I can see the point of Keenan's tactic (not that I approve), I
think his choice of targets is ludicrous. I mean, of all people to
accuse of diving, why Sergei Fedorov? The guy hardly goes to the ice
when there is a legitimate penalty, let alone an "iffy" one. He made
the diving comment after seeing Fedorov go down after Manson's slash.
Now apparently Keenan also thinks Fedorov is the biggest idiot in
hockey too. For what kind of player takes a dive, and writhes around
in fake agony when HIS TEAM IS ON THE POWER PLAY, WITH FULL POSSESION
OF THE PUCK?!?!?!

If we're tossing embellishing in with diving, there is no match for
Fedorov.
He waits until the paddles are charged and ready before he'll admit
to the trainer that he's even alive. Barnaby's first one off the
bench.

This I thought was funny:

Just for fun, here is my
all-NHL diving first team:
Goal: Hasek (Pretty easily, although Belfour can certainly flop around as
well)
Fwds: Forsberg-Modano-Barnaby (Modano still gets my vote for MVD (diver),
and as much as I love Foppa, and as much real abuse that he takes, even with
my Av colored glasses on I have to acknowledge that I've seen him embellish
on a few occasions)
Defense: Chelios-Niedermayer (Just another dirty trick in Chelios' bag chalk
full of 'em, remember when Milan Hejduk almost crippled him twice in the
same playoff period even though he hardly made contact?)
Coach: Scotty Bowman, the master at getting officials over to the bench to
listen to his whining. Hey Kerry Fraser, please get out of Scotty's front
and center pocket.)

I like the avs but yes Foresberg is a real diver

fedorov dives, and that's pretty obvious to all except die-hard redwings
sh> fans. if he keeps it up, he may go after louganis' records...
Actually - a few of the die-hards probably have to admit it.

This is hilarious:

Abusing Jon Casey is nothing to get excited about! I'm just interested
in seeing what Eric Lindros and the Flyers do to Fedorov and the rest of
the divers. Philly has the mean streak to knock the Russian line out of
the finals in game one.

Hee hee hee.

Larionov's high stick is being a true sportsman? Konstantinov's continuous
stick work is being a true sportsman? Fedorov diving is being a true
sportsman?

: >Does Federov take many dives ?

:
: No. Not more than any "good Canadian kid".

Yeah, let's not confuse Europeanism with diving. Claude and Mario
Lemiuex are two the worst divers around. Fedorov, I wouldn't call a
diver, but Kozlov certainly is, as is Kovalev. That doesn't mean there
aren't as many Canadian, Swedish, Finnish and American divers. The point
is that diving is dispicable and there's too much of it going on...on all
teams by all nationalities (thought the Kovalev, C. Lemieux and Kozlov
examples are front and centre now).

 

[MXD]

Kovalev's fans would agree with you.

Kovalev (and Forsberg) dove. I mean, every player dives or embellishes; those two tended to do it more.
But calling Fedorov a diver most reeks of laziness or... well, I don't know if "bigotry" is the right word, but you get the point.