Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 17

[Say Hey Kid]

Meanwhile a non-participant is wondering why Scott Stevens -already named is not up for consideration. Just another reason to ban non-participants.

After reading the posts on this page, agreed. Ban us.

 

[Canadiens1958]

After reading the posts on this page, agreed. Ban us.

Basic issue is that creating and submitting an initial list of 120 requires an investment of time and knowledge that creates an appreciation and understanding of the process.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Elmer Lach's all-round game

In 1948, Canadiens coach Dick Irvin called Lach "the perfect 4 way center" - not only could he score goals and backcheck, but he was also adept at going to both sides of the ice. I assume this is contrasting Lach's creativity with the kind of center who would mostly stay in his lane. (@ehhedler posted this in the centers project)

The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Irvin loved Lach:



Dink Carroll, The Montreal Gazette - March 10, 1952
The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

More sources on Lach's all-round game:







_____________________________

Lach's runner up Hart finish in 1951-52 was largely due to his performance with Maurice Richard out of the lineup

In the center's project, @overpass noted how strong Lach's performance was in 1951-52 when Maurice Richard was injured:



Here's a contemporary source on Lach's play during the season:



The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

Basically means that for a center Elmer Lach fulfilled all offensive and defensive responsibilities up the middle and to each side equally well.

Some centers drift to their easy wing - where the boards protect their handedness. Often such centers wind-up playing that wing. See failed Lafleur experiment at center.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Hello again, fellow Panelists, interested interlocutors, lurkers above, and lurkers below.
We were really Feelin' the Love last night, huh?!
I feel like I'd like to pass out complimentary copies of Areopagitica to those calling for user-suppression... but it would be less expensive, more fun, and probably more effective, to invite you over to the virtual Whiskey Bar later this evening, where we can just all f***ing chill, already.

We're not hurting for interesting new nominees this Round. At this point, they're not likely to be exactly the ones we would have chosen on our respective individual lists- but at least I haven't had my first yet. [i.e.: everyone nominated so far has been on my Big Board.]

Fedorov starts the Round in my Number One position- and I remain impressed by his 'Victorinox-on-skates' panoply of use-specific adaptabilities. Two bits of Fedorov trivia- one might be of interest in a Hockey sense, one is just a throwaway observation. First- the sub-set of super-young players who received immediate Selke consideration upon entering the league is a pretty small one. Fedorov's on that list. So's Kurri. There's Ron Sutter and (more significantly) Michael Peca there, too. Consider, though, that Kurri's last line of defense was Grant Fuhr, an HoF goaltender. [A slightly over-rated one, but point remains.] Ron Sutter had Bob Froese. Who? Well, when R. Sutter was Selke runner-up, Froese led the league in Save %. Michael Peca had Hašek. 'Nuff said. Fedorov? Well, when he was young, it was Tim Cheveldae. "One-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others."

As someone who's done a lot of self-inflicted suffering on stair-steps, it was interesting to discover that Fedorov, like Firsov before him, trained relentlessly on the stairs. [Tale they told about Firsov was that they eventually named a staircase after him.]

Mikhailov seems like a player that would be all-too-easy to overlook. Consistent guy, high-energy guy, someone who'll commit to competing with you any way you want to play it. Almost uniquely for a Soviet-era Russian, a longevity guy. I think we're far more likely to under-value him than over-value him. We ALL should eye-test him before making up our mind where to place him on our ballots.

Most people were higher on Paul Coffey than I was. So- why am I so impressed with Brian Leetch, and believe him to be worthy of immediate consideration this Round? I see that his career has the shape of the career of a scoring Forward, kinda. During his Prime, a power-play weapon while still holding up his end of the bargain at even-strength, it seems. He's another player that figures to impress with more eye-testing.

Bill Gadsby is one of those players that's been sneaking up my charts even before conversation-in-earnest begins on him. I'll try not to forget that he played in a competitive cauldron, and had some of history's most challenging match-ups.

Borje Salming & Elmer Lach are scarcely separated on my List. I read a preference for Lach over Fedorov- and I really can't concur. Fedorov was better earlier, achieved excellence in a demonstrably more competitive environment, and lasted longer, too. I'm convinced that Lach is probably not the weakest player on his most famous line. It's a slam-dunk that Fedorov was absolutely the strongest player on his most famous line.

Durnan/Broda- Broda/Durnan: the homework assignment I've been putting off. Against my will, one, or both, should go through this Round. If it's only one, I should do my part to make sure it's the right one (dammit...)

Nels Stewart serves the useful role of inducing me to double-check my work and make sure if I really want to vote Brett Hull last, again.

 

[sr edler]

I fail to see what any non-participant have written in these threads that makes banning them a reasonable proposal. @wetcoast's posts for instance are pretty everyday middle of the road stuff, so I'm a bit perplexed why so many posters seems to be angry or have a beef with him. If you're so annoyed with a particular poster there's an ignore function to use.

 

[MXD]

The idea that Lach is/was possibly the worse player on the PunchLine probably requires some explanations... Especially if we are talking about the time they were together.

Also, not many players are better than Maurice Richard, so that's a weird thing to hold against Lach.

 

[ted2019]

Devils engine was going nowhere with Stevens, similar to the Capitals and Blues, until coach Jacques Lemaire and Brodeur arrived.

Stevens was a lot more important then Brodeur.

 

[ted2019]

At least I know the difference between Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner, meaning I have watched NHL / International hockey for over 60 seasons and researched it for over 40.

What do you mean the difference between Gardiner & Benedict?

 

[Sanf]

A quick and dirty argument for Bill Durnan...(I won't repost a bunch of stuff from previous discussions, it's all there for everyone to see).

When Durnan finished his career, it is not outlandish that he might have been considered the best ever at his position. This was an argument that was successfully made for Vezina, who has been on the list for a while. The contemporary challenger to Vezina's claim, Clint Benedict, also got elected two rounds ago. Charlie Gardiner was the next goaltender who could possibly make this claim, and he topped voting last round. Finally, Durnan's contemporary Frank Brimsek has a solid case for retiring as the game's greatest netminder, and he too was listed ages ago.

This will apply to Broda's candidacy as well, but there seems to be a peculiar gap forming between the WWI era of goaltenders and the WWII era. Questions were raised, reasonably so in my opinion, about the importance and quality of goaltending in the pre-forward pass era on back. It seems to be generally accepted that the position evolved continuously and grew in importance as the years went on. The high rankings of Plante, Hall, and Sawchuk would indicate that the position had definitely "arrived" by the early 1950s, and unless evidence to the contrary is presented, it seems reasonable to assume this growth was fairly linear.

Yet here we stand with Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner now listed, while Brimsek is the lone goaltender from a pretty broad expanse (1935-1950 or so) to make the list. At this point, keeping Durnan or Broda out again would be hard to fathom. Unless somebody wants to argue that the quality of goaltending circa 1920 was superior to the quality circa 1950. Because the second-best goaltender from the WWI era (deemed to be Benedict by our panel) is already going to be at least a handful of spots better than the second-best from the WWII era (be it Durnan or Broda), despite apparent universal agreement that the goaltender position improved considerably between the two time periods.

Yep. Atleast in my researches Durnan is the most often mentioned All-Time goalie in 50´s after his career ended. And the thing when you look about the opinions of contemporaries it is not about the low GAA or the trophy cabinet. It´s about the technical aspects of his game. How much people want to punish him of playing at the wrong time.

I already mentioned in the last thread that he was the "clear cut" all-time selection of the 1958 poll of 70 NHL writers, broadcasters, managers and coaches. He was the post WWII all-star goalie of NHL team GM´s in 1955. And here is group of other quotes and clips about Durnan from the 50´s. Some of this are gathered years ago.

Former NHL referee Bill Chadwick
The Montreal Gazette 1957
"Bill Durnan was the best and, in my opinion, nobody came close to him." he said. "But for one game I´d have to pick Turk Broda. If there was a game you had to win, Broda could do it for you."

Lynn Patrick
Montreal Gazette 1952 (About Sawchuk)
"I never said that" he denied quickly "because I don´t think he´s the best I ever saw. I may have said he is the best in the league today. I still think the best I ever saw was Bill Durnan. He was big, fast, cool and he had special advantage by being ambidextrous. Maybe Sawchuck will develop into a better goalie than Durnan but I don´t think he´s as good right now as Bill was at his peak.

Jack Adams
The Boston Globe 1958
Durnan is my boy. To my way of thinking he is the greatest of all the modern goal tenders, in a speeded-up hockey age which has doubled, nay tripled, the pressure of goal tending.

Milt Schmidt
The Boston Globe 1952
Schmidt's personal migrane among the goal tenders was always Bill Durnan, the implacable citizen who defended the hitching posts for Les Canadiens. "Durnan was toughest for me," Milt said. "I could never do much with the guy. At the outset he troubled me and it got to be a complex, I guess. It got to the point where I'd break through on him and have the feeling he had me beaten, anyway.

"Durnan had an uncanny way of cutting off all the angles, and waiting patiently for you to commit yourself."

Alex Kaleta
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix 1958
He didn´t hesitate in naming Bill Durnan, the former Montreal Canadiens star, as the toughest goaltender to score against.

Sid Abel
The Montreal Gazette 1958
The conversation righted itself with a switch back to goalkeepers when Sid started to talk about Bill Durnan again.

"I remember a night when we (Detroit) were playing the Canadiens and I got a breakaway" he recalled. "I went right in on Durnan and tried to make him move. I moved the puck but he didn´t move. I moved it again and he still didn´t move. It seemed to me like we were all alone about 20 seconds. Finally I shot the puck where I wanted it to go but he was there ahead of me and blocked it.

Walter A. Brown, president of Boston Bruins
The Windsor Daily Star 1956
Beside Beliveau the Bruin prexy selected Gordie Howe, Detroit, right wing; Maurice (Rocket) Richard, Montreal, left wing; Eddie Shore, Boston, and Red Kelly, Detroit, defence; and Bill Durnan, Montreal goal.

In admitting that he is sticking his neck out to be axed by old-timers Brown comments: "Imagine picking an all-star team and not having on it such stars as Howie Morenz, Frank Boucher, Bill Cook and Chuck Gardiner. But in my opinion not one of them could replace a man on my team.

 

[MXD]

(...)
Walter A. Brown, president of Boston Bruins
The Windsor Daily Star 1956
Beside Beliveau the Bruin prexy selected Gordie Howe, Detroit, right wing; Maurice (Rocket) Richard, Montreal, left wing; Eddie Shore, Boston, and Red Kelly, Detroit, defence; and Bill Durnan, Montreal goal.

In admitting that he is sticking his neck out to be axed by old-timers Brown comments: "Imagine picking an all-star team and not having on it such stars as Howie Morenz, Frank Boucher, Bill Cook and Chuck Gardiner. But in my opinion not one of them could replace a man on my team.

That might be nitpicking, and it might not exactly be the most relevant intervention in this project, but there are things that probably shouldn't be done, and "Quoting someone playing Maurice Richard on Left Wing on his All-Star team as authoritative of anything" is one of these things.

 

[Sanf]

That might be nitpicking, and it might not exactly be the most relevant intervention in this project, but there are things that probably shouldn't be done, and "Quoting someone playing Maurice Richard on Left Wing on his All-Star team as authoritative of anything" is one of these things.

Good point. Sadly I don´t have that article (likely) in my bookmarks. I have to say it might be also my copy typing error too. I need to check if I can find it again.

 

[MXD]

Good point. Sadly I don´t have that article (likely) in my bookmarks. I have to say it might be also my copy typing error too. I need to check if I can find it again.

Don't worry. We've had someone trying to make Stan Fischler pass as a Generic Contemporary Observer earlier on

Quotes from the past are absolutely a source. They also shows that strange (or plain bad) hockey evaluation/takes didn't appear when Mike Milbury was offered a front office job or when Bryan Marchment lamented at the fact Dennis Seidenberg had a job (and not him).

Richard was tried on the LW and wasn't that great.

 

[Sanf]

Don't worry. We've had someone trying to make Stan Fischler pass as a Generic Contemporary Observer earlier on

Quotes from the past are absolutely a source. They also shows that strange (or plain bad) hockey evaluation/takes didn't appear when Mike Milbury was offered a front office job or when Bryan Marchment lamented at the fact Dennis Seidenberg had a job (and not him).

Richard was tried on the LW and wasn't that great.

There have always been weird opinions and bad writing in newspapers. And blatant bias too. It´s always good to have critical eye on what is written. So that was a very good point.

I´m also so focused on the goalies so I might not always even take so close look what other is said.

Though Brown had long history with hockey. It may be my type copy error or the Richard selection is out of context in that clip. He may have explained it better too.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Do we have much Durnan film? It's a tough time for that kind of stuff, I know...

Good finds, sanf. This moment on this day is the best I have felt about Durnan ever...it's not saying much, but it's also not saying nothing either...

 

[ted2019]

Do we have much Durnan film? It's a tough time for that kind of stuff, I know...

Good finds, sanf. This moment on this day is the best I have felt about Durnan ever...it's not saying much, but it's also not saying nothing either...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stevens was a lot more important then Brodeur.

Until Lemaire and Brodeur showed up, teams with Stevens had losing playoff records. Devils then won 6 series out of 7 and an SC. Lemaire's simplified and modified trap combined with Brodeur's efficient puck handling covering Steven's weaknesses while focusing on his strengths.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What do you mean the difference between Gardiner & Benedict?

Explained before.

 

[wetcoast]

Meanwhile a non-participant is wondering why Scott Stevens -already named is not up for consideration.

Just another reason to ban non-participants.

Luckily being perfect is a burden that I don't have.

When I'm wrong I man up and admit it.

History is littered with people who wanted to ban and exclude others and history seldom looks well upon those people.

 

[wetcoast]

Basic issue is that creating and submitting an initial list of 120 requires an investment of time and knowledge that creates an appreciation and understanding of the process.

That's a huge assumption you are making there.

One could simply have looked at the other top players by position lists and made a top 120 list in 15 minutes if they wanted to.

I put a lot of time and thought into my posts and do the research, with the occasional oversight like Stevns yesterday.

I followed the preliminary discussions but didn't submit a list due to time constraints but could make up a list in a couple of hours quite easily it's not rocket science.

Funny thing is that if you generally agreed with my posts you would have zero problem right?

 

[sr edler]

Richard was tried on the LW and wasn't that great.

Interesting lack of versatility. Y'know who played LW quite successfully and helped Gilbert Dionne end up on the all-rookie team.

 

[wetcoast]

Until Lemaire and Brodeur showed up, teams with Stevens had losing playoff records. Devils then won 6 series out of 7 and an SC. Lemaire's simplified and modified trap combined with Brodeur's efficient puck handling covering Steven'sweaknesses while focusing on his strengths.

Teams might not have done well but Scott Stevens did indeed do well in Washington and St Louis in the playoffs.

Either way Stevens is already in so why are we talking about him?

 

[overpass]

That might be nitpicking, and it might not exactly be the most relevant intervention in this project, but there are things that probably shouldn't be done, and "Quoting someone playing Maurice Richard on Left Wing on his All-Star team as authoritative of anything" is one of these things.

Come on, Brown knew that Richard and Howe both played right wing. He’s just more flexible with his positions than you would prefer. I don’t think Richard and Howe on the same all-time six is indicative of any deficit in hockey knowledge. It wasn’t an uncommon position in that era.

 

[ted2019]

Explained before.

Where?

 

[ted2019]

Until Lemaire and Brodeur showed up, teams with Stevens had losing playoff records. Devils then won 6 series out of 7 and an SC. Lemaire's simplified and modified trap combined with Brodeur's efficient puck handling covering Steven'sweaknesses while focusing on his strengths.

If this is the case, when why didn't Brodeur win another cup after Scott Stevens retired? Why didn't Lemaire win another cup without Stevens? It's because Stevens was the catalyst.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If this is the case, when why didn't Brodeur win another cup after Scott Stevens retired? Why didn't Lemaire win another cup without Stevens? It's because Stevens was the catalyst.

Lemaire won 8 SCs as a player, others in management with the Canadiens and Devils.

Stevens never went to the SC finals without Brodeur while Brodeur did so without Stevens.