Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18

[ChiTownPhilly]

Hello, once more.

Fault-lines: that's was this week's discussion is all about.

1) Fedorov- I'll come out and say it- what says "Panel-obviously-dominated-by-North-Americans" more... having Tretiak nearly miss the Top-50, or having Fedorov struggle to get into the mid-80s?

2) Mikhailov- is he going to start looking good to folks here, or what?!

3) Leetch- our supply of multiple Norris winners who've also won a Conn Smythe is starting to run a little low. There's another guy like that up for discussion, but he didn't materialize purpose-ready like Leetch did. Speaking of which...

Then, I have these following, in alphabetical order by last name, as back-to-back-to-back on my Prelim List: Gadsby Keith Lindros. I'll have some fun trying to separate them. Maybe it's too pointed to say that Keith is putting graffiti on his résumé, as I'd earlier quipped about Toews and Karlsson... but I think it's reasonably defensible to have said that he seems to be going into that Rod Langway phase about now. That's all right, there's no shame in the Show position in this grouping.

Then, a 10-placing gap- until Chara.

Then, c. 8 more placings until Stewart.

Ed Belfour & Martin St Louis make an interesting tier unto themselves.

Then, Bill Cowley, whom I'd rather not have to discuss in detail until we nominate someone like Serge Savard- at which time I'll decide which option is less odious.

 

[seventieslord]

With Lindros an option, Fedorov doesn't look so bad. Lindros is the only player so far who I won't vote for top 100, no matter what. Just didn't accomplish enough in his career. If the project 10 years ago unjustly favored 50s-70s players, this one sure looks to unjustly favor 90s players.

I'm in the same boat. I have no idea how he is up for voting already. I was very much in his corner as far as the HHOF was concerned, but the top-100 of all-time is over twice as exclusive a club, and he sure as hell doesn't belong in it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I feel like people are covering what actually happened.

He did score 600 points in that 7-season span (comparable to Selanne and Sakic). He did have four seasons of relevant Hart support. He didn’t have the extra fluff though, which is why he’s among the last of the best-player-in-the-world types that we’ll be ranking.

But let’s not dismiss 431 games of dominant hockey as “what could have been”. The distribution might have been spread over 6 full seasons and a lockout season instead of (431/80) 5.4 seasons, but it’s still a lot of work to appreciate.

Lindros played more RS games than Forsberg. Put up big numbers in a low scoring era.

But if you actually watched him play, he appeared as dominant as anyone else ever did. Shoot, pass, skate and HIT. Crushing hitter, so strong he knocked most guys down even when the check missed a little. Very intimidating. Played pretty good defense.

I got the feeling that everybody that wasn't a Flyers fan hated Lindros. So maybe his failures were magnified and his dominance was somewhat overlooked.

To me he's the best player of this group.

 

[seventieslord]

Martin St. Louis: Too early. Certainly had a "Cinderella" aspect to his career; very likeable player. Hall of Famer. Not a top 100 player in the history of the game IMO. Division-heavy schedules inflate his regular season scoring totals compared to other contemporaries who didn't play Atlanta, Florida, and Carolina 15-20 times per season.

I'm also in the same boat here. I might be inclined to sneak him in around #100, but this is a couple rounds too early to even be talking about him. I'm not sure how Iginla isn't better.

 

[sr edler]

Lindros played more RS games than Forsberg.

His last 4 seasons (which per games is 2 ½ season, and per actual games 202 games) he wasn't a very relevant player though. Even the two seasons prior to those seasons (00 and 02, his last with Philadelphia and first with NYR) he was just over PPG (132 points in 127 games), so hardly a player who dominated the league offensively speaking. Forsberg never tailed off like that, not even close.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

His last 4 seasons (which per games is 2 ½ season, and per actual games 202 games) he wasn't a very relevant player though. Even the two seasons prior to those seasons (00 and 02, his last with Philadelphia and first with NYR) he was just over PPG (132 points in 127 games), so hardly a player who dominated the league offensively speaking. Forsberg never tailed off like that, not even close.

That's fair.

But Forsberg is way up the rankings (51) and some voters won't even consider Lindros for the top 100.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I'm also in the same boat here. I might be inclined to sneak him in around #100, but this is a couple rounds too early to even be talking about him. I'm not sure how Iginla isn't better.

Are we ranking best careers or best players?

Still not clear to me and people seem to do it differently. There is an overlap but there is also not necessarily an overlap.

 

[Nick Hansen]

That's fair.

But Forsberg is way up the rankings (51) and some voters won't even consider Lindros for the top 100.

A few points here.

Forsberg has a deeper and better playoff and international record.
Forsberg was elite in every single season until his 33rd birthday whereas Lindros was a ghost of himself by 26.

Which raises questions about his IQ on the ice. When he couldn't be a wrecking ball any more he wasn't all that relevant any more. Did concussions do that to him? Possibly, though I've never really heard him talk about that in that fashion.

Another point I'd like to make is that you rarely see truly elite-IQ players get smoked in open ice hits like Lindros was. Gretzky, Lemieux, Malkin, Datsyuk, Fedorov, Forsberg, even a guy like Zetterberg - how often were these caught off guard like Lindros? Forsberg was reckless as well, to a certain extent, but I can't remember seeing him destroyed like Lindros was numerous times.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Sergei Fedorov - I think I've soured on Fedorov in recent years; I used to rank him higher than Forsberg. Yes he was great defensively but I have a tough time seeing how little he produced after his big year (from 1995 to 2003, he was outscored by players like Palffy, Weight, Turgeon, LeClair and Amonte). His regular season resume is so thin compared to most other players on this list - but his strong playoff resume helps.

The difference between Fedorov and those players you list is that they outscored him in scenarios where they were relied upon heavily to produce offense. I really doubt that a guy like Doug Weight is consistently a point-per-game player if he was on a deep Red Wings roster as opposed to late 90's Oilers rosters where he was on the ice for every PP and the team's offensive fortunes largely rested on his shoulders.

I mentioned this the first time Fedorov was up for voting, but would people really consider him a greater player if he scored an extra 10 points in all those 1997-2002 seasons? Detroit never finished worse than 6th in the league in goals-for any of those six years; it seems doubtful Scotty Bowman or Ken Holland were ever sitting there concerned about his offensive production.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mentioned this the first time Fedorov was up for voting, but would people really consider him a greater player if he scored an extra 10 points in all those 1997-2002 seasons? Detroit never finished worse than 6th in the league in goals-for any of those six years; it seems doubtful Scotty Bowman or Ken Holland were ever sitting there concerned about his offensive production.

I for sure would. An extra 60 points when he scored 342 points in 396 games is pretty significant. It would be nice if he had at least kept pace with players like Modano, Turgeon, and Tkachuk to go along with his high-end seasons.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Yeah, and as we all know Modano was pretty damn good defensively himself, playing on a worse (relatively speaking) team with a very defensive coach.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm also in the same boat here. I might be inclined to sneak him in around #100, but this is a couple rounds too early to even be talking about him. I'm not sure how Iginla isn't better.

To be honest, I'm not sure how Joe Thornton isn't a clear step ahead of both of them, if we're using contemporary comparables. It's not like St. Louis or Iginla were some sort of playoff gods, which I think they'd need to be to bridge the significant regular season gap.

St. Louis got a fair bit of talk in the preliminary thread, so I did give him a reasonable look. End verdict was he fell short of my top 120 (Iginla was my very last player), and I haven't seen anything posted yet to convince me I underrated him.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

From what I've read about Cowley it sounded like he was more indifferent to defensive play than bad at it. I guess to some voters that may be relevant.

Yeah- what I've picked up (too) is that it wasn't like he couldn't, it was just that he decided that he'd rather not have to deal with it...

I have no idea how [Lindros] is up for voting already. I was very much in his corner as far as the HHOF was concerned, but the top-100 of all-time is over twice as exclusive a club, and he sure as hell doesn't belong in it.

This happened because this is the phase in the operation where we're starting to get a little skint on people with credible claims to "Best-Player-In-The-World." Bravo for the HHoF for getting 'round to what should have been a First Ballot induction, however belatedly. (Although I couldn't help noticing that this didn't come to pass until after Ed Snider had died.) I also took note that Lindros made the "NHL-Top-100" list. I know there are plenty of reasons to quarrel with the League's selections- but I bring it up because it's more evidence that considering Lindros in this part of the atmosphere is not a particularly iconoclastic opinion anymore.

I might be inclined to sneak [St Louis] in around #100, but this is a couple rounds too early to even be talking about him. I'm not sure how Iginla isn't better.

So then I agree with you here, but (alas) we have to set aside our feelings for Iginla and contrast St Louis to the options in front of us THIS week. I'm certain that I like him better than Mr. Kapok, and he might have something to show us in the Belfour comparison. That's pretty much where it ends, for me.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I guess Iginla is one of those guys I will never understand the (IMO) over the top praise for...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I for sure would. An extra 60 points when he scored 342 points in 396 games is pretty significant. It would be nice if he had at least kept pace with players like Modano, Turgeon, and Tkachuk to go along with his high-end seasons.

Why is it significant though? Detroit was always at the top of the standings and always one of the very best teams in the league in GF. In all likelihood it would have just been superfluous points in games that were well in hand anyway.

If Fedorov had maintained his "meh" scoring pace in the playoffs, I'd be suspicious. But his production always went up as soon as April rolled around. And a lot of those games were against Colorado, Dallas, and St. Louis. This just seems like as clear of a case as there is for a player pacing himself in the regular season so he had gas in the tank for the playoffs.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't know how to account for the DPE regarding Lindros.
On one hand... he was indeed an offence juggernaut.

Well he is 6th overall in points in his 7 year prime and 3nd in PPG to only Jagr and Mario.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

On the other, well, you said it yourself. PPG. That accronym tends to hide something, and I don't really care as to how Lindros would've played in games he didn't play.

PPG doesn't hide anything though, it simply measures offensive production per game.
Some detractors (I'm not saying you but others that I have seen in other threads) make the false claim that PPG shouldn't be used as prorating and it doesn't do that.

Simply put if one player scores 80 points in 82 games is he rally a better player (in terms of per game impact) than another player who scores 75 points in 54 games.

People have no problem having Orr in the big 4 while he lags far behind the other 3 in pure counting stats.

It's Orrs per game impact that thrusts him into the top 4 and indeed is #1 for some people.

And, something of a wildcard argument : How much credit can we give Lindros for being very, very good in a specific era... when his skillset seems to have been tailored specifically for that era? Of course, I can't prove that Lindros would've had issues in the O6, because he didn't play in that era, but it's striking how Lindros was mostly made to play NHL Hockey as it was played between 1994 and 2003.

It's highly unlikely that Lindros wouldn't have been an impact player in any time in the NHL.

Too bad this consideration didn't come up for Firsov who was tiny.

 

[Nick Hansen]

On a game-per-game basis, I'd rather have Datsyuk or Zetterberg for my team than Fedorov thinking about it.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't necessarily disagree with that.

But If so, perhaps his name would have come up a lot, lot sooner.

A HEALTHY Eric Lindros WITH a high hockey I.Q. ?

While Lindros may or may not be over rated, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Conan is right?

 

[wetcoast]

On a game-per-game basis, I'd rather have Datsyuk or Zetterberg for my team than Fedorov thinking about it.

I guess at their peaks that might be a fair comment but Fedorov started off much better and earlier than both of them.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm waiting patiently for Serge. I had him 88th on my original list of 120. Meanwhile, Chara was 119. I'm open to listening as to why I placed Chara too low.

Well for starters Savard was 4,5,5,5 in Norris voting Chara was 1,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,7,8

While I don't think Chara will place as high as his Norris trophy might indicate that's a hug hill for Savard to climb, with all of his time missed.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

A few points here.

Forsberg has a deeper and better playoff and international record.
Forsberg was elite in every single season until his 33rd birthday whereas Lindros was a ghost of himself by 26.

Which raises questions about his IQ on the ice. When he couldn't be a wrecking ball any more he wasn't all that relevant any more. Did concussions do that to him? Possibly, though I've never really heard him talk about that in that fashion.

Another point I'd like to make is that you rarely see truly elite-IQ players get smoked in open ice hits like Lindros was. Gretzky, Lemieux, Malkin, Datsyuk, Fedorov, Forsberg, even a guy like Zetterberg - how often were these caught off guard like Lindros? Forsberg was reckless as well, to a certain extent, but I can't remember seeing him destroyed like Lindros was numerous times.

Gretzky was suppose to have the best hockey-IQ ever. But after age 30 his production trailed off and he was a -86 to the end of his career. Did his hockey-IQ fade?

As for getting smoked, Lindros was the most physical forward in the league. Every player you mentioned tried their best to avoid contact.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well for starters Savard was 4,5,5,5 in Norris voting Chara was 1,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,7,8

While I don't think Chara will place as high as his Norris trophy might indicate that's a hug hill for Savard to climb, with all of his time missed.

Serge Savard is one of those rare players that was a 2nd team all-star once but is considered by many to be an all-time great.

 

[wetcoast]

I feel like people are covering what actually happened.

He did score 600 points in that 7-season span (comparable to Selanne and Sakic). He did have four seasons of relevant Hart support. He didn’t have the extra fluff though, which is why he’s among the last of the best-player-in-the-world types that we’ll be ranking.

But let’s not dismiss 431 games of dominant hockey as “what could have been”. The distribution might have been spread over 6 full seasons and a lockout season instead of (431/80) 5.4 seasons, but it’s still a lot of work to appreciate.

Let's not forget that Lindros had a 8-5-6-11 at age 18 in the Olympics.

Then the next season at age 19 has a 8-11-6-17 line at the WC.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Serge Savard is one of those rare players that was a 2nd team all-star once but is considered by many to be an all-time great.

He was a great playoff performer but I don't see why people want him in this discussion? His RS merits don't impress me when guys like Karlsson or Kane aren't up yet.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Serge Savard is one of those rare players that was a 2nd team all-star once but is considered by many to be an all-time great.

I'd say our purpose here is to see if "is considered by many to be an all-time great" stands up to the scrutiny of deeping looks into context and numbers, rather than just taking "many" at their word.