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

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

I agree.

I'm not one of the many.

 

[wetcoast]

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 watched him play and yes he was a very good player but all time great and only a 2nd all star once just don't jive.

Even if somehow Savard does make this list, how long until Doughty and Karlsson pass him if they haven't already?

 

[VMBM]

Mikhailov didn't play in the Canada Cup.

That's why he was underwhelming in it!

Seriously speaking, I think Mikhailov's performance in the 1979 Challenge Cup (tournament MVP) should slightly compensate the fact that he never played in a Canada Cup; I know that some people don't rate the Challenge Cup very high, but it was a star-studded series, and the Soviets did have to come from behind to win it, with Mikhailov scoring a key goal in every game.

Furthermore, whatever it's worth, Mikhailov was still arguably one of the top Soviet forwards in the 1972 Summit Series, especially if we look rather at Richard Bendell's alternative statistics and forget the official ones - which I think we should - ; Mikhailov had 7 points in 8 games. His problem was, though, that he didn't score a single point in the last 3 games. However, in Canada he was terrific IMO, maybe even the 2nd best skater after Kharlamov (Yakushev's heroics truly started in Moscow).

Once again, too bad that Maltsev and Martinec aren't here for comparison's sake, but that doesn't mean that it's not time for Mikhailov to be voted in.

 

[ted2019]

So looking at Belfour again, he does look very good as the next goalie to be added.

Much better playoff record than Tony Esposito or Roy Worters. Much better longevity than Bernie Parent or Jiri Holecek. Much better All-Star record than Johnny Bower.

-----

Edit - comparing across positions, he easy beat fellow "90s" players Fedorov and Lindros in number of historically noteworthy seasons.

Belfour will be very, very high on this ballot for myself.

 

[ted2019]

Again, the question of greatest or best? arises...

It depends on what you favor most.

 

[ted2019]

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.

I love Lindros as a player and a fan. He's not the best player this round, sorry.

 

[bobholly39]

I love Lindros as a player and a fan. He's not the best player this round, sorry.

Considering your post right above i find this surprising.

Eric Lindros was the "best" player in this group but didnt have the "best career" and so will not rank highest for you. Is that what you mean?

Or are you saying he's not even the best in terms of ability? Id be curious to see who you rank above him if so and why.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lindros gets some points for me because not only was he dominant, but he also changed the game...every bust from 1991 to 2004 was basically because teams were either trying to find the next him or the next guy who could stop him...now, that clearly counts towards HOF candidacy, but does it count here? I'm not 100% sure.

He was a better player than Martin St. Louis but was he greater than him...? I could be convinced one way or the other..Lindros and Fedorov being in close proximity makes sense to me...not just because they were featured in commercials either...

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Let's get one thing straight... while we often use individual trophy finishes and votes to bolster our cases for certain players (we all do), we need to remember that other than the Art Ross, Maurice Richard and Jennings trophies, they are all subjective.

I've found Chara to be given a tad too much credit, while Savard was essentially taken for granted by the hockey community in the 70's. Savard was Montreal's steadiest d-man, the leader on the blueline, and the best mix of offense and defense. He was never given enough credit when it came to Norris time, while teammate Lapointe's big offensive numbers stole some votes.

Chara, meanwhile, is rightfully admired for his ability to play so well despite a frame that generally produces clunky, awkward skaters. He's big, unbeatable in a fight, and has a massive shot from the point. Does that make him as good of a defenseman as his Norris finishes? He's one of the better defensemen of his era, no doubt. However, I've often found him a lazy vote come Norris time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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?

Doesn't matter how good the driver is once the wheels start falling off the car.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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

The playoffs where Tampa Bay squeaked by the Flames proved to me just how great Iginla was. Richards won the Conn Smythe, Gelinas scored key goals, but Iginla was easily the playoff's best performer that year.

...but, he's not up yet so back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

First of all, I'd take a healthy peak Lindros over a healthy peak Forsberg. There's not a lot seprating those two at their healthy peaks, but Lindros had Forsberg's hands and skating while having even more sandpaper than the admittedly tough Swede.

Secondly, as I said earlier, Lindro's size and strength caused him to develop dangerously bad habits. He was able to run over opponents in junior while skating with his head down. That habit got his head knocked off in the NHL.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Yep. We also have the controversial "eye test" to fall back on when it comes to these relatively recent players. At his healthy peak, Lindros showed a dominance nobody else had in this round (and in some previous rounds as well).

 

[bobholly39]

Let's get one thing straight... while we often use individual trophy finishes and votes to bolster our cases for certain players (we all do), we need to remember that other than the Art Ross, Maurice Richard and Jennings trophies, they are all subjective.

I've found Chara to be given a tad too much credit, while Savard was essentially taken for granted by the hockey community in the 70's. Savard was Montreal's steadiest d-man, the leader on the blueline, and the best mix of offense and defense. He was never given enough credit when it came to Norris time, while teammate Lapointe's big offensive numbers stole some votes.

Chara, meanwhile, is rightfully admired for his ability to play so well despite a frame that generally produces clunky, awkward skaters. He's big, unbeatable in a fight, and has a massive shot from the point. Does that make him as good of a defenseman as his Norris finishes? He's one of the better defensemen of his era, no doubt. However, I've often found him a lazy vote come Norris time.

I could maybe buy the "Savard didn't get enough love for the Norris because _____" argument. But the flip of it - that Chara's norris record is a bit lazy or lucky - I don't agree with. Yes Norris voting is subjective - and if you want to talk about subjective results we can look at a guy like Lindros winning the 95 Hart above Jagr. Why did Lindros win above Jagr? It's subjective (doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it, just giving an example of one subjective award).

But for Chara he has 10 top-10 Norris placements, 8 top 5 and 6 top 3. I think quantity there nullifies the 'subjectivity' criteria. His whole career he was seen as a top defender in the world and votes as such, repeatedly. This counts, and is a big reason why he's available now.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I could maybe buy the "Savard didn't get enough love for the Norris because _____" argument. But the flip of it - that Chara's norris record is a bit lazy or lucky - I don't agree with. Yes Norris voting is subjective - and if you want to talk about subjective results we can look at a guy like Lindros winning the 95 Hart above Jagr. Why did Lindros win above Jagr? It's subjective (doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it, just giving an example of one subjective award).

But for Chara he has 10 top-10 Norris placements, 8 top 5 and 6 top 3. I think quantity there nullifies the 'subjectivity' criteria. His whole career he was seen as a top defender in the world and votes as such, repeatedly. This counts, and is a big reason why he's available now.

I don't think Chara would be out of place in this list. I think he had a great career. I think he was a great player. He is, to me, just someone who I didn't feel was "as great" as suggested by others. That makes him overrated to me. That doesn't make him "not great". He was.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The only thing, for me, that makes Chara relevant to the list is that he was able to carry all the weight that he did in 2011...now, too, he had Patrice Bergeron doing a lot of work...the Norris voting doesn't do a ton for me, he's not the best active d-man available...Savard was a better player by a pretty clear margin...I'm not in a rush, despite the voting record...

 

[MXD]

The only thing, for me, that makes Chara relevant to the list is that he was able to carry all the weight that he did in 2011...now, too, he had Patrice Bergeron doing a lot of work...the Norris voting doesn't do a ton for me, he's not the best active d-man available...Savard was a better player by a pretty clear margin...I'm not in a rush, despite the voting record...

Probably bears repeating that Boston doesn't make it past the 1st round in 2011 without Dennis Seidenberg (but make it without Chara).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, Seids was remarkable...he had an unbelievable run, and Chara deserves some of that credit...we all know my feelings on that Boston run, it doesn't bear repeating...those who know me, know why I have to go "yeah, but..." in Chara's favor...but it's not his Norris record (it's also not not his Norris record)...

In sum, it's not Chara time.

Incidentally, is this/will this be the worst player in terms of sustained performance to come up for us at the NHL level? Early Chara was one of the worst players in the league...I wonder if anyone else can legitimately say that for a sustained period of time...I don't think I'm asking the question correctly, but I'm assuming we get what I'm getting at...

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah, Seids was remarkable...he had an unbelievable run, and Chara deserves some of that credit...we all know my feelings on that Boston run, it doesn't bear repeating...those who know me, know why I have to go "yeah, but..." in Chara's favor...but it's not his Norris record (it's also not not his Norris record)...

In sum, it's not Chara time.

Incidentally, is this/will this be the worst player in terms of sustained performance to come up for us at the NHL level? Early Chara was one of the worst players in the league...I wonder if anyone else can legitimately say that for a sustained period of time...I don't think I'm asking the question correctly, but I'm assuming we get what I'm getting at...

Lots of players have slow starts to their careers or real down years but it doesn't seem to hurt them in the voters eyes in this project.

Also while I share the Chara might be over rated at times doesn't this happen to other players as well?

And at some point those Norris finishes are hard to ignore right?

For your question MSL fits the bill right?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yeah, Seids was remarkable...he had an unbelievable run, and Chara deserves some of that credit...we all know my feelings on that Boston run, it doesn't bear repeating...those who know me, know why I have to go "yeah, but..." in Chara's favor...but it's not his Norris record (it's also not not his Norris record)...

In sum, it's not Chara time.

Incidentally, is this/will this be the worst player in terms of sustained performance to come up for us at the NHL level? Early Chara was one of the worst players in the league...I wonder if anyone else can legitimately say that for a sustained period of time...I don't think I'm asking the question correctly, but I'm assuming we get what I'm getting at...

Your question comes down to does Chara make the NHL with a team other than the 1997-98 Islanders or a similar poorly structured team?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I suppose it was more of a "fun fact" than a real question...but you could probably parlay it a bit...if Chara doesn't get that time to be in the NHL when he didn't really deserve to be, how does that affect his time in Ottawa and his early voting records...does it delay the inevitable? Is he better sooner? Is he traded at all?

More central to the project, I think Chara also deserves credit for adapting between eras. I'm a big proponent of that. The game changed towards smaller, quicker, more technically skilled players just as Chara was coming into his own...Chara is none of those things that I listed...his technical skill will be in the bottom 5% of this list should he make it...yet, he was able to exceed he previous levels of play, produce better team success, and cut down his penalty minutes (which I suppose is like jumping over a hockey puck, but still)...he does deserve some laurels for that in my book...

I still standby that it isn't time for Big Z(ed) yet...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lots of players have slow starts to their careers or real down years but it doesn't seem to hurt them in the voters eyes in this project.

"Lots" of players were available that have been among the worst players in the league for a given stretch? I'm not trying to lawyer you here, but that seems pretty unlikely...

 

[Michael Farkas]

And at some point those Norris finishes are hard to ignore right?

This isn't how I live my life. So, no...I've seen the player enough where I don't need to weight them so emphatically. I give all players in the Norris Trophy era the same consideration. Defensemen are kind of my specialty if I do say so myself...YMMV...

 

[Canadiens1958]

I suppose it was more of a "fun fact" than a real question...but you could probably parlay it a bit...if Chara doesn't get that time to be in the NHL when he didn't really deserve to be, how does that affect his time in Ottawa and his early voting records...does it delay the inevitable? Is he better sooner? Is he traded at all?

More central to the project, I think Chara also deserves credit for adapting between eras. I'm a big proponent of that. The game changed towards smaller, quicker, more technically skilled players just as Chara was coming into his own...Chara is none of those things that I listed...his technical skill will be in the bottom 5% of this list should he make it...yet, he was able to exceed he previous levels of play, produce better team success, and cut down his penalty minutes (which I suppose is like jumping over a hockey puck, but still)...he does deserve some laurels for that in my book...

I still standby that it isn't time for Big Z(ed) yet...

Compensated by the advantage of being athletic compared to many players.

 

[ted2019]

Considering your post right above i find this surprising.

Eric Lindros was the "best" player in this group but didnt have the "best career" and so will not rank highest for you. Is that what you mean?

Or are you saying he's not even the best in terms of ability? Id be curious to see who you rank above him if so and why.

Yes he was dominant and I was personally with during his time in Philly, However, he fell flat or short in the playoffs and a player that was as dominant as him, he should be able to do so. Lindros was pretty good for 9 years ( includes his 1st as a NYR) and then his final 4 were average to below average. Unlike everyone else on this list with the possible exception of Cowley & Stewart, he was the most dominant player in the league. All of this doesn't mean that he should go high this round. I think he would be better suited for the next voting period.