Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 19

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Nice to see that ATD matters, at least for Gerard.

that's................. not at all why I even mentioned the ATD. It was simply to illustrate the level of appreciation and respect for Eddie Gerard that have existed among historian-types over the past decade. We don't exactly do an hoh top-100 list annually where I can track his progress, do we?

Perhaps for Hasek it will in the future. He was picked 26th in the latest edition. Then you have interesting anomalities. Bill Gadsby #64, Rod Langway #65, MarkHowe #77, Toe Blake #79, Serge Savard #82, Norm Ullman #90, Evgeni Malkin #97, Frank Brimsek #100.

Those are only interesting anomalies if you don't follow the ATD every year. Often you find that people would prefer to get a #1 defenseman early, starting rush, and many are content waiting for a bargain basement starter than blowing their early pick on a top end goalie. The draft list is by no means meant to be a ranking, even if it does resemble a top-400 list fairly closely.

The main reason it is not a reliable proxy for a ranking is because this project is voted on by a couple dozen people. There needs to be enough support for a player to make the list. In the ATD it takes the entire draft passing on a player for him to be underrated and "fall", but it only takes one overzealous noob to overrate a player and take him way too high.

Years you made the point about the competition aspect of history. This illustrates your point. ATD, effectively you have to have a strategy, make the best choice or face the consequences of a weak team. Top 100 there are no consequences that counter-balance ratings.

I am fine with that. In the ATD your next pick is heavily based on what your team already has, whereas this list is based on the greatness of the players in a vaccuum - two different things. One is about rankings, the other is a competition that only loosely follows rankings.

Your Imlach quote is inaccurate about Ullman. Operative is in the NHL. Imlach coached Beliveau in the QSHL - Quebec Aces.

It's accurate that he said it. Whether you agree is another matter entirely. You don't have to. Imlach coached Beliveau at the age of 20-21. Beliveau obviously turned out to be a much greater player than Ullman, but we really don't know if Imlach was including Beliveau in his statement (and legitimately thought a prime Ullman was better than Beliveau at 20-21, which he probably was) or not.

Ullman 4th amongst centers in his prime. Bit of a moving target. Regardless, teams and centers they would not trade for Ullman or preferred to Ullman. O6 era

Detroit preferred Delvecchio. Montreal - Beliveau, Henri Richard, Backstrom. Toronto - Keon,Kelly,Pulford. Chicago-Mikita,maybe Esposito. New York, Ratelle, maybe Goyette. Boston none. Mid 1960s top two Boston centers were Oliver and Martin, former Red Wings.

Conjecture. Delvecchio playing on the first line is by no means proof that they "preferred" him. Backstrom, Esposito, Ratelle, Goyette are major stretches. Toronto was built a certain way so it may be true but in the end he came to Toronto and at 33-38 played as well as any of them ever had there - hence Imlach's comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
In other news, did some research on Ullman today in old THN issues:

from January 23, 1960, an indication that just four years into his career, Ullman had already established himself as an "untouchable" for detroit. It's not worth speculating on what teams wanted him, when his own team didn't want to get rid of him. Of course, the moment passed and he lasted 8 more years in Detroit:

GM Jack Adams, displeased with the play of two "untouchables" - Alex Delvecchio and Norm Ullman - talked trade with Ranger GM Muzz Patrick without success. "They aren't untouchable any longer if I can work a deal which will help the club. but I'd have to get big men in return for any trade involving them."

Some good passages from November 6th, 1960, showing how Ullman had really come of age by then and had become a key all-around player:

A regular Red Wing observer remarked one night last week that Norm Ullman "is starting to dominate play when he's on the ice like Gordie Howe."

it has been that way recently and especially this season... he seems to be everywhere at once, starting plays, digging in the corners, camped by the net. he's on for powerplays and when the wings are shorthanded. So far, Ullman has been little short of sensational this fall...

the first mention of a recurring theme: Ullman being very underrated. Also, the first of many mentions of his forechecking. April 1st, 1961:

when it comes to underrated Hockey Players, the Red Wings have a contender for first honors - Norm Ullman.

...although he doesn't get lot of headlines, Ullman has ben particularly valuable since coming up to the Wings when he was only 19... he's a persistent forechecker and is one of the Red Wing penalty killers. .. while Ullman's own penalty minutes don't run high, he's a rugged swinger when he reaches his boiling point.

Some strong praise for his defensive ability, forechecking (again) and a shoutout to two players who had to be the two worst 2nd line NHL wingers as of March 21, 1964:

Ullman has long been one of the Wings' best defensive players and he ranks with the best at poke-checking, picking off passes and hounding a player. He kills penalties and centers the second like with Larry Jeffrey and Floyd Smith on the flanks.

Four years after the last mention of him being underrated, another fromDecember 5, 1964:

Ullman is considered by the league's coaches as the most underrated player in the game along with Bob Pulford. Both are dogged checkers, tireless skaters...

and another a week later goes into more detail: December 12, 1964:

He's the model of consistency and consistently he's been neglected in the All-Star voting... not that his worth isn't known - every coach in the league calls him one of the most underrated players and the name almost always linked with ullman's in that phrase is Toronto's Bob Pulford.

Ullman is as valuable defensively as he is on offense, a superb puckhandler, penalty killer, tireless skater. But he hasn't been able to break through the All-star dominance of Beliveau, Henri Richard and Mikita.

More glowing praise about his defense from March 20, 1965. Also, this is one of many mentions from the 65-66 season of his clutch scoring. I have no idea whether this was a recurring theme for Ullman, but for this season at least, it seemed every time an important goal was scored, he had something to do with it:

Ullman, always one of the best defensive centers in the game, a point often overlooked...

...his eight game winning goals are tops in the league, and, just as importantly, he has assisted on seven winning goals, aided in one tying goal and scored the tying goal in another deadlocked game. In addition, he's scored several "clinching" goals.

from January 29, 1966, a little taste of what he may have accomplished if he had an elite linemate regularly:

He's always been recognized as a top player even though he never made a first or second all-star team... always the two underrated centers were Ullman and Bob Pulford. Both play the same kind of game - skate and check, check and skate.

Ullman has played two positions for the Wings so far this season and sparkled at both. When the Wings couldn't buy a victory in the early going, Abel put him up with Delvecchio and Howe, moving Ullman in at left wing. As you know, the line prospered, the wings prospered and Ullman prospered, scoring 8 goals and assisting on 15 in the 15 games the line was together. Then Abel reacquired Parker MacDonald for the Howe line and Ullman returned to his usual 2nd line pivot post and he rattled off eight goals in seven games.

Some post-trade musings, from December 21, 1968. Also, a lot of descriptions of his play that paint Ullman as someone who really makes things happen out there:

At mid-december, teeter-tottering back and forth, the Ullman-Mahovlich trade swung over to Toronto's favor... previous to that weekend, the experts always insistd that Detroit got the best of the famous hockey deal. It was the first time since that day that there was talk that Toronto, after all, did not fare too badly...

...against New York, two of his goals were unassisted, which were a result of his tremendous ability to forecheck. "That Ullman played a heck of a game," said opposition manager Emile Francis. "He's probably the greatest forechecker in hockey."

Manager Punch Imlach was pleased with his center's performance... "That Ullman is some hockey player. He owned the puck out here tonight."

Ullman's performance was so great that he rated two full columns from Milt Dunnell of the Daily Star and Dick Beddoes of the Globe and Mail. Beddoes called Ullman "a prize package under the Toronto tree."

And then after years of calling him underrated, on March 15, 1969 they made it official:

who is the most underrated player in the NHL? Acording to the circuit's coaches, he is Norm Ullman of the maple leafs, by a thin margin over Ted Green of the Bruins. The mentors were polled, and the full results, including the first ten more underrated performers in the majors, appear in the April issue of Hockey pictorial...

... in addition (to scoring), Ullman has always been regarded as an outstanding two-way player, who not only can shoot goals and set them up, but works on defense and is one of the greatest forecheckers ever. He has been overshadowed throughout his career by such teammates as the great gordie Howe with the Wings and such rival centers as Stan Mikita, who has been the first team all-star six of the last seven years, Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard, and now Phil Esosito of Boston. Ullman has gotten little publicity in relation to his production. Yet, he is well-regarded by coaches and players. Toronto's manager and coach Punch Imlach has said, startlingly, "Ullman is the best center, the best all-around player I've had in Toronto." Sid Abel concedes he hated to let Ullman go, but felt he had to make moves to stimulate his slumping team,,, rival coaches certaninly respect Ullman, attesting his #1 ranking in the Hockey pictorial poll.

Some more praise following his signing of a whopping $57,000 contract, October 10, 1969. Also, a hint that Imlach had wanted Ullman for a while before pulling the trigger on the trade:

The Maple Leafs will pay Norm Ullman more money this season than they've ever spent on a player before... ullman, of course, is worth a hefty salary... he's a superb 2-way center who will be called upon to spearhead Leafs' attack and, with Dave Keon, to provide all-important forechecking... leafs have never had a center like Ullman on their side... Ever since he reached the NHL in 1955, he's been one of the league's most industrious workmen, the perfect example of a Toronto centre. He was Punch Imlach's ideal, a relentless and fast forechecker, a reliable backchecker, a shrewd playmaker, and on top of everything else, an opportunistic scorer. An Imlach dream came true in the spring of 1968, when he was able to obtain Ullman from the Red Wings.

from Ullman's "last hurrah" season, February 1, 1974, again more evidence that he was someone who drove the play and did the bulk of the puck-ragging for his line:

Ullman's selection to the Eastern all-star team, not by coach Scotty Bowman filling out his lineup, but by the voters of the Professional Hockey Writers Association, was a tipoff to one of the least noticed improvements of the Maple leafs. Ullman was skating with all of his skills at their most obvious, twisting away from defensemen, showing mastery with the puck, crossing bluelines and making plays like a card shark.

...his high ranking among the league's top scorers attracted enough attention to get him more votes than such centers as Jacques Lemaire and Jean ratelle...

The most common mistake in judging Ullman is in concluding that when things are going badly for him, his legs must have run out. With Ullman, it's more likely his hands or his ankes. "I do seem to get more than my share of the little injuries that bother you, but shouldn't keep you out of games," he says, reviewing a history of broken thumbs, bruised ankes and crunched knuckles. Ullman's injuries seldom keep him out of games, but they do ruin his foremost ability, that of playing tricks with the puck and wheeling away from checkers. says Leafs' coach Red Kelly: "Maybe it's a little because of his style that he picks up so many of those injuries. Because he holds the puck longer than most, he ends up taking a lot of two-handers. He absorbs a lot of punishment."
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I don't know, for about five years Karlsson was considered a top-5 player in the world. Can you say that about Gerard?

Maybe?

During the 1920-1923 time frame, he was a top 2 defenseman in the world (maybe not every year but overall), along with Sprague Cleghorn. We know he was usually considered better than teammates Benedict and Denneny (again, during this short time frame), but not as good as Nighbor. So that would leave Vezina and the non-Ottawa forwards of the world to knock him out of the top 5.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Maybe?

During the 1920-1923 time frame, he was a top 2 defenseman in the world (maybe not every year but overall), along with Sprague Cleghorn. We know he was usually considered better than teammates Benedict and Denneny (again, during this short time frame), but not as good as Nighbor. So that would leave Vezina and the non-Ottawa forwards of the world to knock him out of the top 5.

No western players?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehhedler

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
In other news, did some research on Ullman today in old THN issues:

from January 23, 1960, an indication that just four years into his career, Ullman had already established himself as an "untouchable" for detroit. It's not worth speculating on what teams wanted him, when his own team didn't want to get rid of him. Of course, the moment passed and he lasted 8 more years in Detroit:



Some good passages from November 6th, 1960, showing how Ullman had really come of age by then and had become a key all-around player:



the first mention of a recurring theme: Ullman being very underrated. Also, the first of many mentions of his forechecking. April 1st, 1961:



Some strong praise for his defensive ability, forechecking (again) and a shoutout to two players who had to be the two worst 2nd line NHL wingers as of March 21, 1964:



Four years after the last mention of him being underrated, another fromDecember 5, 1964:



and another a week later goes into more detail: December 12, 1964:



More glowing praise about his defense from March 20, 1965. Also, this is one of many mentions from the 65-66 season of his clutch scoring. I have no idea whether this was a recurring theme for Ullman, but for this season at least, it seemed every time an important goal was scored, he had something to do with it:



from January 29, 1966, a little taste of what he may have accomplished if he had an elite linemate regularly:



Some post-trade musings, from December 21, 1968. Also, a lot of descriptions of his play that paint Ullman as someone who really makes things happen out there:



And then after years of calling him underrated, on March 15, 1969 they made it official:



Some more praise following his signing of a whopping $57,000 contract, October 10, 1969. Also, a hint that Imlach had wanted Ullman for a while before pulling the trigger on the trade:



from Ullman's "last hurrah" season, February 1, 1974, again more evidence that he was someone who drove the play and did the bulk of the puck-ragging for his line:


Let's look at trade rumours and realities from the 1960 NHL Annual June meetings:

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

January 1960, Rangers and Wings were trying to structure the failed Kelly/Gadsby trade. Kelly eventually brought Marc Reaume, Gadsby a minor leaguer in June 1961.

You failed to include Dave Keon in the Ullman puffery. Full seasons 1969 to 1975. Keon +48, overall 193 G + 219A,30PPG +79A, 23SHG + 9 SHA. Ullman +43, 161 G + 293 A, 45 PPG + 57A, 2SHG + 1 SHA. Numbers speak loudly about RS deployment and performance. Ullman an ES edge. Keon a slight PP edge but was by far the prime PKer.

Playoffs. 1969-1975

Keon 7 G + 15 A, -4. Ullman 3 + 6 A, -13.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
I don't know, for about five years Karlsson was considered a top-5 player in the world. Can you say that about Gerard?

My impression was that Karlsson was considered a Top-5 player in the world for only two or three years, circa 2016 and 2017, when he became an all-around force and not just a great offensive defenseman with questionable defense for a Norris contender.Am I wrong?
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Eddie Gerard's value goes beyond his on-ice play in that he was a Top 5 captain of all-time (name 5 that has him beat?) and almost a coach during the dynasty (and he was an actual player-coach before that).He was the one to establish the winning and mentoring culture in Ottawa.

To establish ASTs for defensemen in the 1918-1923 window would require a significant investment of time and effort.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,588
15,949
I think since Howe wasn't flashy, he was sorta taken for granted.

well he did finish 2nd for the norris three times so it’s not like voters never noticed him.

actually i think if anything worked against howe (and i’m not certain it did), it’s that he was a pacifist. he wasn’t soft (like housley) but he also wasn’t just a non-physical defenseman (like leetch). he was against violence in hockey and i think that was hard for some people to take from gordie howe’s son.

whereas brett and bobby hull both won lady byngs, so i don’t think anybody really held it against brett when he spoke out against fighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ted2019

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Watched some more Howe games last night...I can't imagine him not being at the top of my ballot this round...switched positions, switched leagues, crossed through eras, was the kingpin for defensive Flyers teams that did run into a buzzsaw at every pass, otherwise he'd have a couple 'chips...he's pretty much a wagon...
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Serge Savard, the Bowman years.

Serge Savard was one of the mainstays during the Scotty Bowman years, 1971-1979, key piece during the 1976-1979 dynasty. Like Jacques Lemaire, he had played for Bowman with the Junior Canadiens for app. three seasons. Both knew the Canadiens way of playing hockey.

Serge Savard Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Much has been made about Savard's low point total. RS, 0.34 points per game. POs this rose significantly to 0.55 points per game. Function of mastering the opponents weaknesses.

Yet twice during the dynasty years Savard led the playoffs in +/-.

1979 Semi-finals game 7 against the Bruins, Savard made critical plays on the tying and winning goals.

Tying goal:



Creates extra space and time between Lafleur and Lafleur's check between the Canadien's blueline and the center Red Line by establishing position and forcing the Bruin to take the longer way around.

Winning goal:



Classic finesse move stripping Middleton of the puck in the Canadiens zone. Starts a quick,short transition to Houle,before Middleton can recover, Houle to Tremblay, to Lambert -Middleton's man. Savard the architect of the key play and pass, did not receive an assist for the goal.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Among high peak, short career defensemen, Gerard vs Karlsson is an interesting comparison. Totally different styles of course.

Biggest difference (besides play styles) would be that Gerard was the captain of a dynasty team. It remains to be seen what kind of impact Karlsson can or will have on a strong franchise. Thus far he put up great numbers on a weak franchise, but it never translated to any consistent success. Sort of orchestrated his escape from Ottawa when the ship started to really sink...we'll see if it pays off.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
In addition to Howe, throw my hat in the ring for Savard. He was a whale of a player, even after serious injury. Subtle, smart, terrific puck carrier, strong defensively...you could learn plenty about the game by watching Savard play...

Citing round 1 list alert: he was comfortably...I mean like first class comfortably in my top 100 after watching him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Biggest difference (besides play styles) would be that Gerard was the captain of a dynasty team. It remains to be seen what kind of impact Karlsson can or will have on a strong franchise. Thus far he put up great numbers on a weak franchise, but it never translated to any consistent success. Sort of orchestrated his escape from Ottawa when the ship started to really sink...we'll see if it pays off.

I guess I'm requiring explanations for this one. From my perspective, there is absolutely no reason to believe the Ottawa Senators were willing to keep Erik Karlsson past this season (translation : by paying him accordingly), so they sent him off. Karlsson didn't have much to do with this.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,254
2,736
Serge Savard, Mark Howe, and Erik Karlsson all have one thing in common—they suffered serious injuries early in their NHL career, lost two seasons of prime hockey, and they were never quite the same physically after the injuries.

Savard has the two broken legs in 1970, and missed most of the 1970-71 and 1971-72 seasons. He was probably never the same as a skater or offensive player, although still a great skater and two-way defenceman.

Howe was impaled on the net late in 1980 and almost died due to blood loss and infection. He lost over 20 pounds, never got back to his original playing weight, and felt he was never as good a rusher as he had been before the injury, although he became a better all-around defenceman. Howe missed only about 20 games, but said later that he was pressured by the Whalers to get back on the ice, and he wasn’t physically recovered or fit to play. The Whalers also has very poor medical and training support and facilities, and Howe played in the 1981 Canada Cup when he really should have been recovering, so he wasn’t ready physically for the 1981-82 season and had the worst year of his career.

Flyers Heroes of the Past: Mark Howe (Part 1)

Erik Karlsson had his Achilles’ tendon severed during the 2013 season, after a great start to the season that had people talking about him as a Hart trophy contender and maybe the best player in hockey. Karlsson returned for the 2013 playoffs, but was clearly missing the all-time great acceleration that had set him apart in his Norris season of 2011-12. Karlsson went on to score 74 points in 2013-14, but still didn’t look fully comfortable or recovered. His first step still wasn’t there in transition, and he struggled with his skating and timing defensively, finishing with one of his worst defensive seasons. Karlsson eventually recovered to a Norris trophy level and looked fully confident and comfortable, but I don’t think he’s ever had the 2011-12 initial burst since his Achilles’ injury.

I think Karlsson has had the best recovery, partly because of the advances in medical care and training support for NHL players in the last 30 years, but even he has never been quite the same.

Just putting this context out there for any readers who may not have been aware why these defencemen had mid-career interruptions. These three defencemen would have been on the list already if not for their injuries.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,254
2,736
I guess I'm requiring explanations for this one. From my perspective, there is absolutely no reason to believe the Ottawa Senators were willing to keep Erik Karlsson past this season (translation : by paying him accordingly), so they sent him off. Karlsson didn't have much to do with this.

The modern NHL Senators franchise has the worst owner in the league. I don’t blame Karlsson at all for wanting out, I don’t think he would have had the opportunity to build a winning team and culture with the current owner. It’s a very different situation from Gerard’s.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
The modern NHL Senators franchise has the worst owner in the league. I don’t blame Karlsson at all for wanting out, I don’t think he would have had the opportunity to build a winning team and culture with the current owner. It’s a very different situation from Gerard’s.

We're on the same page, but did Karlsson want out himself (for this season) (That's really a odd place to ask the question). I was under the impression he had no issues playing the season with the Sens,
 

Batis

Registered User
Sep 17, 2014
1,093
1,030
Merida, Mexico
Valeri Vasiliev. He seems to really define the term "borderline top-100 player" for me. I've read everything posted about him thus far in the project and I feel like I'm not quite as high on him as I used to be. Or it might just be that too many good new players have come up in the past decade and he's exactly the caliber of player that is in position to get nudged out. With European forwards of the 70s and 80s, I don't find it all that difficult to fudge some regular season numbers and get an idea of where they would rank in a global league on a year-to-year basis. But I refuse to use offense to judge defensemen in any significant way, so the best thing we have is Vasiliev's eye-test based all-star voting record. But what do you do with it? When he was the best Soviet defenseman, where did that rank him in the world? You can probably safely say never 1st, but he very well could have been 2nd a couple times. There might also be times where even in that competitive era, a top-end all-star soviet defenseman might have only been 10th-15th in the world - who can say? Has anyone cooked up a fair and realistic assessment of what his NHL all-star record may have looked like? As with Firsov, I don't mean literally pretend he crosses the atlantic and starts playing here, but just base it on skill/talent, and overall quality of play and value delivered. Was he a potential NHL all-star, and how many times? I'm open to ranking him for sure, but he's a question mark in a field of so many sure things.

I definitely agree that it is much more difficult to estimate how high the top Soviet defencemen would rank in a global league than how the top Soviet forwards would rank. On the one hand the last ca 30 years have very clearly shown that the top Russian forwards on average have ranked far higher on the global stage than the defencemen have. On the other hand the first generation of Soviet trained defencemen (Konstantinov, Zubov, Ozolinsh, Gonchar etc) who entered the NHL at a young age did rather well and would obviously have done even better if not for Konstantinovs accident. But still that only 3 defencemen from former Soviet countries (Konstantinov, Zubov and Ozolinsh) have been Norris finalists one time each is something that makes Vasilievs case look somewhat weaker in my opinion.

Although when looking at Vasiliev it is worth noting that one of his strongest stretches of hockey (78/79-80/81) came during the time period which is considered the absolute peak of Soviet hockey (late 70´s-early 80´s) and in his two strongest seasons during that stretch the Izvestia golden stick voters considered him the 2nd (78/79) and 3rd (79/80) best player in Europe.

And to me it seems likely that the level of Soviet defencemen during the late 70´s-early 80´s was at least somewhat higher than the level of the first generation of Soviet trained defencemen who entered the NHL at a young age during the 90´s. An indication of this is that Tikhonov in 85/86 thought that the Soviet hockey system had entered a downperiod compared to the previous years. And in my opinion there is not much that suggests that Russian hockey ever managed to get back to their late 70´s/early 80´s level again.

To add to this here is a quote from the CSKA-Montreal game in the 1986 Super Series. Tikhonov thought that the Soviet Unions hockey system had entered a downperiod already in 1986 in comparison with earlier years.

"Tikhonov quoted widely to the effect that the hockey system of the Soviet Union is in a downperiod right now, not as productive as it has been".



Of course this can be seen in the results too. The Soviet national team in the years 1985-1989 was no longer the almost unstoppable force that the team had been in the early 80´s. Still a extremely good team of course but clearly a step below the early 80´s teams.


But even if we in my opinion have reason to believe that Soviet hockey was at a somewhat higher level during large parts of Vasilievs prime than Russian hockey ever has been at since I think that it is very difficult to say how high Vasiliev would have ranked in a global league. Much more difficult than with his contemporary Soviet forwards. But to try to estimate I think that we can say that his 78/79 and 79/80 seasons possibly were Norris finalist level seasons considering that he was considered one of the top players in Europe. Then I would say that his 73/74 season probably was rather close to that level as well and his 72/73, 74/75, 80/81 and 81/82 seasons were strong ones at least.

For what it is worth here is how Vasiliev ranked among Soviet defencemen in the SPOTY and/or Izvestia voting during his prime.

72/73: SPOTY: 1st
73/74: SPOTY: 1st
74/75: SPOTY: 1st
75/76: SPOTY: Tied for 1st (With Lutchenko)
76/77: SPOTY: 2nd (Behind Pervukhin)
77/78: SPOTY: 4th (Behind Fetisov, Bilyaletdinov and Pervukhin)
78/79: Izvestia: 1st
79/80: SPOTY: 1st, Izvestia: 1st
80/81: SPOTY: 1st, Izvestia: 1st
81/82: SPOTY: 2nd (Behind Fetisov), Izvestia: 1st

If this would be the results of a Soviet forward among the other forwards it would be very obvious that the player should rank very high on our list. But with the questions about the quality of Soviet defencemen in mind the water gets far more murky and to be honest I really don´t know what to think about this subject. What I do know is that Vasiliev for sure not will be top 5 for me in this round and I would agree that the definition of a borderline top 100 player seems rather accurate for him.
 
Last edited:

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
You failed to include Dave Keon in the Ullman puffery. Full seasons 1969 to 1975. Keon +48, overall 193 G + 219A,30PPG +79A, 23SHG + 9 SHA. Ullman +43, 161 G + 293 A, 45 PPG + 57A, 2SHG + 1 SHA. Numbers speak loudly about RS deployment and performance. Ullman an ES edge. Keon a slight PP edge but was by far the prime PKer.

I didn't fail to include anything. If it's your opinion that Imlach was incorrect and forgot about Keon when he made that statement, well great, you can have that opinion.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I didn't fail to include anything. If it's your opinion that Imlach was incorrect and forgot about Keon when he made that statement, well great, you can have that opinion.

I like Ullman over Keon too, but to play Devil's advocate, Imlach made his statement in 1968, and Keon (5 years younger than Ullman) was a productive player for a number of years after that date.
 
Last edited:

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
I feel like - very roughly - that taking Ullman over Keon is like taking Kuznetsov or even Tavares, but that's pushing it, over Patrice Bergeron...it's like "yeahhhhh...but is it really worth it on the ice...?"

Probably not.

Amend that: likely not.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I feel like - very roughly - that taking Ullman over Keon is like taking Kuznetsov or even Tavares, but that's pushing it, over Patrice Bergeron...it's like "yeahhhhh...but is it really worth it on the ice...?"

Probably not.

Amend that: likely not.

I guess i have more respect for the guy who actually coached them than this.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I like Ullman over Keon too, but to play Devil's advocate, Imlach made his statement in 1968, and Keon (5 years younger than Ullman) was a productive player for a number of years after than date.

That is true but Keon was always five years younger yet he was productive and successful in the NHL from the start while Ullman missed a golden opportunity in the 1956-57 season centering Howe and Lindsay, going roughly 10 years before his break through season in 1964-65, scoring his career high 42 goals then regressing to his usual level.

Fact of the matter is that looking at their second season, Keon scored 9 more points playing with Armstrong and Duff than Ullman did with Howe and Lindsay. Also second year Earl Reibel outscored -15 points, second year Ullman playing with Howe and Lindsay.

Ullman simply had one memorable 42 goal season where he outscored Bobby Hull by 3 goals, Hull missing 9 games. Ullman was the only player to do so in a six season stretch. Otherwise he would be long forgotten.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->