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

[BenchBrawl]

Patrick Kane may be sheltered and he may suck defensively, but let's not forget his consistency in scoring the big goals.

He scored enough of them to leave a clear impression that he was the clutchiest player of his generation.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Patrick Kane may be sheltered and he may suck defensively, but let's not forget his consistency in scoring the big goals.

He scored enough of them to leave a clear impression that he was the clutchiest player of his generation.

I hope he finishes above Teemu Selanne in ten years when you're doing this list again.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not sure it's that simple. The prevailing newspaper narrative certainly seems to be that he stepped aside due to nerves, but it's not like they just made it up - Irvin said so himself, and in doing so he was paraphrasing McNeil.

Then in the fall of 1954, McNeil retired due to nerves, and straight from his own mouth he confirmed it.

The picture from Ferguson seems to indicate an ankle injury, but we can only speculate on its severity. Perhaps it was so bad that he couldn't play - that doesn't mean that the prevailing narrative wasn't also true. The evidence seems to corroborate that it was. (the retirement article actually refers to him playing on a badly injured ankle - whether it's the injury from the 1953 playoffs, who can say)

McNeil aside, the point that you're really trying to make, though, is that "both are equally valuable", those being first-hand, contemporary accounts and after-the-fact scouting decades later. I would strongly disagree. Look at the Eddie Shore discussion from months ago. Mike looked at a very short highlight reel of Shore, came to the conclusion that he was not a very smart player, who thought only of smashing into other players and attempted to have us rank him accordingly. That's looking at 1930s hockey and expecting the players to live up to modern standards, which is just not fair. It does not take into consideration what kind of defense tactics were the most effective or appreciated in that time, and most egregiously, it assumes that these were routine moments instead of high-action moments cherrypicked by a 1930s editor for a hype video - you don't see Eddie Shore highlight videos detailing the dozens of times he may have taken guys out of the play in much more subtle ways, because no one wants to see that (except us 90 years later), and you don't have hours of footage where you can point to dozens of instances of someone less flashy like, say, Cy Wentworth, being so much smarter and more effective at defense. A 1980s Scott Stevens highlight reel would look very much the same, but we have much more information about Stevens' that tells us that these are just brief moments in a very long and effective career. We don't have that for Shore. It's great that we have a very brief look at him to apply the eye test, but let's weigh it accordingly with the eye tests from the people who rated hockey's best defenseman and indeed, best player, so many times. The argument against his style of play, intentionally or not, ends up being "but he played so long ago", just framed in a seemingly more intellectual way.

Same concept with Ullman - to a different degree. The first hand accounts and the results captured by numbers definitely paint the picture of a real catalyst in both the offensive and defensive zones.

View attachment 203775 View attachment 203777 View attachment 203779

And since the spring of 1953 we can find countless accounts of coaches misdirecting media and fans about injuries. Then you mention 1950 Bill Durnan. The 1953 photo made me curious. McNeil played 6 RS games and was parked in Cincinnati so that he was playoff eligible. Seems that during the RS Durnan stopped a few pucks unconventionally with his head. Will let everyone know when finished. Fact remains that in over 10 years no one bothered to fact check the claim. Minimal requirement when doing research.

Game 2. Durnan cut for six stitches alongside the eye by Bud Poile shot:

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités

No concussion protocol in 1949

Upthread you praise the DN28 submission about Vasiliev which basically is based on an extensive review of 1972 Summit Series game footage. Will not comment on the projections based on the review but Vasiliev using the article, was far from even Savard and Bill White defensively.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sid Abel. Part of me wants to say he's super similar to Norm Ullman (longtime wing, two-way guy, very good but not transcendent offense) and I want to see him rank just as highly as him. The other part of me sees a few reasons to have him a little below a guy like Norm. Longevity is one. Ullman put up 16 seasons that could be classified as "good" - VsX score od 60 or higher. Abel put up just half as many. What about peak, does he have a peak argument? He put up four seasons with a score of 80 or higher, while Ullman had six. A quick look at linemates doesn't help Abel's case vis-a-vis Ullman, either: Ullman had Gordie Howe for a linemate for one or two seasons, and a short part of another. Abel was Howe's linemate for five full seasons. While he was able to be 5th in points before Howe came along, this was his only high-end season. Then, four of his five best seasons came at age 29-33 with Howe as a linemate. Abel was a great player in his own right, but Howe helped every linemate put up points during his spectacular career and Abel is not an exception. In terms of non-scoring offensive skills (such as forechecking, digging in the corners, net presence) I get the sense that Ullman and Abel were the same kind of players and approximately equal in their effectiveness (and this may be really generous to Abel because Ullman was being called "perhaps the best forechecker ever"). Defensively, I think Ullman was better too. Reading Abel's bio, you get the sense that he was a conscientious player all over the ice, but by no means is the praise for him as glowing as it was for Ullman (to drop a few short passages - 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, as valuable defensively as he is on offense, always one of the best defensive centers in the game, has always been regarded as an outstanding two-way player, a superb 2-way center) Abel certainly enjoyed more playoff success and was known as a an all-time great leader, so he's not without his positives, but he's too far behind the 8-ball at this point in the conversation for those things to make a difference.

This is sufficient for our video look at Norm Ullman defensively.

1966 Game six of the finals, Ullman's line is matched against a makeshift line Henri Richard centering Dave Balon and Leon Rochefort.

Ullman does score a PP goal but is owned badly by Henri Richard at ES. Montreal's second goal and third, the Cup winner are created on the rush by Henri Richard with Ullman hopelessly out of the play defensively.



Yet both centers are in their 11th season.

 

[blogofmike]

Norm Ullman confuses me greatly. He's been described as a great two-way player, but his on-ice team results are worse than Patrick Kane. (Ullman was once a plus-player in the playoffs. He was a +1.)

Even his 4 year playoff peak seems a little inflated by continually drawing a Chicago matchup in Round 1, during a 4 year period of Leafs-Habs and Hawks/Wings to open the playoffs. In the Finals, his ES scoring rate was nearly cut in half, and while he was +8 in the 26 first round games against Chicago, he dropped to a -11 in 18 Finals games.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Norm Ullman confuses me greatly. He's been described as a great two-way player, but his on-ice team results are worse than Patrick Kane. (Ullman was once a plus-player in the playoffs. He was a +1.)

Even his 4 year playoff peak seems a little inflated by continually drawing a Chicago matchup in Round 1, during a 4 year period of Leafs-Habs and Hawks/Wings to open the playoffs. In the Finals, his ES scoring rate was nearly cut in half, and while he was +8 in the 26 first round games against Chicago, he dropped to a -11 in 18 Finals games.

Drawing a Chicago matchup means he was matching up against Stan Mikita and the Scooter Line, which was called the best line in hockey at once point. (Bobby Hull generally got worse linemates as he was more of a one-man show than Mikita. Gordie Howe with Alex Delvecchio generally went head to head against Hull).

 

[blogofmike]

Sid Abel. Part of me wants to say he's super similar to Norm Ullman (longtime wing, two-way guy, very good but not transcendent offense) and I want to see him rank just as highly as him. The other part of me sees a few reasons to have him a little below a guy like Norm. Longevity is one. Ullman put up 16 seasons that could be classified as "good" - VsX score od 60 or higher. Abel put up just half as many. What about peak, does he have a peak argument? He put up four seasons with a score of 80 or higher, while Ullman had six. A quick look at linemates doesn't help Abel's case vis-a-vis Ullman, either: Ullman had Gordie Howe for a linemate for one or two seasons, and a short part of another. Abel was Howe's linemate for five full seasons. While he was able to be 5th in points before Howe came along, this was his only high-end season. Then, four of his five best seasons came at age 29-33 with Howe as a linemate. Abel was a great player in his own right, but Howe helped every linemate put up points during his spectacular career and Abel is not an exception. In terms of non-scoring offensive skills (such as forechecking, digging in the corners, net presence) I get the sense that Ullman and Abel were the same kind of players and approximately equal in their effectiveness (and this may be really generous to Abel because Ullman was being called "perhaps the best forechecker ever"). Defensively, I think Ullman was better too. Reading Abel's bio, you get the sense that he was a conscientious player all over the ice, but by no means is the praise for him as glowing as it was for Ullman (to drop a few short passages - 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, as valuable defensively as he is on offense, always one of the best defensive centers in the game, has always been regarded as an outstanding two-way player, a superb 2-way center) Abel certainly enjoyed more playoff success and was known as a an all-time great leader, so he's not without his positives, but he's too far behind the 8-ball at this point in the conversation for those things to make a difference.

I was way too high on Abel coming in, but I don't know if it's fair to dismiss him as a product of Howe.

In 1949, Abel won the Hart. Howe was gone for 20 games from Dec 5 thru Jan 22. Abel did okay.

Sid Abel (48-49)	GP	G	A	PTS	PPG
no G. Howe	20	13	8	21	1.05
G. Howe plays	40	15	18	33	0.825
1948-49 Total	60	28	26	54	0.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In the 1943 playoffs, Captain Abel was scoring points and killing penalties. Abel was 1 point back of leading the team in scoring when Detroit won the Cup pre-Gordie, with his 6 points leading the Finals.

When Howe was injured in 1950 playoffs, Abel led the Wings in goals (6), and was again 1 point back of the team lead on a Cup winning run.

Howe became an all-time scorer starting in 1951. Before that, he hadn't actually outscored Abel yet, and even at that point Abel wasn't a significant beneficiary of Howe's newly transcendent offensive results.

 

[blogofmike]

Drawing a Chicago matchup means he was matching up against Stan Mikita and the Scooter Line, which was called the best line in hockey at once point. (Bobby Hull generally got worse linemates as he was more of a one-man show than Mikita. Gordie Howe with Alex Delvecchio generally went head to head against Hull).

Perhaps Ullman might explain Mikita's average playoffs some years. Ullman did have very good results in his Chicago matchup. It seems his biggest boost from Chicago may have been scoring 19 PP points in 26 games, before dropping to 5 PP points in 18 in the Finals. That Chicago PK was not great. The one time they got past Detroit in that span, Beliveau scored 8 PP points in 7 games.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

Wasn't there some off-ice twitter nonsense or something that led to the trade as well? Eh, I could be misremembering. Anyway, I don't blame Karlsson for parting ways with dysfunctional Ottawa. It just remains to be seen how he integrates with a more successful team.

 

[ted2019]

Does this imply Zubov if he stayed with the Rangers would have 'out-careered' the version that went to Dallas? And if so, then why so? I was under the impression that most people thought Zubov got Hitchcocked in Dallas which made him a better all-round piece on cost of some offense.

I think that Zubov would've had a better offensive career if he stayed with the NYR. I think Hitchcock held Zubov back a bit with his style of coaching. What kind of haul would the Rangers have received if they traded Leetch instead of Zubov from Pittsburgh? I think Zubov was a better 2 way defensemen then Leetch

 

[sr edler]

Perhaps you think Zubov was a better two-way defenseman than Leetch because he went to Dallas and got under Hitchcock. When Leetch and Zubov played together on the Rangers, when Leetch still had his speed, it's my opinion at least that Leetch was a better two-way defenseman. Watch Zubov on Sakic's disallowed goal on the Kovalev dive in the 93 playoffs for instance, it's full pylonmood activated. Then Leetch when he gets Bure (illegally with a hooking, yes, but he's still there) in the 94 SC finals. Totally different ways of engagement.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Leetch was a way better defensive defenseman than Zubov when they were in NY together. Leetch played top shutdown pairing with Beukeboom at ES and on the PK. It's why he did a little better in awards voting than Zubov in 93-94, despite Zubov leading the team in regular season scoring.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

The rest of the centers, in rough order:
Sid Abel. Part of me wants to say he's super similar to Norm Ullman (longtime wing, two-way guy, very good but not transcendent offense) and I want to see him rank just as highly as him. The other part of me sees a few reasons to have him a little below a guy like Norm.

I was inclining towards giving Ullman another look, and possibly levelling him up onto the next tier. I might still do so- but if we're attempting to make the case that he's a superior option to Sid Abel, well-- consider that particular hand overplayed.

My normal polemical parlor-trick with players who lose out to Wartime Service is- all right, let's remove playing ages 25-26-27 from guys who played at that age, and see what we have left. That doesn't work terribly well in the Ullman comparison- since he didn't reveal himself as particularly special during those years- except perhaps to buff out a reputation for durability. So, I'll say that I just feel highly confident that if one adds projected rate of return to Abel in his missing years of Prime, he'd show you more than Ullman did at that time in his life.

To the extent that we have +/- data, we have numbers for Ullman's Detroit years. less his opening four. In that span, the collective team record was 3 games under .500. Ullman's composite +/- was -34. This was punctuated by (at various times) being last on his own team (61-62), and a couple of times next-to-last on his team (59-60 & 63-64).

Then, of course, we have the longevity-praise. Here we go again with the lauding of O-6 to E-12 (and beyond) players who continued their careers, aided by the fact that a gallon or more of water was added to the gallon of solvent that was there before. Then there's this one:

Drawing a Chicago matchup means [Ullman] was matching up against Stan Mikita and the Scooter Line, which was called the best line in hockey at once point. (Bobby Hull generally got worse linemates as he was more of a one-man show than Mikita.

At this point, I'm not sure that mitigating Mikita's impact in The Playoffs is that fantastic an accomplishment, once the blueprint found its way into the Public Domain c. '63 or so. Maybe the Scooter Line was called by somebody or other the best line in hockey, but let's face it, when it came to sustained Playoff Performance, Mikita's line wasn't the best line on his own team. Hull-Plug-Plug would be more worrisome to opponents than Mikita and whoever was along either side of him.

One final note, before setting the Centers topic aside, for now:

Eric Lindros. ...once you get past how good he was on the ice, you have to acknowledge that he accomplished frighteningly little for a player of his stature.

Now this- this-- kind of sounds like "grading according to expected performance." A little kenosis might be in order. If we are to maintain the directive of the project, and try to judge "only on their performance as hockey players," then we should re-commit to assessing according to what accomplishments actually came to pass, and not what accomplishments we would have thought would have been suitable "for his stature."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

One final note, before setting the Centers topic aside, for now:
Now this- this-- kind of sounds like "grading according to expected performance." A little kenosis might be in order. If we are to maintain the directive of the project, and try to judge "only on their performance as hockey players," then we should re-commit to assessing according to what accomplishments actually came to pass, and not what accomplishments we would have thought would have been suitable "for his stature."

Top 100 hockey players of all-time. I know of no other directive.

That said, if Eric Lindros isn't one of them it will seem our list is insufficient.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

As I expect to be otherwise engaged for the remainder of the day, I turned in The Ballot.

Gerard & Toe Blake got last minute micro-bump-ups. Ullman got a last minute nerf-stick.

At least two players whom I believe to be immediately worthy won't make it- and I'm probably throwing some Votes into a headwind. That said, ALL my Votes have represented my best, sincerest impressions of how I believe players should rank- and I'm not going to stop now.

 

[ted2019]

Perhaps you think Zubov was a better two-way defenseman than Leetch because he went to Dallas and got under Hitchcock. When Leetch and Zubov played together on the Rangers, when Leetch still had his speed, it's my opinion at least that Leetch was a better two-way defenseman. Watch Zubov on Sakic's disallowed goal on the Kovalev dive in the 93 playoffs for instance, it's full pylonmood activated. Then Leetch when he gets Bure (illegally with a hooking, yes, but he's still there) in the 94 SC finals. Totally different ways of engagement.

I'll have to find that video on you tube. Thanks.

 

[ted2019]

Top 100 hockey players of all-time. I know of no other directive.

That said, if Eric Lindros isn't one of them it will seem our list is insufficient.

When you were the dominant player of an era like Lindros was for several seasons, you are a top 100 player.

 

[ted2019]

Leetch was a way better defensive defenseman than Zubov when they were in NY together. Leetch played top shutdown pairing with Beukeboom at ES and on the PK. It's why he did a little better in awards voting than Zubov in 93-94, despite Zubov leading the team in regular season scoring.

I don't remember Leetch/Beukeboom pairing, but I do remember Beukeboom always going against Lindros when Eric was in Philly. Since I trust your knowledge more-so then most, I'll go with what you said. Thanks.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Time to get comfy and sort this thing out. TV on, NCAA bracket almost busted, bets placed, hangover fading, let's do this...

Top Cluster:

Eddie Gerard. I overrated him initially, but he had lots of room to fall but still slip onto the back end of the list. Peak is a little short, but even on a team with the great Frank Nighbor, it was Gerard who was considered the emotional leader of the Senators as well as their on-ice general. Well-respected by the hockey establishment during his playing days and after his untimely death.

Bill Gadsby. I thought he could have reasonably been listed a couple rounds ago even, so he's due at this point. At his best, he was considered inferior only to Harvey and Kelly. Playoff resume is lacking for games played simply due to being on bad teams for so long, but the I feel the results were quite strong, if limited in scope. Questions about his goal-surpression ability, but those questions are probably why he has fallen to this point as opposed to being listed already.

Sid Abel. The thing I like most about Abel is that...there's really nothing not to like. Excelled at two positions, considered a strong all-around player and leader, showed great ability as both a goal scorer and a playmaker at various points in his career. Considering him a product of Howe and Lindsay is anachronistic; Abel seems to have been considered the best player of the three up until 1951 or so. Team-MVP level of play on Cup winners before and after the war.

Duncan Keith. Was he any less important to Chicago than Gerard was to Ottawa? No, I don't think so. Like Gerard, he doesn't seem to have aged all that well (Gerard was forced to retire outright rather than actually declining), but he accomplished enough from 2009-2016 that he still belongs. Nobody would have balked if he had three Conn Smythe trophies to his name; an all-time great effort in 2015. Carried what was clearly the thinnest of the three Blackhawks Cup winners to glory.

Dave Keon. There's no getting around the fact that Keon is weak as a scorer for a top 100 player, but there's no debate that he was one of the best defensive forwards of all time. The playoff numbers that Hockey Outsider posted are simply remarkable. One thing that I'm not sure I've seen mentioned yet (forgive me if it has been, I've had to do some skimming and could have missed it), are Keon's unfathomably low penlaty minute totals. Keon almost literally went entire 70 GP seasons without taking a penalty, all the more impressive considering his use in a defensive role.

In the Mix:

Brian Leetch. Another holdover for a few rounds now. I originally had him outside my top 100, but I've been sold that I underrated him a little. The Rangers' rise from 80's also-ran into a contender throughout the 90's and back into the toilet correlates strongly with Leetch's arrival and eventual decline. Messier showing up put them over the top obviously, but Leetch was a premier player for long enough in a deep era to make this list.

Nels Stewart. We're low enough on the list now that I can consider Stewart in the upper echelon of the current candidates on the basis of his great years with the Maroons. Still don't love what he did afterwards where he was notoriously lazy and perhaps somewhat of a compiler, but that's enough for me to rank him over Eric Lindros for example, who wasn't even healthy enough to stick around as a compiler after his peak ended.

Serge Savard. I had him in the top tier coming in, but I think I give the nod to Keith now between these defensemen who were critical pieces of dynasties/near-dynasties. Like Keon, everyone who watched him will attest that his value went far beyond what his awards voting profile would suggest. I like that he could be both an anchor defensively and get the offense started in transition. Maybe not the top 70-ish player I had him pegged at originally, but still a top 100 guy in my eyes.

Joe Thornton. Not exactly a player I expected to end up defending in this process, but here we are. A truly excellent franchise-level player for a long time. I'm still a little mystified that Marcel Dionne got waved home around 60th place or so but the seemingly similar Thornton might not make it at all. Playoffs are poor, but we already knew that, and I think we've sufficiently punished him for it. Not everyone agrees, but in my eyes Thornton was a borderline top-five regular season player in the league for about a decade. Tough to say that about anyone else at this stage.

Mark Howe. I've really been sold on Howe over the years. Not a guy who would have even been on my radar the first time we did this project. I think he's kind of the 80's version of Savard though; everyone who watched him live loved his game. Unlike Savard, he did get recognized in awards voting with three 1st team AST selections. The Flyers were not exactly brimming with Hall of Fame players in the 80's, but nonetheless almost won a couple Cups.

Part II to come...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

As I expect to be otherwise engaged for the remainder of the day, I turned in The Ballot.

Gerard & Toe Blake got last minute micro-bump-ups. Ullman got a last minute nerf-stick.

At least two players whom I believe to be immediately worthy won't make it- and I'm probably throwing some Votes into a headwind. That said, ALL my Votes have represented my best, sincerest impressions of how I believe players should rank- and I'm not going to stop now.

I hope everyone follows this line of thinking. With the expanded field, strategic voting becomes a distinct possibility in this round.

 

[wetcoast]

I hope he finishes above Teemu Selanne in ten years when you're doing this list again.

Some of that depends on what Kane does for the rest of his career as it's unlikely that he will add to his already impressive playoff resume this year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Dave Keon. There's no getting around the fact that Keon is weak as a scorer for a top 100 player, but there's no debate that he was one of the best defensive forwards of all time. The playoff numbers that Hockey Outsider posted are simply remarkable. One thing that I'm not sure I've seen mentioned yet (forgive me if it has been, I've had to do some skimming and could have missed it), are Keon's unfathomably low penlaty minute totals. Keon almost literally went entire 70 GP seasons without taking a penalty, all the more impressive considering his use in a defensive role.

I've read throughout this thread about how weak Keon's scoring record is for a top 100 player. But he did score 396 NHL goals primarily in a low scoring era (Also had 102 goals in the WHA). Keon played 38 more RS games than Henri Richard and scored 38 more goals. He also averaged more goals and points per game than Richard did in the playoffs.

And speaking of not taking penalties, Keon accumulated 6 PIM in 92 playoff games.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Part II

Best of the Rest:

Valeri Vasiliev. Appreciate the efforts made to to lay out his case. I find I'm in general agreement with the sentiment that he's a borderline top 100 guy. Probably won't make it into my top 10 in this voting round, but it's not set in stone. True that he was considered far behind Fetisov among the Soviet defensemen...but Fetisov is an all-timer, no shame in that.

Patrick Kane. The adjusted plus/minus numbers are somewhat disappointing. Kane might be the preeminent clutch goal-scorer of his generation, but it seems his teammates had to do a fair bit of the heavy lifting to get him into that position in the first place. He'll be a top 100 guy when it's all said and done, but I don't think he's a must-include quite yet. I'm on the side of those who tread more cautiously with active players who are still building their legacy.

Tony Esposito. The Joe Thornton of goaltenders it would seem. Initially, I figured his regular season stats might be inflated by Chicago getting moved to the West Division in the early 70's, but the league in fact still played a nearly balanced schedule, despite the re-alignment. 50 shutouts in his first six seasons is very impressive, especially considering his GP numbers were surprisingly low in the early 70's. I don't think he'd be out of place making the cut, but not a guy who needs to make it either.

Peter Stastny. I think he's being a tad underrated here. I was probably over-zealous initially in suspecting that he'd have been a 100-point player for a few seasons before making the NHL. But I'm a little surprised that his supreme offensive ability hasn't had much mention yet. He might actually be the best offensive player available right now. Even in the early 80's, averaging 120 points per season over the course of several seasons is nothing to sneeze at. Especially in the Adams Division playing Boston and Montreal 16 games per season.

Not Quite Feeling It:

Jarome Iginla. The inconsistency in his prime, both overall and within individual seasons, is probably what keeps him out for me. A couple more seasons like 2007 or 2008 and perhaps he sneaks in, but as it stands he comes up short. Calgary imploding down the stretch on multiple occasions is one of those things where a modern player perhaps gets more scrutiny since we actually witnessed and remember it. But as we've seen with Kane, recency-bias can also be beneficial. Give and take.

Norm Ullman. What a strange case this has turned out to be. Contemporary coaches had a lot of great things to say about his ability as a forechecker and all-around player. But man, how are those plus/minus numbers SO bad? Ullman carrying around sub-standard wingers seems partially to explain it, but not fully to my liking. It's also curious that he seems to have been considered one of the most underrated players in the league for a decade...how can you really be underrated in a six-team league where everyone is acknowledging that you're underrated? A lot of logical inconsistencies when it comes to Ullman's case. My mind could change, but I'm leaning towards "no" on his candidacy as a top 100 guy.

Toe Blake. I don't have particularly strong feelings on Blake on way or the other. Of all the guys currently off my ballot, I might be the most open to moving him up if a compelling case is made. He proved his greatness before the war-time Production Line boost, and has reasonably good longevity as an elite player. Contemporary opinion seems to indicate he was the third-best member of the line though. Kind of like Abel, but Sid was ahead of Lindsay and Howe in Hart voting up until 1951. Lach and Richard were always ahead of Blake.

Not Likely Happening:

Eric Lindros. Sorry son, but you have to make it onto the ice. Easily better than almost anyone still available on a per-game basis, but I've tried to be consistent throughout about not liking guys who constantly missed large chunks of time (I had Malkin way lower than where he got voted in, for example). Lindros has some self-inflicted wounds as well. He could have played in 1991-92 and 2000-01 but simply chose not to. It's disappointing that a truly great season in 1998-99 got derailed with the collapsed lung. Lindros/Philadelphia could have easily made it to the Stanley Cup Final that year. Unlike Malkin and Forsberg though, who at least always managed to be healthy for the playoffs, Lindros never was after 1997.

Erik Karlsson. Like I said initially, maybe one day he'll be here, but it's just too soon. I think his Norris record, while great, does overrate him due to the voters propensity to reward point totals. Still, he was a truly great offensive driver at times. Let's see how the next few years go and re-evaluate.

Martin St. Louis. Pretty similar resume to Kane I think, but put up the numbers in a rather favourable environment. Outside of 2004, lacks Kane's clutch playoff scoring track record. I can buy an argument that he has a better case than Iginla, but ranking him ahead of Joe Thornton seems nuts to me. The fact that he even made it to this discussion given where his career stood in 2003 is worthy of applause though. The unlikely underdog who made good when given a chance.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I've read throughout this thread about how weak Keon's scoring record is for a top 100 player. But he did score 396 NHL goals primarily in a low scoring era (Also had 102 goals in the WHA). Keon played 38 more RS games than Henri Richard and scored 38 more goals. He also averaged more goals and points per game than Richard did in the playoffs.

And speaking of not taking penalties, Keon accumulated 6 PIM in 92 playoff games.

I think part of what makes Keon's offensive resume appear weak is that his offense never took off after the 1967 expansion like it did for so many others. In the Original Six era though, I'm in agreement. 25 goal/55 point seasons while being the primary defensive center on a very defensive-oriented team is not what I'd term weak.

Keon taking three minor penalties in 92 playoff games almost defies belief. If there's a player out there whose case can be boosted by disciplined play, it's him. The percentages say that every sixth penalty a player takes costs his team a goal against. Keon took so few that it doesn't seem unreasonable to say his discipline alone was worth a few goals per season compared to other elite players.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Voted