I haven't done this before during the project, but this is one hell of an interesting round, so here are some thoughts on the candidates:
(these are in order, roughly speaking, and based only on my thoughts at the moment)
Goalies:
Tony Esposito. So, it seems we either put one goalie into the 90-100 slot, and that goalie will be Tony Esposito, or we don't do it at all. Looking back at my original list, which I've done rarely (if ever) in the past few months, it seems I had Vezina, Benedict, Gardiner and Worters within six spots from 79-84, and then a huge gap, and then Belfour and Esposito back to back at 102 and 103. With Worters having no chance at this point, and Belfour already in, it seems Espo is my favourite goalie remaining who can realistically make the list. And yet... I'm not
that high on him. He seems like the very definition of a borderline top-100 candidate. Is he the Joe Thornton of goalies? His regular season record smacks of a guy who should have been on this list months ago. His playoff record... spotty. I haven't had enough time to go over Mike Farkas' numbers to know if there's anything useful in there about his clutch ability. I know that his W/L record is not great. I can tell you that his playoff sv% is actually above the league average over the same period, by nine points: .903 vs. a weighted .894. Even if you remove 1971, by far his most successful individual run, his remaining years are .897 versus a weighted league average of .894. So don't let anyone tell you he was terrible individually in the playoffs - he wasn't. And as HO already mentioned, his teams gave him abysmal goal support, perhaps the worst of all-time. Still, there were times he could have done more, like 1975 and 1978. (to be fair, Hasek, Roy, Hall and Brodeur all have one first round exit with numbers just as bad, and Sawchuk has four). If we add another goalie, it should be him, but should we add another goalie?
Defensemen:
Mark Howe. Howe was just an outstanding player. He passes the eye test for everyone who has seen him, and his award support is something special at this point in the project. The numbers demonstrate a high level of proficiency in keeping the puck moving in the direction of the other team's net and not his own. He was his own team's best player for basically a six-year period (was it even close??) and let's be honest, it's difficult sometimes for a defenseman to earn that distinction even when he does deserve it. Furthermore, that team went to two finals only to lose to a dynasty, and went to a third conference final. Is it safe to say that he had the same impact as a player like Erik Karlsson, and the only reason he doesn't have the same glittery 1-1-2-2 Norris record is the competition that existed at the high end of the Norris race, and handful of missed games during his peak seasons? Granted, he did not have the same offensive impact: Best VsXD scores are 113-100-91-86-78 compared to Karlsson's 147-134-127-116-110. But his overall value, including his defensive game, might make him just as good. Even if that's not true, and you concede Karlsson had a better peak (I do), his overall body of work is still 2.1X the size of Karlsson's so I can't see me possibly putting Erik ahead of him at this point. I've seen observers from the 80s call him an "offenseman" as a backhanded comment about his defensive game, and refer to the fact that he played some forward to downplay his offensive numbers, but neither criticism is fair, is it? He had a strongly proven ability to not get scored on, and his time as a forward was in the WHA, and for a season or two on the penalty kill in the NHL (where you can't pump up your scoring numbers, and even if it gave him an advantage it hardly seems fair to discount what are the most difficult-to-score points in all of hockey) Howe is underrated everywhere except here, and there's a reason for that - he's an analyst's hockey player, a historian's hockey player.
Bill Gadsby. It's time for him to get in - if not this round, then certainly the next. I think he's taken a tumble, some of it fairly, but at this point his norris record smokes just about any other defenseman. I find it laughable that the fact that he made an all-star team with just 12 points is somehow a point against him - if he wasn't contributing much offense (he played no PP time that season), then obviously the voters must have thought highly of his defensive play - the thing we should
actually be judging defensemen by. Like the rest of you, I'm not thrilled about his playoff record - and it is concerning that he was the top defenseman on so many bad defensive teams. But he passed the eye test enough to make seven all-star teams, and for at least the middle five of them, he was truly an all-around, all-situations blueliner. The new gamesheet data released by the NHL unfortunately only covers Gadsby from age 32 to 38, and it's not pretty that he was a -62 in those 7 years (adjusted to -77 as those teams were actually above water with him on the bench), but I trust that the coaches knew what they were doing when they kept throwing him out there as much as they did: Aside from a low of 42% in 1961, Gadsby was on the ice for 47-51% of his team's ES goals for and against, and was used heavily either on the PP (100% usage in 1960 and 1961), the PK (58-85% usage in 1962-1966) or both (1962, 1963) - This translates to an average of about 29 minutes per game over his final six NHL seasons - so you could say that, like Brian Leetch, he was heavily over-utilized in his 30s and the personal results weren't great; however, the Red Wings did find a way to three Stanley Cup finals using a 35-38 year old, extremely heavily used Bill Gadsby as their #1. I don't necessarily think it's bad that he's still out there, but it would be a major crime for him to miss this list entirely.
Brian Leetch. Maybe it was me just trying to be contrarian, thinking that I could put Karlsson ahead of Leetch. It seems that may be a bit of a stretch. Like Mark Howe's best Norris finishes, you can probably say that Leetch's 1-1-3-4 is pretty easily comparable to a 1-1-2-2 in an era less cluttered at the top end with elite defensemen. And surprisingly, his offensive peak is not that far off of Karlsson's: 137-134-126-104-100 is just a bit behind Karlsson's bests of 147-134-127-116-110. I think it's really easy to say that Karlsson
could have achieved as much in the playoffs in his half career, as Leetch did in his entire career, if he only had a half-decent team to take along with him, but Leetch did have that team and he did get there with them.
On the other hand, Smythe aside, are we all that impressed with a playoff resume with one cup/smythe, one trip to the 3rd round and a bunch of other 10-13 game runs? Sounds awfully similar to the playoff record of a modern guy who's been a major letdown in the playoffs, and a recent Smythe hasn't washed that stink off. Leetch doesn't seem to get the same treatment - is it because the Smythe happened first, and the disappointing part mostly came after?
Erik Karlsson. I'm looking at my original list around the 85-100 range and I can't find him. What gives? I'm sure I had him in here. Oh well, I guess not. Wait, what's that up there at #60? Erik Karlsson? Whoops. That's a bit of a head-scratcher, because now I can't even get my head around getting him over some similar full career guys like Howe and Leetch. But make no mistake - Karlsson is the highest peak defenseman left, and it's not close. The idea that he can't, or doesn't play defense is mistaken. While it's true that in his own end he can be average, he makes sure he spends as little time in his own end as possible, and all that matters is that you don't get scored on, not how you do it. This season, among defensemen who have played at least half the season, Karlsson allows the 6th fewest shot attempts, 8th in fenwick, 27th fewest actual shots, and is smack dab in the middle of the league in high danger chances against - this points to a gambler-type player who wears the opposition down with volume, and plays the odds that his style of play will win out more often - and it does. What's interesting, is that the more you "zero in" on the type of chances he surrenders, the "worse" he looks, but by no means does he look bad. The attention he has gotten since 2011 cannot simply be brushed off as "he scores a lot of points!" It is not just that - his Norrises were NOT just smoke-and-mirrors, high point totals driven Mike Green/Lubomir Visnovsky -type recognition - he checked all the boxes. He was trusted with a ton of ice time by his team. He dominated the possession game. He scored a ton of points
at even strength. This is not easy for the vast majority of NHL defensemen. He passed the eye test with flying colors. If you like high peaks, if you think Eric Lindros belongs on this list then you should be voting Erik Karlsson in, too.
Duncan Keith. Well, this is a tough one, because we are running out of room, and we really would look silly not representing the team that is the closest thing we've had to a dynasty since 1990. I think I lean towards Keith, and I sure did on my original list, but he's really in decline, while Patrick Kane just keeps making himself tougher and tougher to ignore, especially when you compare him directly to other wingers in this round. Keith has an outstanding playoff record - better than anyone else above, and arguably also better than the guy listed below. His Norris record underrates him - I think that just based on reputation, stature in the league, level of play - think an "annual THN rankings" mindset, that ranks the best players, and not just who had the best season - Keith would be a top-5 defenseman for a continuous period of 8 years. But then, couldn't I say the exact same thing about Howe, Leetch, Gadsby and Karlsson? They didn't finish top-5 in Norris voting every year like clockwork, but their level of play merited the title "top-5 defenseman" for about that long. So I don't know that "forgiving" him for his lacklustre norris record really gains him any ground in this field. It's his playoff record that is either going to do it for you or not.
Serge Savard. As the guy who did the most extensive Serge Savard bio ever put together on this board, (it's here, but I don't know how to access it - the links got screwed up in the site migration and the bio thread gives errors at page 4 and beyond:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=129564529&postcount=82), I can say he is underrated and is much, much better than a guy with "just one 2nd all-star team". His reputation as an all-time great with the media far exceeds that. Not to mention,
even during his career it was suggested that he was underrated, didn't get enough recognition and didn't get as many votes for the Norris as he deserved. But where were these same media figures when it was time to vote on the Norris and postseason all-star teams? I can be mighty forgiving of a weaker point in his resume, but to an extent. Even as underrated as he was, he was behind Orr, Potvin, Robinson, Park and Salming in his own era so it seems like yet another defenseman from this time would be overkill when we've yet to recognize more than just Chara from the active guys.
jeez, that's only 7? OK, I give up for now. I'll get to forwards later on.
.
