Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 19
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,815
- 16,549
My issue with Kane is -- his deployment throughout his career has been ridiculously easy. I know we don't have that info on all players, but we can't exactly do as if we don't have it for Kane.
I saw Kane as a fringe Top-100 player before this season. ... But that view was obviously informed by the fact that Patrick Kane is, and sorry for the use of such a buzzword, a sheltered player. Always been.
I saw Kane as a fringe Top-100 player before this season. ... But that view was obviously informed by the fact that Patrick Kane is, and sorry for the use of such a buzzword, a sheltered player. Always been.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Disappointing, but obviously real life is more important than hfboards life.
This is why having 2 admins is such a good idea!
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I'm not sure if Eddie Gerard is a top 100 player, but IMO, the biggest case for him is that he showed up prominently in all-time all-star lists of the early era.
From this thread on all-time all-star lists involving pre-WW2 players: All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries
@Theokritos did an analysis of how often players appeared in those all-time lists here: All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries
Summary of Gerard:
20. Eddie Shore
10. Sprague Cleghorn
10. Eddie Gerard
9. Ching Johnson
6. Dit Clapper (4 at D, 2 at RW)
5. King Clancy
5. Lester Patrick
5. Hod Stuart
4. Georges Boucher
4. Earl Seibert
If you go back to the thread, often the listmakers intentionally listed different generations separately. So we probably shouldn't make cross-generational comparisons based on these lists. But I think this is pretty strong evidence that Cleghorn and Gerard were considered the best defensemen of their generation. (But on the other hand, Ching Johnson finished ahead of King Clancy, Dit Clapper, and Earl Seibert so...)
_________________________
A second reason to vote for Gerard - the Cup followed him around.
He won 4 straight Cups from 1920-1923 - 1920, 1921, and 1923 with Ottawa.
In 1921, the Toronto St. Pats beat the Ottawa Senators for the NHL championship and would play PCHA champion Vancouver for the Stanley Cup. But their star defenseman Harry Cameron was injured. Toronto was allowed to pick any NHL player to replace Cameron, and they picked Gerard.
Here is Joe Pelletier's take:
Here is wikipedia's take:
From this thread on all-time all-star lists involving pre-WW2 players: All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries
@Theokritos did an analysis of how often players appeared in those all-time lists here: All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries
Summary of Gerard:
Most all-time lists appeared on by pre-WW2 defensemen (based on theokritos' post):
20. Eddie Shore
10. Sprague Cleghorn
10. Eddie Gerard
9. Ching Johnson
6. Dit Clapper (4 at D, 2 at RW)
5. King Clancy
5. Lester Patrick
5. Hod Stuart
4. Georges Boucher
4. Earl Seibert
If you go back to the thread, often the listmakers intentionally listed different generations separately. So we probably shouldn't make cross-generational comparisons based on these lists. But I think this is pretty strong evidence that Cleghorn and Gerard were considered the best defensemen of their generation. (But on the other hand, Ching Johnson finished ahead of King Clancy, Dit Clapper, and Earl Seibert so...)
_________________________
A second reason to vote for Gerard - the Cup followed him around.
He won 4 straight Cups from 1920-1923 - 1920, 1921, and 1923 with Ottawa.
In 1921, the Toronto St. Pats beat the Ottawa Senators for the NHL championship and would play PCHA champion Vancouver for the Stanley Cup. But their star defenseman Harry Cameron was injured. Toronto was allowed to pick any NHL player to replace Cameron, and they picked Gerard.
Here is Joe Pelletier's take:
Here is wikipedia's take:
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Could we also conversely say that he plays on a donut line...(no center) all the time...
I don't like the game I'm about to play, but here goes...
If we looked back and saw Maurice Richard's center throughout his career was Billy Reay all this time...wouldn't we say, "yeah, for all his warts...he was putting in 40 a year with Billy Reay along for the ride..."
I don't necessarily want to go to bat for Kane, I also know that what you're saying is correct...but does Artem Anisimov and friends really do the trick...? Or is his lackluster centers a function of his form? A case could be made either way, I'm just saying the words out loud...
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,815
- 16,549
I'm in the same boat : I'm not saying his case is bad here (when it's not) and I don't want to make a case "against" him per se.
But Anisimov's minutes with Kane were the easiest of his career, too. And he's pretty much been plain ol' Anisimov as far as production goes. He did have an uptick in 16-17... and that's also the year where his S% was over 20%.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
Yeah, when it comes to plus-minus for forwards, history shows it really helps to have two stars on a line together. See, for example, Eric Lindros’s seasons playing with John Leclair.
Chicago played Jonathan Toews and Marian Hossa together, and they posted big plus-minus numbers together. Kane got the second line matchups but more importantly he also got the second line linemates. It’s harder for a star in Kane’s situation to carry a line to big pluses.
Same point applies to Norm Ullman, playing behind Gordie Howe and Alex Delvecchio.
Dave Keon had really good plus-minus numbers in the playoffs with HHOFer George Armstrong on his line...maybe you wouldn’t call Armstrong a star, but you could compare the Keon-Armstrong duo to Toews-Hossa in recent years.
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
Gotta use that one sometimes.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,354
This is where our difference of opinion lies. I think Thornton's 2006-07 and 2007-08 seasons are just as good as Malkin's 2007-08 and 2008-09 years. Thornton was a more well-rounded player and played in the tougher conference. I think awards voting somewhat underrates Thornton after the big Hart/Ross season. He wasn't flashy, and played way out west at a time when all the "excitement" (Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, later Toews and Kane) was in the east (east-ish in the case of Chicago). He was old news by 2010 or so, while exciting new guys like Stamkos or Tavares were beating him in AST voting, but nobody would have seriously considered them superior overall players.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
This describes Andy Bathgate whose flaws are glossed over. Donut line, no center, weak team, avoids the scrutiny of Patrick Kane. Ranks higher even though 1 SC to Kane's 3 SCs.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,815
- 16,549
There's no evidence of Bathgate being sheltered to this point, though.
And Anisimov's easiest deployment throughout his career has been when lining up with Patrick Kane.
As cited in one of my previous posts, my perspective is that a "Magnificent Seven" has detached itself from the pack and deserves immediate consideration. I'll touch briefly on each, and try to add some thought-
1) Jarome Iginla: He had a 20 year career. In that 20 year career, he played every single damned regular-season game 11 times. Another time, he missed one game. On another occasion, he missed two. For a Power Forward, especially a modern-era one, that's just MegaFreaky. Because he has half-a-decade of mostly relevant NHL experience when at the same age, St Louis was sketching about in the minors, He played 420 more NHL regular season games than St Louis. At this level of the atmosphere, that's more than a third of a career.
Have him at: 1. Would consider going as low as... 3. Podium's non-negotiable for this one.
2) Valeri Vasiliev: For those who don't geek out on Soviet League history, we're discussing the greatest non-NHL Soviet to NOT play for CSKA. And play he did- against as stacked a deck as we'll see here. Seventeen years worth. And STILL the second-best non-NHL Russian Defenseman.
Have him at: 2. Would consider going as high as... 1. Would consider going as low as- 8.
If not this Round, the next one-- but no later. Fie on us if we leave him off the list.
3) Brian Leetch: One of the curious aspects of this Project is that it seems that, in certain quarters, we're all-too-willing to give credit for back-end longevity, but are strangely unimpressed by players who start building up their C.V. as teenagers. I'm not seeing much to make me think that Leetch wouldn't have been NHL-capable as an 18 year old. His cup-of-coffee at age 19 was not quite enough to get the Rangers into the playoffs (missed fractionally on tiebreak). If it had been more than a cup-of-coffee, maybe the matter would not have been left in doubt.
Have him at: 3. Would consider going as high as... 1. Would consider going as low as- 8.
To consider Karlsson ahead of him would just be....
4) Sid Abel: I still feel that O-6 era's a little under-represented- and this man and Gadsby are our last, best options to give that epoch additional representation before we draw the curtain on this discussion.
Have him at 4. Would consider going as high as... 3. Would consider going as low as- 7.
If we advance him this Round, we take the suspense out of the matter.
5) Eric Lindros: He's The Best Player In The World! Spoken about... Eric Lindros. NOT spoken about... anybody else we're talking about right now. Even though I have him just barely squeaking through in this group, I have a much greater fear of underrating him than overrating him.
Have him at 5. Would consider going as high as... 1. Would consider going as low as- 7
6) Bill Gadsby: Kind of blows my mind that we're still discussing him, since (imo) we've advanced more than half-a-dozen players in arrears to him- but that's not to do with the nominees. Still, a top-100 list without Gadsby would look like we gave short-shrift to what should definitively be considered Hockey's most individually challenging era. Like Lindros, more worried about underrating him than overrating him.
Have him at 6. Would consider going as high as... 4. Would consider going as low as- 7.
7) Duncan Keith: Knowledgeable BlackHawks fans know. On a year-to-year basis, Duncan Keith was more important to their hemi-Dynasty than Kane. No knock on Kane- and (for the record) I think Kane should squeak onto this list. Still, looking at the matter through my "Coach/Teammate" lens- I arrive at this- if you're a Coach, you'd rather have Keith. If you're a lunch-pail teammate, you'd rather have Keith.
Have him at 7. Would consider going as high as... 4. Will NOT consider placing him any lower than 7.
While I appreciate the effort above, I also agree with Ted71 and his comments about Howe although the gap might be closer than suggested here.
To me, to consider Brian Leetch ahead of Mark Howe is a
The term "enabler" seems to be team oriented around SC than the individual performances of players listed.
Lots of great similar players with equal playoff efforts played on lesser teams.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Here's where I'm at right now. This will likely change before final voting.
1. Patrick Kane - Underrated by our aggregate list, largely because 2018-19 hadn't happened yet. He could have a season ending injury today, and he'd end up with a regular season resume just short of Teemu Selanne. Kane didn't drive the play in the playoffs as much as Toews or especially Keith, but when Chicago needed a big goal or assist, Kane was a great bet to get it. I do believe Duncan Keith was more important to the "almost dynasty," but Kane has outshone Keith after 2015 enough to take the lead.
2. Joe Thornton - best regular season player left by a decent margin - best offensive stats (whether by top 10 finishes or VsX), best Hart record. Developed into a pretty decent two-way player on top of that. Stunk in the playoffs, but so did a few guys already added.
3. Nels Stewart - fantastic peak at the beginning of his career, and outstanding longevity as a one-way goalscorer afterwards. Shouldn't drop that far below Brett Hull.
4. Duncan Keith - The most important player on the closest thing our modern era has seen to a dynasty. See Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18 from last week for more details
5. Bill Gadsby - I've been accused of being anti-Gadsby in the past. But it's time for him. Best Norris record left among remaining defensemen; while he never really beat Harvey or Kelly in voting, he was "next best" time after time. I flipflopped on him and Leetch, because I like how Gadsby reinvented himself as a defense-first guy in Detroit.
6. Brian Leetch - 3rd defensemen in a row - I intentionally have Keith/Gadsby/Leetch close. Not quite as good as Keith in the playoffs, not as consistent as Gadsby in the regular season, but I find his record to be close. Similar in quality to long-gone Scott Stevens and Al MacInnis when they were all in their primes, but Leetch's prime was quite a bit shorter (still longer than Fedorov or Lindros', however).
7. Norm Ullman - I'm a little lower on Ullman than when the round started, but I still think he belongs in the top 100. Best scorer of the Original 6 period left, and he did a large portion of his scoring at even strength. Usually had weak linemates. Known as an expert forechecker and hard worker all over the ice. Good enough without the puck to be often used in a defensive role, but didn't necessarily excel in that role. In 1968, Punch Imlach called Ullman "the best all-round player I ever coached."
8. Jarome Iginla - Shouldn't be that far behind Mikhailov. Put up solid numbers (compared to the rest of this group) with very little help. His regular season plus/minus ratios (R-on/R-off) are historically strong - like superstar defenseman strong, except Iginla was a forward - mathematically proof that his work in the dirty areas of the ice helped tilt the ice for his team. I strongly disagree with the notion upthread that "nobody would have taken Iginla over Thornton." I think that for a period of at least 5 years, many, if not most, GMs would have preferred Iginla. But Iginla's prime ended and Thornton just kept on going.
9. Martin St. Louis - PROS = second best numbers to Thornton, made his centers better. CONS = tended to bleed goals against (at least in the regular season), put up most of his best seasons in a situation where it was easier to put up good numbers. The two "cons" are enough to drop him just a tad under Iginla for me.
Competing for #10 (in the order listed in the OP):
Eddie Gerard - PROS: Captain and likely 2nd best player on the 1920s Senators dynasty. Gerard and Cleghorn dominate the All-Time All-Star lists from the period. He was so good as an injury replacement for Harry Cameron in 1922 that Lester Patrick withdrew his consent to let Gerard continue playing as one. CONS: Not the greatest longevity. Perhaps his early death led to some "sympathy votes" in those All-Time All-Star teams.
Eric Lindros - PROS: A defining player of his era (how many of those guys are left); perhaps the best "per-game" player left. 2nd best Hart record left (after Thornton). CONS: Poor hockey sense led to frequent injuries (he never played anything close to a full 82 game season until he had become a perimeter player with the Rangers. His best "VsX season" was the lockout shortened 48-game 1995 season, when Lindros managed to not get seriously injured. Was shut down in the playoffs 3 seasons in a row (1995, 1996, 1997) by strong defenses, then never really heard from again.
Erik Karlsson - PRO: Something of a defining player himself; he proved that in the modern game, defensemen could excel offensively in a way that no defenseman of the Lidstrom generation was able to do. CON: Brian Leetch's peak without the decent-but-not-great post-peak years has to go under Leetch right?
Mark Howe - PROS: Even strength numbers are outstanding in both the regular season and playoffs. Best player on a team that lost in the finals a couple of times to a dynasty. CONS: weakest Norris record of any NHL defenseman this round, other than Serge Savard. Had a little trouble staying healthy in his prime (probably the reason for the relatively weak Norris record). His own coach, Mike Keenan, seemed to think Howe was inferior to Chelios, Pronger, and Leetch.
Sid Abel - PROS: Great leader and tough in the corners. Had some of his best years before the Production Line was put together. Lost some peak years to WW2. CONS: His numbers in his last few seasons are likely inflated by playing between Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay; he fell off a cliff as soon as he was traded from Detroit.
Toe Blake - PROS: One of the few players left who was very good at every aspect of the game. Had his best season before the Punch Line was put together. CONS: Raw production a bit under Sid Abel and Norm Ullman. Did have the benefit of playing with Lach and Rocket Richard for much of his career.
Tony Esposito - PRO: Quite simply, the best regular season goalie left. At least Belfour-quality in the regular season, probably a little better. CON: The playoffs. While save-percentage-based stats aren't terrible (See Ed Giacomin), they aren't great, especially when you consider Chicago was the only Original 6 team in the post-expansion Western Conference for a number of years. Had a couple of memorable meltdowns in the playoffs. Not saying it's all his fault, but going 0-16 in 4 straight playoffs from 1976-1979 looks really ugly.
Too soon (unless I see a really good argument):
Dave Keon - His regular season scoring is terrible for a player available at this point. Great ratios in the playoffs, but as Hockey Outsider pointed out, Bergeron and Kopitar have similar ratios. (Counterpoint - it was probably harder to put up good ratios against the compressed competition of the Original 6 period). FWIW, Punch Imlach rated Norm Ullman the better player, as of 1968. Or to put it another way, would Sergei Fedorov without the 1993-94 or 1995-96 regular seasons be a top 100 player?
Peter Stastny - gets a lot of mileage out of being the #2 scorer behind Gretzky in the 1980s. But that's largely because he was a rookie in 1980-81. Dale Hawerchuk was a rookie in 1981-82, and Hawerchuk was #2 behind Gretzky in the decade after his rookie season: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com. Now there are good reasons to rank Stastny over Hawerchuk; I just don't like him over some other guys this round with similar stats, but better all-round games.
Serge Savard - I love everything Savard brings to the table. And I do respect Bowman's opinion of him. But given his distinct lack of offense, I struggle to rate him someone like Gadsby or Mark Howe. And if he's under those guys, how can I find a spot for him? As important as he was to the 70s Canadiens, I don't think he was quite as important as Gerard was to Ottawa or Keith was to Chicago.
Valeri Vasiliev - The hardest player to rank. I'm pretty confident that he should be under fellow non-NHL Euros Maltsev and Martinec. But those two guys aren't available. Still, I struggle to see why he should rate as high as someone like Howe, Leetch, or Karlsson.
1. Patrick Kane - Underrated by our aggregate list, largely because 2018-19 hadn't happened yet. He could have a season ending injury today, and he'd end up with a regular season resume just short of Teemu Selanne. Kane didn't drive the play in the playoffs as much as Toews or especially Keith, but when Chicago needed a big goal or assist, Kane was a great bet to get it. I do believe Duncan Keith was more important to the "almost dynasty," but Kane has outshone Keith after 2015 enough to take the lead.
2. Joe Thornton - best regular season player left by a decent margin - best offensive stats (whether by top 10 finishes or VsX), best Hart record. Developed into a pretty decent two-way player on top of that. Stunk in the playoffs, but so did a few guys already added.
3. Nels Stewart - fantastic peak at the beginning of his career, and outstanding longevity as a one-way goalscorer afterwards. Shouldn't drop that far below Brett Hull.
4. Duncan Keith - The most important player on the closest thing our modern era has seen to a dynasty. See Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18 from last week for more details
5. Bill Gadsby - I've been accused of being anti-Gadsby in the past. But it's time for him. Best Norris record left among remaining defensemen; while he never really beat Harvey or Kelly in voting, he was "next best" time after time. I flipflopped on him and Leetch, because I like how Gadsby reinvented himself as a defense-first guy in Detroit.
6. Brian Leetch - 3rd defensemen in a row - I intentionally have Keith/Gadsby/Leetch close. Not quite as good as Keith in the playoffs, not as consistent as Gadsby in the regular season, but I find his record to be close. Similar in quality to long-gone Scott Stevens and Al MacInnis when they were all in their primes, but Leetch's prime was quite a bit shorter (still longer than Fedorov or Lindros', however).
7. Norm Ullman - I'm a little lower on Ullman than when the round started, but I still think he belongs in the top 100. Best scorer of the Original 6 period left, and he did a large portion of his scoring at even strength. Usually had weak linemates. Known as an expert forechecker and hard worker all over the ice. Good enough without the puck to be often used in a defensive role, but didn't necessarily excel in that role. In 1968, Punch Imlach called Ullman "the best all-round player I ever coached."
8. Jarome Iginla - Shouldn't be that far behind Mikhailov. Put up solid numbers (compared to the rest of this group) with very little help. His regular season plus/minus ratios (R-on/R-off) are historically strong - like superstar defenseman strong, except Iginla was a forward - mathematically proof that his work in the dirty areas of the ice helped tilt the ice for his team. I strongly disagree with the notion upthread that "nobody would have taken Iginla over Thornton." I think that for a period of at least 5 years, many, if not most, GMs would have preferred Iginla. But Iginla's prime ended and Thornton just kept on going.
9. Martin St. Louis - PROS = second best numbers to Thornton, made his centers better. CONS = tended to bleed goals against (at least in the regular season), put up most of his best seasons in a situation where it was easier to put up good numbers. The two "cons" are enough to drop him just a tad under Iginla for me.
Competing for #10 (in the order listed in the OP):
Eddie Gerard - PROS: Captain and likely 2nd best player on the 1920s Senators dynasty. Gerard and Cleghorn dominate the All-Time All-Star lists from the period. He was so good as an injury replacement for Harry Cameron in 1922 that Lester Patrick withdrew his consent to let Gerard continue playing as one. CONS: Not the greatest longevity. Perhaps his early death led to some "sympathy votes" in those All-Time All-Star teams.
Eric Lindros - PROS: A defining player of his era (how many of those guys are left); perhaps the best "per-game" player left. 2nd best Hart record left (after Thornton). CONS: Poor hockey sense led to frequent injuries (he never played anything close to a full 82 game season until he had become a perimeter player with the Rangers. His best "VsX season" was the lockout shortened 48-game 1995 season, when Lindros managed to not get seriously injured. Was shut down in the playoffs 3 seasons in a row (1995, 1996, 1997) by strong defenses, then never really heard from again.
Erik Karlsson - PRO: Something of a defining player himself; he proved that in the modern game, defensemen could excel offensively in a way that no defenseman of the Lidstrom generation was able to do. CON: Brian Leetch's peak without the decent-but-not-great post-peak years has to go under Leetch right?
Mark Howe - PROS: Even strength numbers are outstanding in both the regular season and playoffs. Best player on a team that lost in the finals a couple of times to a dynasty. CONS: weakest Norris record of any NHL defenseman this round, other than Serge Savard. Had a little trouble staying healthy in his prime (probably the reason for the relatively weak Norris record). His own coach, Mike Keenan, seemed to think Howe was inferior to Chelios, Pronger, and Leetch.
Sid Abel - PROS: Great leader and tough in the corners. Had some of his best years before the Production Line was put together. Lost some peak years to WW2. CONS: His numbers in his last few seasons are likely inflated by playing between Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay; he fell off a cliff as soon as he was traded from Detroit.
Toe Blake - PROS: One of the few players left who was very good at every aspect of the game. Had his best season before the Punch Line was put together. CONS: Raw production a bit under Sid Abel and Norm Ullman. Did have the benefit of playing with Lach and Rocket Richard for much of his career.
Tony Esposito - PRO: Quite simply, the best regular season goalie left. At least Belfour-quality in the regular season, probably a little better. CON: The playoffs. While save-percentage-based stats aren't terrible (See Ed Giacomin), they aren't great, especially when you consider Chicago was the only Original 6 team in the post-expansion Western Conference for a number of years. Had a couple of memorable meltdowns in the playoffs. Not saying it's all his fault, but going 0-16 in 4 straight playoffs from 1976-1979 looks really ugly.
Too soon (unless I see a really good argument):
Dave Keon - His regular season scoring is terrible for a player available at this point. Great ratios in the playoffs, but as Hockey Outsider pointed out, Bergeron and Kopitar have similar ratios. (Counterpoint - it was probably harder to put up good ratios against the compressed competition of the Original 6 period). FWIW, Punch Imlach rated Norm Ullman the better player, as of 1968. Or to put it another way, would Sergei Fedorov without the 1993-94 or 1995-96 regular seasons be a top 100 player?
Peter Stastny - gets a lot of mileage out of being the #2 scorer behind Gretzky in the 1980s. But that's largely because he was a rookie in 1980-81. Dale Hawerchuk was a rookie in 1981-82, and Hawerchuk was #2 behind Gretzky in the decade after his rookie season: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com. Now there are good reasons to rank Stastny over Hawerchuk; I just don't like him over some other guys this round with similar stats, but better all-round games.
Serge Savard - I love everything Savard brings to the table. And I do respect Bowman's opinion of him. But given his distinct lack of offense, I struggle to rate him someone like Gadsby or Mark Howe. And if he's under those guys, how can I find a spot for him? As important as he was to the 70s Canadiens, I don't think he was quite as important as Gerard was to Ottawa or Keith was to Chicago.
Valeri Vasiliev - The hardest player to rank. I'm pretty confident that he should be under fellow non-NHL Euros Maltsev and Martinec. But those two guys aren't available. Still, I struggle to see why he should rate as high as someone like Howe, Leetch, or Karlsson.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Two more defensemen:
Eddie Gerard. I'm probably more appreciative of Gerard than most guys (he's a defenseman, and he played 100 years ago), but like TDMM, I'm not 100% sure he's a top-100 player. I was one of the people who kick-started the appreciation of Gerard in an off-hfboards ATD in 2008, while at hfboards he had just risen from 361st to 204th, and has now plateaued at 89th-102nd the past seven drafts. He seems to be a player you "really had to be there" to appreciate. Very much like Serge Savard in that respect. I don't know if it's fair to say cups "followed him around"; if anything, the cup followed Nighbor around. His career was extremely short - just nine years in a time when quite a few elite defensemen were able to play forever (Cleghorn, Johnson, Hall, Patrick, Boucher, Cameron all played 14-20 years). Would someone like to take a stab at what Gerard's all-star voting record would look like? It would be nice to get a sense for what the quality of his short peak was, in order to know what we should think of him with relation to guys like Keith, Karlsson and Leetch. I know it's really difficult considering offense should not be that important in such things, and that's half of what we have (the other half being his team's defensive performance, knowing he played most/all of the minutes).
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.
Centers:
Nels Stewart. There's lots to not like, but there's also lots to like. For starters, are we going to keep out the only multiple Hart winner remaining? He's also a top-5 finisher one other time, not exactly insignificant at this point in the process. He's a two-time goals leader, one-time points leader, and is probably the best example after Newsy Lalonde, of a player who didn't always lead in goals and/or points, but was always right there in the mix, year after year, for a very long time. He hit the ground running as an NHL rookie, and if that makes you wonder how much earlier he could have been a good NHL player, you're barking up the right tree. For three seasons prior to his NHL debut at 23, he was a very dominant scorer in the USAHA, a very strong league whose Pittsburgh Yellowjackets, almost player-for-player became the NHL's Pirates in 1925-26 and went 19-16-1. By my rough league-equivalency numbers, I give him scores of 77, 75 and 73, which fall just outside of his top-10 seasons and should not in any way move the needle for what you think of his peak, but do significantly add to his already impressive longevity case. If you're wondering whether having a big, slow, poor defensively, bully of a center was a winning strategy for his teams, the Maroons were 20 games over .500 in 7 seasons with him, and the Bruins were 13 games over in 3 more seasons, before he went to the Americans, who were, of course, never good. On the other hand, when games got tighter and competition got tougher, Stewart's teams were 21-27-6 in the playoffs, which is not great, but it's both better and worse if you break it up into two parts: 8-5-4 through 1928, and 13-22-2 after that. Stewart played in a time where award voters and reporters were not going to just be seduced by stats and send votes and platitudes to the highest scorers - we see evidence of that all over the place. But Stewart passed the eye test enough to end up with the best individual trophy case of his era and arguably all-time too, among available players, that is. He was a highly significant player to his era, and yes, all-time as well. He has to be on the list.
Norm Ullman. This one may be a little detailed, so allow me to break from my usual "one paragraph" format just this once.
offense: Back in the day before quantitative measures like VsX were a thing, and we counted up top-10 finishes as a way of explaining dominance, Ullman looked outstanding. Eight times in the top-10 in points, and seven more times in the top-20 for a total of 15 significant seasons. And then some people would say, "yeah, but it was the original six, there were 18 first line spots, of course Ullman was going to be in the top-20!" But, 1) playing and excelling in the O6 environment is a plus, not a minus, 2) Ullman was usually not a first line player, 3) When we shifted to quantitative measures like VsX, Ullman still looked rather excellent. Definitely some shine comes off of his 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1964 seasons from 10th-19th in scoring, but it also highlights how his 16th in 1963 and his 17th in 1972 are really not to be ignored and are just as significant as his pair of 12ths in 1960 and 1969. He was a very significant scorer for a very long time.
I think the more you look at his offense, though, the more you like it. For a few reasons:
- Ullman did not get a chance to shine on the PP nearly as much as some players. On the most recent and complete spreadsheet that I have (1960-2017), he is 57th in points by forwards. Out of the top-100 (down to players with 869 points), he is 81st in PP usage: 51%. That is still a good number for PP usage, but the average for players of this ilk is 61% and more than a quarter of them are up over 70%. Ullman's usage on the PP was more like that of Pat Verbeek, Rod Brind'Amour and Bobby Smith, than guys like hawerchuk (72%), Federko (72%), Stastny (71%), and Thornton (69%). (only Muller, Thomas, Roberts and Hunter on this list are below 44%).
- So you must be thinking, to end up with those kinds of raw offensive totals despite stunted PP opportunities, he must have been excellent at even strength. You would be absolutely right; he was excellent at even strength. Out of 927 forwards with 500+ games on this spreadsheet, Ullman is 18th in ESP/80. The players ahead of him are Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Bobby Hull, Forsberg, Lindros, Jagr, Malkin, Bossy, Ovechkin, Bure, Richard, Sakic, Esposito, Kane, Beliveau, and Howe - a mix of very dominant full-career players, and a few guys who are all-prime like Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, and to a lesser extent, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin and Kane, the latter two who will almost certainly drop below his number once they've played 1100+ games themselves. He's also not-insignificantly ahead of Yzerman, Bathgate, Dionne, Brett Hull, Selanne, Kurri, and Fedorov, just to name a few already-inducted players (not to mention currently available names Stastny, St. Louis and Iginla).
- Now, don't forget, these are full-career numbers. Ullman amassed these even-strength figures over a very long career (over 1100 games captured by this spreadsheet). If we were to just isolate everyone's best 7 or 10 seasons as an even strength scorer, Ullman would look even better: He has an excellent string of ES points finishes: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7, strangely enough, with another half dozen in the 9th-12th range, including one in his 2nd last NHL season in 1974 at the age of 38.
- Ullman's linemate situation left a lot to be desired. For most of his career, he was by far the best player on his line and had to do it all himself at even strength. On the PP, he surely had some opportunities with Howe and others, but his linemates were often glorified checkers like Floyd Smith, who he elevated to secondary scorer-status. If Ullman wasn't participating in the offense, it wasn't going in. Out of that same list of 927 forwards from 1960-2017 with 500 games, Ullman is 40th in his offensive participation score of 79% - so he participated in 79% of the even strength goals that his team scored with him on the ice. Elite players by this metric tend to be pretty tightly packed, but he looks the best among this group by this metric: Iginla is the closest at 78%, St. Louis and Lindros are at 77% and Stastny is at 75%. Only Thornton ties him at 79%. In case you are wondering if this stat is in any way meaningful, yes, the elite players rise to the top - the highest are Crosby, Beliveau, Elias, Malkin and Gretzky, while enforcers occupy the bottom spots.
Given his unique situation, I find his offensive record to be the most impressive of all forwards in this round. Imagine Thornton or St. Louis with 2nd/3rd line caliber linemates and restricted PP usage. Imagine them doing that in the Original six era!
defense: many quotes from throughout Ullman's career paint him as a very hard-working, highly conscientious defensive player. This bio here: ATD2011 Bio Thread contains most, but not all of what I dug up on him a few years prior. It's nothing but highly complementary. He was not Dave Keon or Henri Richard, but his defensive game, by the eye test, leaves little to be desired. Ullman would be the 2nd/3rd best defensive forward available in this round, well behind Keon and virtually tied with Abel - with no one else even close.
playoffs: Unfortunately for Ullman, it's feast and famine. If you look at a metric like playoff VsX, which zeroes in specifically on his five best playoffs, then he looks excellent, because his 1st-1st-2nd in playoff scoring give him scores of 136, 100, 100, and a five year score of 89. On the other hand, outside of those five seasons he has 21 points in 56 games. It results in a mixed bag playoff record that resulted in no cups, and a stat line of 83 points in 106 games, which is actually pretty decent overall - a better scoring rate than Keon and Richard, and just short of Delvecchio and Mahovlich. The R
n and Rff numbers don't look great for him, though. His goals against totals couldn't have been great to end up with ratios like that. On the other hand, he was often a matchup center and his linemates were nowhere near his level, so he carried the brunt of the responsibilities in all three zones, and was usually not as good as the guy he was up against. When you consider we're talking about the #1 centers on original six playoff teams, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
other: It was mentioned that he was a #2 center. Let's get serious here. While it's true that he was usually a second liner, thanks to the desire to spread the scoring out in Detroit's lineup, this does not mean he was not one of the NHL's best six centers. Of course he was no Mikita, Beliveau or Richard, but for the majority of his prime he would be the next name you'd come up with in the conversation of best centers. And despite not having the benefit of the "easier" aspects of being a top line center (better linemates, more icetime, guaranteed top unit PP), he did have to face some of the tougher aspects of it (like carrying weaker linemates while going up against top units). Don't forget that after Ullman was traded to Toronto, he became their #1, all-around, all-situations center, and Punch Imlach called him the best center he ever coached. At 33-39, he put up a 1.17 GF/GA ratio while the Leafs were merely even (1.00) with him off the ice. Indeed, he came out positive for his career (1.03-1.00) despite having the Gordie Howe/Alex Delvecchio tandem as an off-ice comparable for half the time covered by those numbers. Yes, Ullman was a difference maker and he absolutely belongs in the last ten spots here.
more to come later.
Eddie Gerard. I'm probably more appreciative of Gerard than most guys (he's a defenseman, and he played 100 years ago), but like TDMM, I'm not 100% sure he's a top-100 player. I was one of the people who kick-started the appreciation of Gerard in an off-hfboards ATD in 2008, while at hfboards he had just risen from 361st to 204th, and has now plateaued at 89th-102nd the past seven drafts. He seems to be a player you "really had to be there" to appreciate. Very much like Serge Savard in that respect. I don't know if it's fair to say cups "followed him around"; if anything, the cup followed Nighbor around. His career was extremely short - just nine years in a time when quite a few elite defensemen were able to play forever (Cleghorn, Johnson, Hall, Patrick, Boucher, Cameron all played 14-20 years). Would someone like to take a stab at what Gerard's all-star voting record would look like? It would be nice to get a sense for what the quality of his short peak was, in order to know what we should think of him with relation to guys like Keith, Karlsson and Leetch. I know it's really difficult considering offense should not be that important in such things, and that's half of what we have (the other half being his team's defensive performance, knowing he played most/all of the minutes).
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.
Centers:
Nels Stewart. There's lots to not like, but there's also lots to like. For starters, are we going to keep out the only multiple Hart winner remaining? He's also a top-5 finisher one other time, not exactly insignificant at this point in the process. He's a two-time goals leader, one-time points leader, and is probably the best example after Newsy Lalonde, of a player who didn't always lead in goals and/or points, but was always right there in the mix, year after year, for a very long time. He hit the ground running as an NHL rookie, and if that makes you wonder how much earlier he could have been a good NHL player, you're barking up the right tree. For three seasons prior to his NHL debut at 23, he was a very dominant scorer in the USAHA, a very strong league whose Pittsburgh Yellowjackets, almost player-for-player became the NHL's Pirates in 1925-26 and went 19-16-1. By my rough league-equivalency numbers, I give him scores of 77, 75 and 73, which fall just outside of his top-10 seasons and should not in any way move the needle for what you think of his peak, but do significantly add to his already impressive longevity case. If you're wondering whether having a big, slow, poor defensively, bully of a center was a winning strategy for his teams, the Maroons were 20 games over .500 in 7 seasons with him, and the Bruins were 13 games over in 3 more seasons, before he went to the Americans, who were, of course, never good. On the other hand, when games got tighter and competition got tougher, Stewart's teams were 21-27-6 in the playoffs, which is not great, but it's both better and worse if you break it up into two parts: 8-5-4 through 1928, and 13-22-2 after that. Stewart played in a time where award voters and reporters were not going to just be seduced by stats and send votes and platitudes to the highest scorers - we see evidence of that all over the place. But Stewart passed the eye test enough to end up with the best individual trophy case of his era and arguably all-time too, among available players, that is. He was a highly significant player to his era, and yes, all-time as well. He has to be on the list.
Norm Ullman. This one may be a little detailed, so allow me to break from my usual "one paragraph" format just this once.
offense: Back in the day before quantitative measures like VsX were a thing, and we counted up top-10 finishes as a way of explaining dominance, Ullman looked outstanding. Eight times in the top-10 in points, and seven more times in the top-20 for a total of 15 significant seasons. And then some people would say, "yeah, but it was the original six, there were 18 first line spots, of course Ullman was going to be in the top-20!" But, 1) playing and excelling in the O6 environment is a plus, not a minus, 2) Ullman was usually not a first line player, 3) When we shifted to quantitative measures like VsX, Ullman still looked rather excellent. Definitely some shine comes off of his 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1964 seasons from 10th-19th in scoring, but it also highlights how his 16th in 1963 and his 17th in 1972 are really not to be ignored and are just as significant as his pair of 12ths in 1960 and 1969. He was a very significant scorer for a very long time.
I think the more you look at his offense, though, the more you like it. For a few reasons:
- Ullman did not get a chance to shine on the PP nearly as much as some players. On the most recent and complete spreadsheet that I have (1960-2017), he is 57th in points by forwards. Out of the top-100 (down to players with 869 points), he is 81st in PP usage: 51%. That is still a good number for PP usage, but the average for players of this ilk is 61% and more than a quarter of them are up over 70%. Ullman's usage on the PP was more like that of Pat Verbeek, Rod Brind'Amour and Bobby Smith, than guys like hawerchuk (72%), Federko (72%), Stastny (71%), and Thornton (69%). (only Muller, Thomas, Roberts and Hunter on this list are below 44%).
- So you must be thinking, to end up with those kinds of raw offensive totals despite stunted PP opportunities, he must have been excellent at even strength. You would be absolutely right; he was excellent at even strength. Out of 927 forwards with 500+ games on this spreadsheet, Ullman is 18th in ESP/80. The players ahead of him are Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Bobby Hull, Forsberg, Lindros, Jagr, Malkin, Bossy, Ovechkin, Bure, Richard, Sakic, Esposito, Kane, Beliveau, and Howe - a mix of very dominant full-career players, and a few guys who are all-prime like Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, and to a lesser extent, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin and Kane, the latter two who will almost certainly drop below his number once they've played 1100+ games themselves. He's also not-insignificantly ahead of Yzerman, Bathgate, Dionne, Brett Hull, Selanne, Kurri, and Fedorov, just to name a few already-inducted players (not to mention currently available names Stastny, St. Louis and Iginla).
- Now, don't forget, these are full-career numbers. Ullman amassed these even-strength figures over a very long career (over 1100 games captured by this spreadsheet). If we were to just isolate everyone's best 7 or 10 seasons as an even strength scorer, Ullman would look even better: He has an excellent string of ES points finishes: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7, strangely enough, with another half dozen in the 9th-12th range, including one in his 2nd last NHL season in 1974 at the age of 38.
- Ullman's linemate situation left a lot to be desired. For most of his career, he was by far the best player on his line and had to do it all himself at even strength. On the PP, he surely had some opportunities with Howe and others, but his linemates were often glorified checkers like Floyd Smith, who he elevated to secondary scorer-status. If Ullman wasn't participating in the offense, it wasn't going in. Out of that same list of 927 forwards from 1960-2017 with 500 games, Ullman is 40th in his offensive participation score of 79% - so he participated in 79% of the even strength goals that his team scored with him on the ice. Elite players by this metric tend to be pretty tightly packed, but he looks the best among this group by this metric: Iginla is the closest at 78%, St. Louis and Lindros are at 77% and Stastny is at 75%. Only Thornton ties him at 79%. In case you are wondering if this stat is in any way meaningful, yes, the elite players rise to the top - the highest are Crosby, Beliveau, Elias, Malkin and Gretzky, while enforcers occupy the bottom spots.
Given his unique situation, I find his offensive record to be the most impressive of all forwards in this round. Imagine Thornton or St. Louis with 2nd/3rd line caliber linemates and restricted PP usage. Imagine them doing that in the Original six era!
defense: many quotes from throughout Ullman's career paint him as a very hard-working, highly conscientious defensive player. This bio here: ATD2011 Bio Thread contains most, but not all of what I dug up on him a few years prior. It's nothing but highly complementary. He was not Dave Keon or Henri Richard, but his defensive game, by the eye test, leaves little to be desired. Ullman would be the 2nd/3rd best defensive forward available in this round, well behind Keon and virtually tied with Abel - with no one else even close.
playoffs: Unfortunately for Ullman, it's feast and famine. If you look at a metric like playoff VsX, which zeroes in specifically on his five best playoffs, then he looks excellent, because his 1st-1st-2nd in playoff scoring give him scores of 136, 100, 100, and a five year score of 89. On the other hand, outside of those five seasons he has 21 points in 56 games. It results in a mixed bag playoff record that resulted in no cups, and a stat line of 83 points in 106 games, which is actually pretty decent overall - a better scoring rate than Keon and Richard, and just short of Delvecchio and Mahovlich. The R
n and Rff numbers don't look great for him, though. His goals against totals couldn't have been great to end up with ratios like that. On the other hand, he was often a matchup center and his linemates were nowhere near his level, so he carried the brunt of the responsibilities in all three zones, and was usually not as good as the guy he was up against. When you consider we're talking about the #1 centers on original six playoff teams, that's not necessarily a bad thing. other: It was mentioned that he was a #2 center. Let's get serious here. While it's true that he was usually a second liner, thanks to the desire to spread the scoring out in Detroit's lineup, this does not mean he was not one of the NHL's best six centers. Of course he was no Mikita, Beliveau or Richard, but for the majority of his prime he would be the next name you'd come up with in the conversation of best centers. And despite not having the benefit of the "easier" aspects of being a top line center (better linemates, more icetime, guaranteed top unit PP), he did have to face some of the tougher aspects of it (like carrying weaker linemates while going up against top units). Don't forget that after Ullman was traded to Toronto, he became their #1, all-around, all-situations center, and Punch Imlach called him the best center he ever coached. At 33-39, he put up a 1.17 GF/GA ratio while the Leafs were merely even (1.00) with him off the ice. Indeed, he came out positive for his career (1.03-1.00) despite having the Gordie Howe/Alex Delvecchio tandem as an off-ice comparable for half the time covered by those numbers. Yes, Ullman was a difference maker and he absolutely belongs in the last ten spots here.
more to come later.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,863
- 16,358
kane played with toews in the 2009 season (including the run to the conference finals), half of the 2010 regular season (+ the cup run), and all of 2011. then they were split up before being reunited for the second half of the 2013 cup run (i.e., kane's conn smythe run).
he also almost always had patrick sharp on his line up to 2013.
i don't know what exactly to make of this information though. i'm tempted to make the argument that kane's offense explodes once he is "freed" from the top opposition he would have faced on toews' line but that isn't actually true; he doesn't explode until a few years after he and toews are separated.
and what do we make of panarin in 2016 and '17? sharp and panarin aren't centers (most of the time) but they are very good legitimate first line players.
yeah that's not how i remember 2008 and 2009 thornton at all. there's a chance i just can't separate playoff thornton from regular season thornton but honestly i don't think most of the time regular season thornton was really on the malkin level. but then again that might also be a function of him sometimes making it look so easy that you wonder why he's hovering around eric staal-level production instead of contending for the art ross.
it boggles my mind how early selanne went when we currently have these two very good, nearly direct comparables to him, both of whom are imo better than him.
how can we reconcile howe's inferior norris record relative to gadsby, leetch, and keith with his superior hart record?
and speaking of hart records and what they're worth, zero hart placements above 5% for stastny, two for savard (3rd and 5th), one for hawerchuk (2nd). stastny has one close call, hawerchuk has two (all in the 4-5% range).
also, 2AST for savard, 2AST and 3AST for hawerchuk, three 3ASTs for stastny. savard and stastny both have semi-meaningful 4ASTs.
a sign that awards placements should be taken with a grain of salt? i always had these three guys stastny > hawerchuk > savard, but i could go either way on hawerchuk and savard. stastny a little higher than the other two because he just scored a little more in his prime, and hawerchuk was the more complete player than savard and had the best longevity as a point producer of the three. but otoh while hawerchuk has decent excuses for his playoff record, savard has a legitimately great playoff record.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
ted2019
History of Hockey
Or Mark Howe never agreed with the way Mike Keenan did things, so Keenan isn't too fond of Howe. Howe played 91.8 % of the games available during his prime with the Flyers. He missed games just like everyone else.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Doesn't this flatter Leetch? Like, a lot? I can't shake the thought that his playoff career mirrors Ovechkin's at this point, with a few more 0 GP seasons replacing a few 7-12 GP seasons.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,122
- 2,652
I was going to say that was going to look ugly after a while but it already looks ugly IMO.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Hawerchuk has excuses, but Savard has..... What's the opposite of excuses? My God, but did he rack up the points against some bad Norris division opponents (compared to what some others had to face every year)
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,863
- 16,358
i do wonder whether too much is being made here of an isolated keenan quote.
from what we know, keenan skated howe into the ground the same way he later would with chelios, leetch, and pronger. and the results, individual and team, are similar too, except obviously keenan's stint in st. louis.
for example,
One of Keenan’s first moves was to pair Howe and McCrimmon to anchor the defense of a very young Flyers team. The pair clicked and began a three year run of dominance. Although no TOI stats are available, it wasn’t uncommon for Howe and McCrimmon to skate half the game.
and,
Howe is out there, moving in one of his several different speeds, and quietly. That's why he is the non-star, the player who the Flyers trust will never break down.
''It is a very comforting feeling,'' said his coach, Mike Keenan, ''that when I start writing down my lineup, I can start with Mark.''
^ actually that whole second article is worth a read. it also includes howe's comments on keenan's tactics.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,863
- 16,358
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
