Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2 (Back in the Habit)

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Very interesting,@MXD

I wonder if the introduction of the Art Ross Trophy in 47-48 (and the attached $$$ bonuses) helped lead to the standardization of assist recording not all that long thereafter.

No it did not. There were many situations that stayed open to interpretation.

Using non-contentious examples.

Goalies getting assists remained rare well into the post expansion era. Today goalies get touch assists just like skaters. Previously goalies rarely received assists unless they made a non-goalie type play. Rebound save to a teammate resulting in a rush or pass goal would not produce an assist since making a save was a goalie move.

Own goals other than inadvertent deflections of shots were always unassisted. Inadvertent was open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Can’t really see a comparison between a player from the 1930’s being compared to Crosby. Nevertheless Crosby beats him in every metric regardless
 

overg

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
1,228
235
Indianapolis, IN
Visit site
How much weight, if any, is everyone giving to the fact that Hasek's reign of dominance came while both Roy and Brodeur were in the league? Especially compared to Roy, who is actually a few months younger than Hasek?

I dunno, but when two players' careers overlap that much, and one so decisively outplayed the other for a period of years, that just seems like it should be a bigger factor than it has been.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
How much weight, if any, is everyone giving to the fact that Hasek's reign of dominance came while both Roy and Brodeur were in the league? Especially compared to Roy, who is actually a few months younger than Hasek?

I dunno, but when two players' careers overlap that much, and one so decisively outplayed the other for a period of years, that just seems like it should be a bigger factor than it has been.

It should absolutely be factored in.
It's odd, but without Hasek, Roy would've had a MUCH better claim at #4.
 

Tuna Tatarrrrrr

Here Is The Legendary Rat Of HFBoards! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jun 13, 2012
1,978
1,987
Can’t really see a comparison between a player from the 1930’s being compared to Crosby. Nevertheless Crosby beats him in every metric regardless
LOL the classic case that players of the past were AHL caliber compared to players of today... :rolleyes:

I don't think Crosby was better than the great Rocket Richard in goal scoring department especially in the playoffs.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
How much weight, if any, is everyone giving to the fact that Hasek's reign of dominance came while both Roy and Brodeur were in the league? Especially compared to Roy, who is actually a few months younger than Hasek?

I dunno, but when two players' careers overlap that much, and one so decisively outplayed the other for a period of years, that just seems like it should be a bigger factor than it has been.

Most important metric overall results say otherwise.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,604
28,842
LOL the classic case that players of the past were AHL caliber compared to players of today... :rolleyes:

I don't think Crosby was better than the great Rocket Richard in goal scoring department especially in the playoffs.
That is way out of context. I was referring specifically to the war years and the immediate years following. I respect old time hockey sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
You know what's funny?
You targeting specifically Doug Harvey when there is three other O-6ers and two Pre-O-6ers.

What’s even funnier is you claiming I’m targeting a player instead of simply disputing the points and facts I stated. Easier that way, eh, since posters will “like” your post no matter how weak a response.
 

overg

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
1,228
235
Indianapolis, IN
Visit site
Most important metric overall results say otherwise.

I suspect I know what your answer will be, but just to be clear, exactly what metric are you talking about? You seem to lean toward a combination of Cup wins + regular season wins, with an emphasis on the former. But maybe I'm not grasping your position accurately.

And whatever your "most important" metric is, do you give any credit to a goalie who makes more or better saves than his opponents, but ultimately loses? Or do you believe it's ultimately a zero sum game. (except when the rules allow for ties, I guess)? Does the winning goalie always play better, by definition?
 
Last edited:

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Voted

One major change and a minor tweak.

I have Bourque, Crosby and Morenz lumped together in the 2nd half of the list. Those three will interchange between themselves at best : they aren't passing anyone ahead (and at least one will carry over) and I don't see anyone behind (that's Eddie Shore)/not up yet passing them. It's not so much Crosby dropping, but the others actually rising.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I suspect I know what your answer will be, but just to be clear, exactly what metric are you talking about? You seem to lean toward a combination of Cup wins + regular season wins, with an emphasis on the former. But maybe I'm not grasping your position accurately.

And whatever your "most important" metric is, do you give any credit to a goalie who makes more or better saves than his opponents, but ultimately loses? Or do you believe it's ultimately a zero sum game. (except when the rules allow for ties, I guess)? Does the winning goalie always play better, by definition?

Plus reliability.

Credit? Sure recognize the noble or first loser and so forth.

Pre schooler starting to follow sports understands this intuitively. Waking up not knowing the results from the previous night they ask the key question. Who won?

Not "Who played better"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
How much weight, if any, is everyone giving to the fact that Hasek's reign of dominance came while both Roy and Brodeur were in the league? Especially compared to Roy, who is actually a few months younger than Hasek?

I dunno, but when two players' careers overlap that much, and one so decisively outplayed the other for a period of years, that just seems like it should be a bigger factor than it has been.

Players don’t necessarily peak at the same time. Terry Sawchuk is younger than Jacques Plante, but Sawchuk peaked in 1951-1955 while the older Plante peaked in 1956-1962.

If Dominik Hasek was better able to establish himself in October 1991 while Ed Belfour was a contract holdout instead of losing out to Jimmy Waite, he’d be another one of the 21 starting goaltenders and all but just one or two players who weren’t as good as Hart runner-up Roy in 1991-92 - and then the overlap might not look as lopsided. Instead, the clock on their overlap as NHL starters doesn’t start until 1992-93 (or maybe 1993-94, given how quickly Hasek was injured after becoming Buffalo’s starter in 1992-93) when Roy was already a guaranteed 1st ballot HOFer.

Even Belfour - the goaltender who beat out Hasek for a starting role in Fall 1990 - couldn’t establish himself in his first NHL run in 1989 when Roy was already on Final #2 and Jennings #3 despite also being older than Roy.

Essentially, this type of argument is one that demands that the player with the peak at an earlier age maintains that same high level of play for the second-half of their career or else they’re assessed to have been surpassed. That Patrick Roy’s career didn’t completely fall apart after 1993 doesn’t mean that Byron Dafoe, Chris Osgood, Jim Carey, John Vanbiesbrouck, Olaf Kolzig, Roman Cechmanek, and Roman Turek (other 1st/2nd Team All-Stars from 1994-2001) surpassed the player Roy was in the regular season in his twenties.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,130
6,428
Pre schooler starting to follow sports understands this intuitively. Waking up not knowing the results from the previous night they ask the key question. Who won?

Not "Who played better"?
Who won? A TEAM WON.
Who played better? SOMETIMES THAT GREAT GUY ON THE LOSING TEAM.

Preschoolers conflate team accomplishments with individual ones. We're supposed to keep in mind the difference. Cup counting in itself is beside the point. What an individual did FOR the team is what matters.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Who won? A TEAM WON.
Who played better? SOMETIMES THAT GREAT GUY ON THE LOSING TEAM.

Preschoolers conflate team accomplishments with individual ones. We're supposed to keep in mind the difference. Cup counting in itself is beside the point. What an individual did FOR the team is what matters.

Qualifier sometimes is what weakens your point.

Kids understand that there is no benefit to be found in sometimes.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,289
Sometimes when I read 58's posts I get the feeling he believes a hockey team is a superorganism made out of smaller psychologically linked independent units (players). Perhaps there is something to that though (yes, I'm kinda serious), but to what degree?.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
-I've generally held that Crosby was somewhat overrated as a playoff performer based on poor team results post-2009 Cup, but 2016 and 2017 significantly rehabilitated his image for me. So nothing here was earth-shattering from my perspective. I think of him as arguably the best playoff player of his era, but it's definitely close between him, Malkin, and the Blackhawks trio. This lands him in Morenz territory for me. A candidate for the top 5 in this round, whose case is neither hampered nor significantly bolstered by post-season results in relation to the others.

Isn't the only argument to be made for any of those players is Malkin has the best playoff run of the era even though Crosby was closer to Malkin than their point totals would indicate that year based on matchups?

I guess Keith may have had a better run than Crosby's best too but do Kane or Toews have a better Cup run than Crosby's best?

Crosby has the clear best playoff point totals and PPG of his era, and the clear best Cup run resume of the group (arguably could be Keith). He has four Cup runs where:

(1) Lead the playoffs in scoring
(2) Set an era best goal total of 15 (since tied by OV)
(3) Won the Smythe albeit a weak one but still was determined to be the best player on a very good Pens team
(4) Won the Smythe with a notable SCF performance

It is good that you note that talk of bad defensive teams (a debatable argument to begin with) has been put to bed with recent performances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->