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

[Kyle McMahon]

I wouldn't hesitate to call Crosby the best playoff player of his generation, but does the Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin generation really boast a lot of players who are great playoff performers in an historical context?

If you exclude Malkin (whom Crosby works with as opposed to competing against in the playoffs) and make a list of the top ten playoff performers of that generation, how far down would you get before having to give serious consideration to players like Ryan Getzlaf, Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty?

Ovechkin's latest Conn Smythe and Cup add to his legacy and he was very good in the playoffs early on in his career, but I'm not sure he's a top five playoff player from his generation. Toews' legacy as a relevant player in his generation is built largely on his playoff success, but he's not a dominant offensive player. Kane puts up numbers but doesn't do the other kinds of things people make a big fuss about in the playoffs. Thornton has been underwhelming in the post season.

Forget about the likes of Gretzky - if you exclude the Penguins, is there a playoff performer from the Crosby generation who's at least on par with a Forsberg or a Sakic?

How does that generation compare to older ones when it comes to great playoff performers?

What this boils down to, is that the ramifications of the salary cap era can't be fully appreciated yet. The 2006-present era has absolutely not produced playoff careers that stack up to those from the post-war era up through the 1990s. I'm not prepared to blame that entirely on league dynamics or entirely on a class of players who possibly aren't as great as previous generations. How much or how little either factor plays into the result is something that can really only be better understood with the passage of time.

Giving it some more thought, I think trying to ascertain a player's exact place in the pecking order is really a murky exercise. I mean, what defines the player's era to begin with? Their whole career? The overlap of Crosby's career with all the other contemporary names mentioned happens to be convenient for comparison purposes in his case, but what about the others? Richard, Harvey, and Beliveau may all make a claim as "best of their era", but where did one era end and another begin? They all spent significant time both together and apart. Could Roy make the claim? Or did Gretzky already steal that mantle with accomplishments that took place mainly before Roy had established himself as a star player? If Gretzky gets the title, are Lemieux and Messier disqualified since their playoff careers fit almost entirely within Gretzky's time in the NHL?

I guess at the end of the day, I'm going look at a candidate's playoff career and evaluate it on its own merits and worry less about trying to micro-analyze which exact spot on the totem pole he occupies within his own era.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Man, the quality of any thread is directly and inversely related to your level of involvement in it.

Quoted for truth.Sometimes a "like" is not enough.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well the point is that you individually are not responsible for who becomes eligible - it's the decision of all 32 voters combined who decide who becomes eligible (based on round 1 lists).

I firmly believe Jaromir Jagr was a great candidate for #5 - and moreso I think he has a case above both Hull and Richard as #2 winger after Howe, and i'm very upset that 1, or both may be voted in before I get to argue Jagr's case.

But that has 0 bearing on my vote here. I will vote for Hull and Richard strictly based on how I perceive them vs the other 8 players here. If I were to vote both of those wingers low in purpose to hope they get bumped and it allows me to have Jagr above them, it would be voting strategically off of an agenda, which isn't right. So i'll vote for Richard and Hull strictly based on how they should rank vs the other 8 guys here. And if/when Jagr becomes eligible and they're still around - only then will that affect my rank.

I really think everyone should adhere to this.

But every eligible voter agreed to the eligibility rule as a condition of participation.

Is this happening?

 

[Canadiens1958]

What this boils down to, is that the ramifications of the salary cap era can't be fully appreciated yet. The 2006-present era has absolutely not produced playoff careers that stack up to those from the post-war era up through the 1990s. I'm not prepared to blame that entirely on league dynamics or entirely on a class of players who possibly aren't as great as previous generations. How much or how little either factor plays into the result is something that can really only be better understood with the passage of time.

Giving it some more thought, I think trying to ascertain a player's exact place in the pecking order is really a murky exercise. I mean, what defines the player's era to begin with? Their whole career? The overlap of Crosby's career with all the other contemporary names mentioned happens to be convenient for comparison purposes in his case, but what about the others? Richard, Harvey, and Beliveau may all make a claim as "best of their era", but where did one era end and another begin? They all spent significant time both together and apart. Could Roy make the claim? Or did Gretzky already steal that mantle with accomplishments that took place mainly before Roy had established himself as a star player? If Gretzky gets the title, are Lemieux and Messier disqualified since their playoff careers fit almost entirely within Gretzky's time in the NHL?

I guess at the end of the day, I'm going look at a candidate's playoff career and evaluate it on its own merits and worry less about trying to micro-analyze which exact spot on the totem pole he occupies within his own era.

Excellent observation.

Similar to the 1930s Salary Cap era producing quirky individual playoff results.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Excellent observation.

Similar to the 1930s Salary Cap era producing quirky individual playoff results.

Indeed, the post-consolidation era up until the war broke out has proven to mirror the 2006-present era more and more as time has gone on. We hear a lot of how this or that isn't possible in the current cap era, be it team or individual achievements, but the 1930s is seldom cited as supporting evidence, despite the strong parallels. Giving way instead to population growth rabbit holes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Indeed, the post-consolidation era up until the war broke out has proven to mirror the 2006-present era more and more as time has gone on. We hear a lot of how this or that isn't possible in the current cap era, be it team or individual achievements, but the 1930s is seldom cited as supporting evidence, despite the strong parallels. Giving way instead to population growth rabbit holes.

Actually the redistribution of hockey coaching assets and ice time during WWII to youth hockey strongly accelerated the developmental process. Fascinating situation.

Also the weakness of the 1975 thru 1995 era, especially goalies in the first half will be a topic in the years to come.

 

[kruezer]

Just voted, i was too busy at work this week/weekend to contribute much but y’all answered most of the questions I had throughout the threads. Great discussion.

My tiers were this...

Hull/Morenz
Beliveau/Bourque/Roy
Hasek/Crosby/Harvey
Shore/Richard

The only two I think should be outside the top ten are Shore and Richard. I can see great arguments for the rest (and would hardly think it terrible if either Shore or Richard made it).

W.

 

[BenchBrawl]

A long shot, but is there anyone who have access to 1922 and 1923 Toronto newspapers? Something like The Toronto Star?

I have 2-3 dates I'd like to get a screenshot of, and the Toronto newspapers are behind a paywall or only available to Toronto citizens in the Toronto Public Library I believe.

I'm already paying a subscription to newspapers.com but they don't have any Toronto newspaper.It's the only city I have problems with.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Voted!

Lots of great info I caught up on over the past few hours. Tremendous work fellas. I hope to be much more active in the next round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A long shot, but is there anyone who have access to 1922 and 1923 Toronto newspapers? Something like The Toronto Star?

I have 2-3 dates I'd like to get a screenshot of, and the Toronto newspapers are behind a paywall or only available to Toronto citizens in the Toronto Public Library I believe.

I'm already paying a subsription to newspapers.com but they don't have any Toronto newspaper.It's the only city I have problems with.

BanQ has Toronto newspapers on microfilm.

 

[BenchBrawl]

BanQ has Toronto newspapers on microfilm.

Oh they do? That's good to know, I never checked which english newspapers they had.Thank you.

Not sure I'll be able to make the trip within the week though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Another Crosby backhand masterpiece. It's one of the few things I will geek out on as far as Sid goes. He's got the best backhand I've ever seen and among the best ever if we're being honest. Certainly of the modern era. Great defensive awareness starts this entire play. Geezer is going to win a Selke before his career is over IMO. Really transitioning into his role model Yzerman's style.



Here are some others:

Anyone who's ever played hockey at any decent level knows how ridiculous this was.


And this as well. Just disgusting.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Here's a compilation video from 2 years back (can't put more than 3 videos in one post is laaaame btw).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Another Crosby backhand masterpiece. It's one of the few things I will geek out on as far as Sid goes. He's got the best backhand I've ever seen and among the best ever if we're being honest. Certainly of the modern era. Great defensive awareness starts this entire play. Geezer is going to win a Selke before his career is over IMO. Really transitioning into his role model Yzerman's style.



Here are some others:

Anyone who's ever played hockey at any decent level knows how ridiculous this was.


And this as well. Just disgusting.

Above average to excellent backhand shot by O6 standards.

Dekes watch the Beliveau clip:

Jean Beliveau's name is on Stanley Cup 17 times

Passing will try to find some.

 

[Sentinel]

Man, the quality of any thread is directly and inversely related to your level of involvement in it.

I didn't know it's possible to be "directly and inversely related." Isn't it one or the other?

 

[TheEye]

What spot did he generally play on the PP? Sideboards, high slot, net presence?

Yes, I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this as well. C1958, you must have an answer for this, considering your insistence that he was the 'ideal center for any 1950s PP.' Do you know or care to elaborate on his deployment?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Yes, I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this as well. C1958, you must have an answer for this, considering your insistence that he was the 'ideal center for any 1950s PP.' Do you know or care to elaborate on his deployment?

@Canadiens1958

He's a hard guy to get a straight answer out of so who knows, but I'd still like to hear it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The answer to Beliveau's PP deployment was provided twice. Obviously neither of those asking bothers to read what is posted.

Beliveau at 6'3'' was preferred to Henri Richard because with his size and skills he could win faceoffs, play the slot from low to high(rebounds, deflections, screens), battling the big defencemen while creating space for teammates. Play behind the goal line, both corners and behind the net. Geoffrion injured, Beliveau played the point at times.

Fifties PP featured moving the puck to the open skater in close. Sixties, the point blaster became popular, eighties with Lemieux and Gretzky the sideboards and behind the net.

Point is that these three tactics slow down puck movement. Modern PP is a slower pace than ES.

 

[daver]

What this boils down to, is that the ramifications of the salary cap era can't be fully appreciated yet. The 2006-present era has absolutely not produced playoff careers that stack up to those from the post-war era up through the 1990s. I'm not prepared to blame that entirely on league dynamics or entirely on a class of players who possibly aren't as great as previous generations. How much or how little either factor plays into the result is something that can really only be better understood with the passage of time.

Giving it some more thought, I think trying to ascertain a player's exact place in the pecking order is really a murky exercise. I mean, what defines the player's era to begin with? Their whole career? The overlap of Crosby's career with all the other contemporary names mentioned happens to be convenient for comparison purposes in his case, but what about the others? Richard, Harvey, and Beliveau may all make a claim as "best of their era", but where did one era end and another begin? They all spent significant time both together and apart. Could Roy make the claim? Or did Gretzky already steal that mantle with accomplishments that took place mainly before Roy had established himself as a star player? If Gretzky gets the title, are Lemieux and Messier disqualified since their playoff careers fit almost entirely within Gretzky's time in the NHL?

I guess at the end of the day, I'm going look at a candidate's playoff career and evaluate it on its own merits and worry less about trying to micro-analyze which exact spot on the totem pole he occupies within his own era.

Isn't establishing one's level of domination during their era as simple as looking at their playing career and comparing that level of domination vs. other players' levels of domination during their respective eras what the whole project is about?

Reasonable context can be applied to any stat with the understanding that we can never know how Player X would have done if he had played in Player's Y's era or on Player's Z's team.

If a player has a playoff resume befitting their regular season stature then, IMO, a player with an inferior regular season resume cannot be moved up to a superior player's tier based on a playoff resume that wasn't better on a per game basis but was better in terms of team success (where this can be significant is separating players who have similar regular season resumes).

It is not hard to parse out Wayne from Mario to determine that both were head and shoulders above everyone else. The same should be done with Richard, Harvey, and Beliveau.

 

[VanIslander]

Nothing about this is simple.

 

[bobholly39]

Voted. No one ended up in the same rank as on initial list, surprisingly.

Biggest movers based on overall rank were Morenz (+10) and Shore (+7) - but that may be because i had them low initially, Morenz especially. Hull also jumped up 4 spots (I was initially lower on him than most I expect).
Biggest droppers were Harvey (-2) and Crosby (-2).

Versus one another, the biggest movers were:

Bobby Hull passed 3 players and so did Morenz.
Harvey got passed by 3 guys, and both Hasek and Crosby got passed by 2.

Playoffs ended up a big deciding factor for me in the end, especially near the top - which is why both Roy and Beliveau and even Richard are higher than initially expected.

Can't wait to see the final results.

 

[Sentinel]

Above average to excellent backhand shot by O6 standards.

Dekes watch the Beliveau clip:

Jean Beliveau's name is on Stanley Cup 17 times

Passing will try to find some.

I watched it. Please show me where he has the backhand matching that of Crosby.

 

[Killion]

Also the weakness of the 1975 thru 1995 era, especially goalies in the first half will be a topic in the years to come.

You know, this trope that somehow an entire generation of Goaltenders who came of age during the 60's & early 70's, turning pro mid decade through the 80's were somehow "inferior" to all that came before & after is absolute Bollocks..... Thats right, so Never Mind the BLLCKS. Not buying. The period in question, really from 65 & the mandatory 2 Goalie Dressed Rule, 67/68 through 95 was an extraordinarily unique period of evolution in the history of the game, Fundamentally changed, Coaching, Style of Play, Equipment & Technological Innovations, Expansion, the huge influence of everything from International & Tournament Play, Rise of the WHA, Violent Propensities practiced & encouraged at the elite amateur & Jr. Levels or "proving grounds", on & on & on...

As I myself am a member of that Generation myself I do actually take offence, umbrage to the suggestion that goal scoring went way up "because Goalies of that Generation were Sieves". Gimme a Fu**'n break. Look at the root causes. Dont be playing the "Blame the Goalie" game around me Boys & Girls. The advent of the whar is now called "Pro-Fly" style/school of Goaltending along with the oversized equipment all developments that were required as the game evolved from one of Laneway to a Full Cycle Short Shift Game. Alterations to the Crease & other Rule Changes, moving the lines on the map... game in red hot flux.... Goalies of the era were excellent, some of the Greatest of All Time who grew up studying & learning from Legends, from former & or current pro's who starred in the NHL, AHL & elsewhere during hockeys post WW2 Golden Era.... So look at the root causes for the escalation in GAA's. Easy out in "Blaming the Goalie". Thats what uneducated neophyte Fans, idiot media pundits & reporters, irresponsible "not my fault" coaches & players do.

 

[daver]

Above average to excellent backhand shot by O6 standards.

Dekes watch the Beliveau clip:

Jean Beliveau's name is on Stanley Cup 17 times

Passing will try to find some.

Out of curiosity, is there any skill from any player post-O6 era that you think is above O6 standards?

 

[Canadiens1958]

You know, this trope that somehow an entire generation of Goaltenders who came of age during the 60's & early 70's, turning pro mid decade through the 80's were somehow "inferior" to all that came before & after is absolute Bollocks..... Thats right, so Never Mind the BLLCKS. Not buying. The period in question, really from 65 & the mandatory 2 Goalie Dressed Rule, 67/68 through 95 was an extraordinarily unique period of evolution in the history of the game, Fundamentally changed, Coaching, Style of Play, Equipment & Technological Innovations, Expansion, the huge influence of everything from International & Tournament Play, Rise of the WHA, Violent Propensities practiced & encouraged at the elite amateur & Jr. Levels or "proving grounds", on & on & on...

As I myself am a member of that Generation myself I do actually take offence, umbrage to the suggestion that goal scoring went way up "because Goalies of that Generation were Sieves". Gimme a Fu**'n break. Look at the root causes. Dont be playing the "Blame the Goalie" game around me Boys & Girls. The advent of the whar is now called "Pro-Fly" style/school of Goaltending along with the oversized equipment all developments that were required as the game evolved from one of Laneway to a Full Cycle Short Shift Game. Alterations to the Crease & other Rule Changes, moving the lines on the map... game in red hot flux.... Goalies of the era were excellent, some of the Greatest of All Time who grew up studying & learning from Legends, from former & or current pro's who starred in the NHL, AHL & elsewhere during hockeys post WW2 Golden Era.... So look at the root causes for the escalation in GAA's. Easy out in "Blaming the Goalie". Thats what uneducated neophyte Fans, idiot media pundits & reporters, irresponsible "not my fault" coaches & players do.

Except 1975 thru 1984 only one HHOF goalie(Grant Fuhr) entered the NHL. Weakest stretch in history.

Also most of the major junior goal and point scoring records were established between 1975 and 1984 by rather ordinary forwards.