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

[dr robbie]

I just want to post my thanks for what everyones been posting. I love reading this stuff even if I have nothing to contribute.

On a side note, does anyone have any reference to find out more about Morenz? He's the guy I find most intriguing of this bunch and probably know the least about.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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

Think glide-reflection. Two operations at once.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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

Crosby has a backhand shot but Beliveau could also deke to his backhand(few goals shown) as well as pass - backhand saucer,etc.

 

[sr edler]

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

Forsberg's diving skills, most definitely.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Luc Robitaille had a better 1st/2nd all-star team selection record after his first 7 seasons than Crosby has had in his near 14-year career.

Crosby has been top-5 in NHL goals just twice and top-5 in assists five times.

ADD: Two or three more upper-echelon seasons. Don't rely on PPG stats. Stay healthy and have some all-time great regular seasons.

Plus... Crosby is below Marleau in career points, outside the top 50 of all time. At least pass Alfredsson, Brind'amour, Nicholls, Roenick in career points.

Top-5 player of all time has to be staggering in some areas and not underwhelming in others.

You say top 5 in goals and assists but fail to state that most of those finishes are top 3. With two rocket wins and assist finishes of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 which shows a very well rounded offensive game. Crosby has also led the playoffs in assists twice.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

I've thought for a long time that it was what you say -- the change between forwards playing in lanes to going east-west making it very difficult for stand up goalies to react in time when their angles are broken by cycling and cross passes.

In my mind the butterfly as a style rather than a save is a direct response to that because it makes goaltending more passively effective by taking away the percentages a larger amount of the time.

 

[MXD]

If I got everything right...

There's a whopping SEVEN new players available for voting next round, right?

 

[Sentinel]

Crosby has a backhand shot but Beliveau could also deke to his backhand(few goals shown) as well as pass - backhand saucer,etc.

Not remotely the same thing.

Think glide-reflection.

No idea what it means.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

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.

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 (emphasis mine), 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...

Yeah- I get all that. There were a lot of paradigm shifts. Paradigm shifts have been a thing throughout Hockey History. But there is one Mother of All Paradigm Shifts, so vast in scope that it eclipses all the others...

Spring of 1967 to Autumn of 1967. NHL-openings for Hockey players double. Then, they just keep growing. By 1970-71, there are 14 teams. (So, to take a longer view, league had more-than-doubled in size in a four-year span.) Then 1971-72 comes along, and the WHA sprouts up, adding an entire league's worth of opportunities to the mix.

So- this is one big-ass change- and it happened in a five year time-window. Now, a lot of our long-time participant wiser heads are at least as familiar with this as I am, and in more cases than not, probably moreso. Just a little reminder that there were gigantic upheavals in a span of less than half-a-dozen years-- and that we should pay more attention to them than the quasi-illusory shifts of certain 20-year spans that are so subtly evanescent that only Really Special People can see them.

 

[Sentinel]

On a side note, does anyone have any reference to find out more about Morenz? He's the guy I find most intriguing of this bunch and probably know the least about.

Yeah, I think there was less stuff on him than on the others. I saw way more posts on Shore.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just want to post my thanks for what everyones been posting. I love reading this stuff even if I have nothing to contribute.

On a side note, does anyone have any reference to find out more about Morenz? He's the guy I find most intriguing of this bunch and probably know the least about.

The best compilation of Morenz material I know of is Dreakmur's ATD bio: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...ics-sources-everything.1327665/#post-58017755

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

Sure, but trying to come up with a precise "Player X was the third-most dominant playoff player of his era" is far from simple. The regular season, by comparison, provides a significantly more stable environment.

Various situations arise when looking a playoffs only. What do you do about a highly dominant player who was stuck on weak rosters and lacked the opportunities to win a bunch of Cups regardless of how well he played? At what point does a secondary player contribute to a Stanley Cup enough times to overcome the guy who put a team on his back but only won a single time? What about a guy whose team constantly missed the playoffs, but he showed up well the few times they did?

The Mario example illustrates the issue perfectly. Head and shoulders above everyone else, but only for two years. Mark Messier achieved similar results in the years surrounding Lemieux's two Conn Smythe's. Where do they end up on the playoff totem pole in relation to each other? The answer seems much less clear than applying the question to the regular season, where Lemieux would be a unanimous choice.

 

[TheEye]

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.

Thanks. According to the video below (starting at the 5 minute mark) it also looks like he created PP offense off the half-wall, as well. In that case, I guess he must have covered all areas of the ice in the offensive zone on the PP. It's interesting that he was deployed with such diversity, essentially covering the entire slot, below the goal line, both corners, behind the net, half-wall and occasionally the point. It must have been mesmerizing for the players, having to remember all those PP formations based on Beliveau's chosen deployment.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I sent in my votes. Roy rose the most compared to my initial list (there were a number of good cases made in his favour, both statistical and anecdotal).

Harvey rose a bit as well. In a lot of the footage, he seemed like a man playing against boys - he was far ahead of his time in a way that Bourque (who I initially ranked ahead) wasn't.

Richard dropped a fair bit (if not for his truly stellar playoff resume, he probably would have been last on my list).

I continued to struggle with where to place Crosby. He seems to be the heir apparent to Jean Beliveau (I kept him at #5 for the reasons I outlined early - his late-career reliance on the powerplay wasn't a decisive factor for me). Crosby's lack of full seasons (due to injuries, and only being partway through his career), hurts him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Voted.

 

[daver]

Sure, but trying to come up with a precise "Player X was the third-most dominant playoff player of his era" is far from simple. The regular season, by comparison, provides a significantly more stable environment.

Various situations arise when looking a playoffs only. What do you do about a highly dominant player who was stuck on weak rosters and lacked the opportunities to win a bunch of Cups regardless of how well he played? At what point does a secondary player contribute to a Stanley Cup enough times to overcome the guy who put a team on his back but only won a single time? What about a guy whose team constantly missed the playoffs, but he showed up well the few times they did?

The Mario example illustrates the issue perfectly. Head and shoulders above everyone else, but only for two years. Mark Messier achieved similar results in the years surrounding Lemieux's two Conn Smythe's. Where do they end up on the playoff totem pole in relation to each other? The answer seems much less clear than applying the question to the regular season, where Lemieux would be a unanimous choice.

The answer can be just as clear. It doesn't mean it necessarily changes an overall ranking. But playoffs are a different animal and should be treated as such. Notable Cup winning runs (and Cup runs for the current era) should be up there with peak seasons on a player's resume. Where would Roy be without them?

Messier is rated higher as a playoff performer than Mario according to HOH, that doesn't mean Messier comes close to Mario or you still don't pick Mario over any other player besides the other Big 4 for a playoff run.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Will mull things over for a few more hours before voting, so still time for somebody to change my mind. Great discussion and research this week.

-I came in with Beliveau firmly entrenched in my top-3 among available candidates for this vote. He will stay within that top three, but it's not as decisive. I'm a little lower on what he did up to 1965 than I initially was. However, I was not consciously aware of how much his final few seasons actually add to his legacy. If he'd retired in 1965, I'm actually not sure he's a lock for the top 10 all time, but his supposed twilight years are supremely strong and remove any doubt.

-Bobby Hull was also within my top-3, and there's been no real reason to question that. It seems Glenn Hall is the only one who has anything negative to say about Hull's performance in the playoffs, despite only one Cup. By and large, it appears Hull was every bit as great in the playoffs as he was in the regular season, and Chicago coaching/management/depth issues are the main reason he doesn't have multiple Cups.

-I'm pretty well sold that Harvey was the most important player on the 50's Habs dynasty. But I pretty much thought that coming in. Harvey's longevity isn't great, and I think that's where the crack appears that could see him fall in my rankings. Not enough that he'd fall out of my top-5 for this round though.

-I believe Bourque will rise compared to where I initially had him. Probably had to shoulder a bigger load game in and game out than any other player available, other than Hasek. But unlike Hasek, he was pretty much always healthy and dragged teams above their weight class more frequently. I don't think I can put him over Harvey, the reason being pretty much nobody who witnessed both in their prime has ever really suggested Bourque was actually better based on their viewings. But I can entertain the argument at least.

-For all the hoopla over Hasek being unavailable last round, I expected a better presentation on why he belongs in the top-5 for this round. I would say the bulk of the information presented boosts Roy's case instead. I'm inclined to at least entertain the idea that Roy has a case against Richard, as the two players who probably have the most dramatic difference in regular season versus playoff value. Hasek's reliability issues during the playoffs sink his case, and his peak isn't enough to make up the difference against candidates of this quality.

-Shore's playoff record is too poor for me to entertain him as a top-5 candidate in this vote. Unlike Morenz, further digging does not exonerate him. The 4 Hart Trophies can't quite overcome that, given how much more likely it was for defensemen to receive MVP consideration in his era.

-I'm almost at the point where I'd say Richard's regular season record is too poor for me to consider him a top-5 this round, but not quite. Managing to fight off Howe for a couple 1st team AST on the back 9 of his career is a nice arrow in his quiver. His playoff record is unassailable. It's enough to keep him in the top 10 all-time conversation, but it's not an iron clad case.

-Crosby and Morenz remain joined at the hip. There's just very little separating these two for me, be it regular season, playoffs, longevity, star power and reputation, overall game, league conditions during their era. It would be tough for me not to have them back-to-back. Are they in front of Richard or behind him? That might be the biggest question I have to answer before submitting my ballot.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The answer can be just as clear. It doesn't mean it necessarily changes an overall ranking. But playoffs are a different animal and should be treated as such. Notable Cup winning runs (and Cup runs for the current era) should be up there with peak seasons on a player's resume. Where would Roy be without them?

Messier is rated higher as a playoff performer than Mario according to HOH, that doesn't mean Messier comes close to Mario or you still don't pick Mario over any other player besides the other Big 4 for a playoff run.

See, this is why sussing out exactly where a player ranks on a numbered list specifically in the playoffs compared to his contemporaries just might not be particularly relevant. Like if I decide that Crosby is only the 4th best playoff performer of his era, but Morenz is the best of his...I'm not going to highlight this as a reason why I'd rank Morenz higher as a playoff player, because there's just a lot of factors at play when isolating the playoffs specifically. I'm going to say they both made significant contributions to multiple champions, didn't embarrass themselves or cost their teams in the "down" years, and like you say, provided post-season play befitting of their overall career.

I think this is different than if you determined that Crosby was the 4th-best player of his era all things considered and Morenz was #1, or vice versa. In that case, I think it becomes highly relevant where a player specifically ranks among his contemporaries. This is just my own preference I guess, but there's no way #1 from Era X is going to fall behind #4 from Era Y on my list/ballot. Excepting perhaps the extreme situations present in the challenge-era of the sport.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Will mull things over for a few more hours before voting, so still time for somebody to change my mind. Great discussion and research this week.

-I came in with Beliveau firmly entrenched in my top-3 among available candidates for this vote. He will stay within that top three, but it's not as decisive. I'm a little lower on what he did up to 1965 than I initially was. However, I was not consciously aware of how much his final few seasons actually add to his legacy. If he'd retired in 1965, I'm actually not sure he's a lock for the top 10 all time, but his supposed twilight years are supremely strong and remove any doubt.

-Bobby Hull was also within my top-3, and there's been no real reason to question that. It seems Glenn Hall is the only one who has anything negative to say about Hull's performance in the playoffs, despite only one Cup. By and large, it appears Hull was every bit as great in the playoffs as he was in the regular season, and Chicago coaching/management/depth issues are the main reason he doesn't have multiple Cups.

-I'm pretty well sold that Harvey was the most important player on the 50's Habs dynasty. But I pretty much thought that coming in. Harvey's longevity isn't great, and I think that's where the crack appears that could see him fall in my rankings. Not enough that he'd fall out of my top-5 for this round though.

-I believe Bourque will rise compared to where I initially had him. Probably had to shoulder a bigger load game in and game out than any other player available, other than Hasek. But unlike Hasek, he was pretty much always healthy and dragged teams above their weight class more frequently. I don't think I can put him over Harvey, the reason being pretty much nobody who witnessed both in their prime has ever really suggested Bourque was actually better based on their viewings. But I can entertain the argument at least.

-For all the hoopla over Hasek being unavailable last round, I expected a better presentation on why he belongs in the top-5 for this round. I would say the bulk of the information presented boosts Roy's case instead. I'm inclined to at least entertain the idea that Roy has a case against Richard, as the two players who probably have the most dramatic difference in regular season versus playoff value. Hasek's reliability issues during the playoffs sink his case, and his peak isn't enough to make up the difference against candidates of this quality.

-Shore's playoff record is too poor for me to entertain him as a top-5 candidate in this vote. Unlike Morenz, further digging does not exonerate him. The 4 Hart Trophies can't quite overcome that, given how much more likely it was for defensemen to receive MVP consideration in his era.

-I'm almost at the point where I'd say Richard's regular season record is too poor for me to consider him a top-5 this round, but not quite. Managing to fight off Howe for a couple 1st team AST on the back 9 of his career is a nice arrow in his quiver. His playoff record is unassailable. It's enough to keep him in the top 10 all-time conversation, but it's not an iron clad case.

-Crosby and Morenz remain joined at the hip. There's just very little separating these two for me, be it regular season, playoffs, longevity, star power and reputation, overall game, league conditions during their era. It would be tough for me not to have them back-to-back. Are they in front of Richard or behind him? That might be the biggest question I have to answer before submitting my ballot.

"The 4 Hart Trophies can't quite overcome that, given how much more likely it was for defensemen to receive MVP consideration in his era."

Sure, more likely to receive consideration. Not more likely to win. Four Hart Trophies is still more than anyone other than Gretzky or Howe.

"I'm almost at the point where I'd say Richard's regular season record is too poor for me to consider him a top-5 this round..."

14 time all-star. Only Bourque has more in this group. How poor can it be?

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

"The 4 Hart Trophies can't quite overcome that, given how much more likely it was for defensemen to receive MVP consideration in his era."

Sure, more likely to receive consideration. Not more likely to win. Four Hart Trophies is still more than anyone other than Gretzky or Howe.

"I'm almost at the point where I'd say Richard's regular season record is too poor for me to consider him a top-5 this round..."

14 time all-star. Only Bourque has more in this group. How poor can it be?

Only because "the numbers" are not so eye popping... But numbers especially in this era didn't tell the entire story as we can see with his 14 all-star selections.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

"The 4 Hart Trophies can't quite overcome that, given how much more likely it was for defensemen to receive MVP consideration in his era."

Sure, more likely to receive consideration. Not more likely to win. Four Hart Trophies is still more than anyone other than Gretzky or Howe.

"I'm almost at the point where I'd say Richard's regular season record is too poor for me to consider him a top-5 this round..."

14 time all-star. Only Bourque has more in this group. How poor can it be?

No, more likely to both receive consideration and win. Herb Gardiner, Ebbie Goodfellow, Babe Seibert, Tom Anderson, and Babe Pratt all won the Hart in the pre-Norris era, in addition to Shore's 4 wins. Pronger is the only non-Orr defenseman winner since 1944. With one single exception over the last 70 years, the threshold for a defenseman to win the Hart is "be arguably the best player of all-time at your peak". The threshold was clearly much lower in earlier days.

The number of AST over-sells Richard. Some of them simply were not particularly strong seasons, but still resulted in 2nd or even 1st team selections.

1944 (2nd), 1946 (1st), 1949 (1st), 1952 (2nd). Nothing great about these seasons in an all-time sense. Of course, that still leaves 10 other selections, so still among the best of all time.

Where do you feel Richard's regular seasons place him among this group? I think there's a plausible argument that he's 10th out of 10. (As in, I don't have him 10th out of 10, but I could see the argument).

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Where do you feel Richard's regular seasons place him among this group? I think there's a plausible argument that he's 10th out of 10. (As in, I don't have him 10th out of 10, but I could see the argument).

Why do you just talk about Richard's regular seasons when his legend is clearly built in the playoffs (similar to Patrick Roy)? Regular seasons only wouldn't make Richard a legit choice on that list but combined with his great playoffs, he is the greatest playoff goalscorer to me, that makes him one of the greatest player of all time and a legit choice among this group.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Why do you talk just about Richard's regular seasons when his legend is built in the playoffs (similar to Patrick Roy)? Regular seasons only wouldn't make Richard a legit choice on that list but combined with his great playoffs, he is the greatest playoff goalscorer to me, that makes him one of the greatest player of all time and a legit choice among this group.

He is a legit choice among this group to be elected to the list this round. Never suggested otherwise. If his regular season was on the same level as his playoff legend, he'd probably already be on the list, or at least a shoe-in for #5. Playoffs is important, but it's not the only measure. And it's not like guys like Beliveau, Roy, and Harvey don't bring all-time great playoff resumes to the table themselves.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

He is a legit choice among this group to be elected to the list this round. Never suggested otherwise. If his regular season was on the same level as his playoff legend, he'd probably already be on the list, or at least a shoe-in for #5. Playoffs is important, but it's not the only measure. And it's not like guys like Beliveau, Roy, and Harvey don't bring all-time great playoff resumes to the table themselves.

Indeed but I just wondered because of what you said in your previous post.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No, more likely to both receive consideration and win. Herb Gardiner, Ebbie Goodfellow, Babe Seibert, Tom Anderson, and Babe Pratt all won the Hart in the pre-Norris era, in addition to Shore's 4 wins. Pronger is the only non-Orr defenseman winner since 1944. With one single exception over the last 70 years, the threshold for a defenseman to win the Hart is "be arguably the best player of all-time at your peak". The threshold was clearly much lower in earlier days.

The number of AST over-sells Richard. Some of them simply were not particularly strong seasons, but still resulted in 2nd or even 1st team selections.

1944 (2nd), 1946 (1st), 1949 (1st), 1952 (2nd). Nothing great about these seasons in an all-time sense. Of course, that still leaves 10 other selections, so still among the best of all time.

Where do you feel Richard's regular seasons place him among this group? I think there's a plausible argument that he's 10th out of 10. (As in, I don't have him 10th out of 10, but I could see the argument).

Goodfellow's was probably the only legit Hart win. Pratt & Anderson won in War years. Gardiner's must have been some sort of lifetime achievement win (like Teeder Kennedy).

"1944 (2nd), 1946 (1st), 1949 (1st), 1952 (2nd). Nothing great about these seasons in an all-time sense."

Can't this be said for everyone in this group? How many of Doug Harvey's regular seasons were great in an all-time sense? Or Beliveau's? Or Bourque's?

7th.