Toggle sidebar

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2

The Macho King

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,773
29,306
DannyGallivan said:
Without getting off topic too much, don't downplay the talent level of the Flames' Cup winner. Tons of talent on that team.
Click to expand...
I wanted to highlight that but didn't because it wasn't super relevant. I agree that was a damn good team, but I don't think it's coincidence that they win after Gretzky leaves Edmonton and the playing field levels off a bit.
 
MXD

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,810
16,548
The Macho Man said:
I think those Habs teams get underrated personally. I mean, they're not dynasty-level teams of course, but they were still pretty solid (especially the '93 team). Like - in a post-lockout world where kinda middling teams win the Cup behind some streakiness from a key player or two at the right time, I don't think those Habs teams would stand out as particularly bad at all.

But your point is taken. This is a league where in recent memory you have three dynasties with at least 4 Cups to their name, and in that group the Habs (and the Flames) stick out quite a bit.
Click to expand...

To be honest, the 1986 team with the 1989 version of Patrick Roy and a coach who can actually coach is probably one of these very good cup winners. But it was the '86 version of Roy and a coach who didn't actually coach.

The 1993? It is underrated, but that's mostly due to some of its players being much better than their reputation and for their role (Desjardins, Daigneault, Odelein, Keane, Lebeau and Brunet are the very, obvious names in that group), but it's a far cry from the teams winning the cup those years if we completely disregard Patrick Roy. I mean... You had the Dynasty Habs, the Dynasty Islanders, the Dynasty Oilers, the Penguins, the DPE winners.... All of them were better, ON PAPER AT LEAST, than the '93 Habs.

And the '89 Habs was the absolute best Habs team since the '70ies dynasty. They lost to a VERY, VERY good Flames team too.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,297
14,956
Since we're talking about Roy in playoffs...

How much of an "intangibles" bump should Roy get for his role in making the 96 Avalanche champions? For all the talk last round of Gretzky never winning after Edmonton - has any trade in the history of the NHL worked out as well as this one in relation to team needs/success?

They brought Roy on board for his goaltending skills - but also for his winning attitude/track record, and he helped a team with a ton of talent but who was going nowhere in terms of post-season success, into the promised land within his first year. And although he didn't win again until 2001, the Avalanche were a complete powerhouse in the late 90s thanks in large part to the reliability of Roy in nets, and some of their matchups against Detroit and even Dallas are truly memorable.

As much as Roy is given credit for taking 'lesser' Habs teams to cups in 86 and 93 - i don't think it should be understated how great his contributions post-trade was too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon
overpass

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,271
2,808
blogofmike said:
As far as controlling the game, it was possibly the finest 0-assist performance in the history of playmaking.

Credit him defensively if you like, but the GF numbers are more plus-taking than plus-making.

I enjoyed squinting at the old articles seventieslord posted, but am still probably putting him #10.

Think of it in a similar way to how you were previously arguing against goaltenders and saves not mattering only GA. Why judge Harvey differently? Harvey wins Norris in 1958 – Habs allow 158 GA. Harvey has an off year where he is slowed down by injury – Habs allow 158 GA. His shot blocks weren’t as valuable as the saves I guess.

I’m just trying to gauge the actual value of all those things he was doing. Because if it wasn’t preventing goals, Doug Harvey is becoming HOH’s defensive equivalent of overrating Peter Forsberg because HFBoards really likes how he did things.
Click to expand...

I agree, you need the impact to show up in the statistics somewhere. Maybe Doug Harvey’s impact was not so visible in the regular season statistics. But what about the playoff statistics?

Let’s look at 3 different time periods. First, the 1951-55 playoffs, or the pre-dynasty time period when Harvey was establishing himself as a star defenceman.

1951-1955 Playoffs

Year
GP
GF/G
GA/G
Lg
Lg
PPGF/G
PPGA/G
Lg
Lg
Non-PPGF/G
Non-PPGA/G
Lg
Lg

1951
11
2.09
2.27
2.06
2.06
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.24
1.82
2.00
1.82
1.82

1952
11
1.82
2.09
1.97
1.97
0.27
0.27
0.37
0.37
1.55
1.82
1.60
1.60

1953
12
2.83
1.92
2.75
2.75
0.42
0.25
0.33
0.33
2.42
1.67
2.42
2.42

1954
11
2.55
1.64
2.16
2.16
0.55
0.45
0.44
0.44
2.00
1.18
1.72
1.72

1955
12
3.00
3.00
2.88
2.88
0.83
0.58
0.81
0.81
2.17
2.42
2.06
2.06

Total
57
2.46
2.18
2.36
2.36
0.47
0.37
0.44
0.44
1.99
1.82
1.92
1.92
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In total over this time period, Montreal was:
+4% better than league average in goals per game
+8% better than league average in goals against per game
+7% better than league average in power play scoring
+16% better than league average in power play scoring against
+3% better than league average in non-PP scoring
+6% better than league average in non-PP goals against

They were slightly better than average across the board, but stronger on special teams than at even strength.

Next, let’s look at the dynasty years (1956-60) and also the season after when Harvey was still a Canadien.

1956-1961 Playoffs

Year
GP
GF/G
GA/G
Lg
Lg
PPGF/G
PPGA/G
Lg
Lg
Non-PPGF/G
Non-PPGA/G
Lg
Lg

1956
10
4.20
1.80
2.80
2.80
1.00
0.60
0.70
0.70
3.20
1.20
2.10
2.10

1957
10
3.70
1.80
2.80
2.80
0.80
0.40
0.57
0.57
2.90
1.40
2.23
2.23

1958
10
3.50
2.00
3.09
3.09
1.00
0.60
0.94
0.94
2.50
1.40
2.16
2.16

1959
11
3.55
2.55
3.00
3.00
1.18
0.45
0.75
0.75
2.36
2.09
2.25
2.25

1960
8
2.64
1.00
2.11
2.11
0.27
0.09
0.31
0.31
2.36
0.91
1.81
1.81

1961
6
2.50
2.67
2.50
2.50
0.50
0.83
0.59
0.59
2.00
1.83
1.91
1.91

Total
55
3.44
1.96
2.76
2.76
0.84
0.49
0.66
0.66
2.60
1.48
2.11
2.11
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This was an absolutely dominant stretch for Montreal in the playoffs over 50 games. While there were a lot of great players on the team, there is a lot of credit to go around.

In total over this time period, Montreal was:
+25% better than league average in goals per game
+29% better than league average in goals against per game
+27% better than league average in power play scoring
+26% better than league average in power play scoring against
+23% better than league average in non-PP scoring
+30% better than league average in non-PP goals against

Finally, let’s look at the first 5 post-Harvey seasons, 1962-66. This 41 game stretch was less successful than the dynasty years but still includes 2 Stanley Cup wins by Montreal.


GP
GF/G
GA/G
Lg
Lg
PPGF/G
PPGA/G
Lg
Lg
Non-PPGF/G
Non-PPGA/G
Lg
Lg

1962
6
2.17
3.17
2.83
2.83
0.67
1.00
0.78
0.78
1.50
2.17
2.06
2.06

1963
5
1.20
2.80
2.84
2.84
0.60
0.40
0.75
0.75
0.60
2.40
2.09
2.09

1964
7
2.00
2.43
2.67
2.67
0.14
0.57
0.62
0.62
1.86
1.86
2.05
2.05

1965
13
2.69
2.00
2.58
2.58
1.62
0.54
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.46
1.50
1.50

1966
10
3.30
2.00
2.66
2.66
1.10
0.40
0.94
0.94
2.20
1.60
1.72
1.72

Total
41
2.46
2.34
2.68
2.68
0.98
0.56
0.88
0.88
1.49
1.78
1.88
1.88
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In total over this time period, Montreal was:
+8% worse than league average in goals per game
+13% better than league average in goals against per game
+11% better than league average in power play scoring
+36% better than league average in power play scoring against
+21% worse than league average in non-PP scoring
+5% better than league average in non-PP goals against

What does this mean? While Montreal’s regular season performance didn’t drop off so much after Harvey’s departure, their playoff results were much worse. Especially their even strength play, both goal scoring and goal prevention, was much worse. Power play scoring was partially redeemed by their great performance in 1965 but was also down from 1962-64. Montreal appears to have struggled to generate offence in the playoff environment without Harvey, and just generally had worse performance at even strength.

What are the implications for other players? I guess you can look at Beliveau (and Henri Richard)’s even strength scoring in the playoffs – were they to blame for Montreal’s scoring struggles? Hull, Mikita, Ullman, and Howe were all significantly ahead as even strength scorers in the playoffs of the 1960s.


Player
ESP
GP
ESP/G
PPP

Hull
50
73
0.68
30

Ullman
37
59
0.63
24

Mikita
46
74
0.62
28

Howe
33
55
0.60
31

H.Richard
36
76
0.47
14

Beliveau
37
79
0.47
39

Keon
30
67
0.45
13

Duff
38
87
0.44
23

Mahovlich
26
62
0.42
19
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

How much did Montreal miss Maurice Richard’s ability to score goals in the playoffs in the 1960s? Maybe quite a bit at even strength. Richard and Beliveau were both very strong even strength goal scorers in the playoffs of the 1950s.

1951-1960 Playoffs

Player
GP
ESG
ESG/G
ESP
ESP/G
PPG
1G
GWG
OTG

Beliveau
63
28
0.44
50
0.79
8
8
7
0

M.Richard
86
36
0.42
54
0.63
12
7
14
5

Geoffrion
106
35
0.33
65
0.61
18
11
13
0

Lindsay
68
22
0.32
42
0.62
9
4
6
2

Howe
68
22
0.32
56
0.82
5
5
5
0

H.Richard
49
13
0.27
39
0.80
0
1
3
0

Mackell
64
15
0.23
36
0.56
4
7
4
0

Delvecchio
62
14
0.23
31
0.50
9
4
3
0

Moore
95
18
0.19
55
0.58
13
5
5
0
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

But we also have to consider that Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore, and Henri Richard all saw their even strength scoring in the playoffs drop by quite a bit after Harvey left the team, and maybe Harvey had a hand in driving these results from the 1950s.

And another point about Maurice Richard – but look at the goals against numbers in the playoffs for Montreal from 1951 to 1961. Montreal allowed 2.27 goals/game or fewer in all but 3 seasons – the three seasons when Richard did not play or played very little in the playoffs. Of course this could just be random and nobody thinks that Richard was secretly the most valuable defensive player on the Canadiens, but I thought it was interesting enough to mention.

1955 – Maurice Richard missed the playoffs – 3.00 GA/G
1959 – Maurice Richard played only 3 playoff games – 2.55 GA/G
1961 – Maurice Richard is retired – 2.67 GA/G
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon, Dr John Carlson, MXD and 3 others
MXD

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,810
16,548
overpass said:
But we also have to consider that Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore, and Henri Richard all saw their even strength scoring in the playoffs drop by quite a bit after Harvey left the team, and maybe Harvey had a hand in driving these results from the 1950s.

And another point about Maurice Richard – but look at the goals against numbers in the playoffs for Montreal from 1951 to 1961. Montreal allowed 2.27 goals/game or fewer in all but 3 seasons – the three seasons when Richard did not play or played very little in the playoffs. Of course this could just be random and nobody thinks that Richard was secretly the most valuable defensive player on the Canadiens, but I thought it was interesting enough to mention.

1955 – Maurice Richard missed the playoffs – 3.00 GA/G
1959 – Maurice Richard played only 3 playoff games – 2.55 GA/G
1961 – Maurice Richard is retired – 2.67 GA/G
Click to expand...

Two things :

First, while your first point is certainly interesting (W/R/T Beliveau at the very least, but he had other issues), Geoffrion and Moore past 30 years old, both of them accumulating lots of mileage and injuries. Specifically Moore, who played a very physical brand of hockey (for a guy who wasn't very big). It MIGHT have had something to do with Harvey; it's just that, I don't think he has to be credited too much for Moore and Geoffrion's production plumetting.

Second... Richard was a great forechecker, right?
 
Captain Bowie

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Sentinel said:
[MOD]

Hasek's WAS the "very, very." Defined the DPE as much as the Wings-Avs rivalry. Bourque defined the Bruins.

It is a pity Dom didn't play on the Wings from the beginning. They would meet with the Avs every year for a decade and his head-to-head record against Roy would be even more telling.
Click to expand...
I don't think Hasek was that far and away better than Jagr in the DPE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas
TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
bobholly39 said:
Since we're talking about Roy in playoffs...

How much of an "intangibles" bump should Roy get for his role in making the 96 Avalanche champions? For all the talk last round of Gretzky never winning after Edmonton - has any trade in the history of the NHL worked out as well as this one in relation to team needs/success?

They brought Roy on board for his goaltending skills - but also for his winning attitude/track record, and he helped a team with a ton of talent but who was going nowhere in terms of post-season success, into the promised land within his first year. And although he didn't win again until 2001, the Avalanche were a complete powerhouse in the late 90s thanks in large part to the reliability of Roy in nets, and some of their matchups against Detroit and even Dallas are truly memorable.

As much as Roy is given credit for taking 'lesser' Habs teams to cups in 86 and 93 - i don't think it should be understated how great his contributions post-trade was too.
Click to expand...

Has any trade in modern NHL history altered the fate of two franchise so much in clear opposite directions?

The Avalanche immediately went from a young talented team that didn't have "it" to perennial Cup contenders

And the Habs, the most successful team in NHL history, a team that even in the post-dynasty years was good for 2 Cups a decade, immediately went into the toilet for a decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadiens1958, solidmotion and bobholly39
VanIslander

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,285
6,483
South Korea
TheDevilMadeMe said:
... the Habs, ... immediately went into the toilet for a decade.
Click to expand...
Buffalo won nine playoff series in 8 playoff years with Hasek (victories under three different coaches: Muckler, Nolan, Ruff) and when he left the Sabres, the highly successful team and coach Ruff missed the playoffs for three years and everyone knew it was because of Hasek.

Quebec moving to Colorado brought changes, like adding Claude Lemieux and Patrick Roy to a team already heralded as a contender that underperformed expectations (the cup favorite when in Quebec before the lockout). Roy rather than Fiset in net was huge, but not as pivotal as Hasek's role in Buffalo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ted2019
seventieslord

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,157
7,288
Regina, SK
VanIslander said:
Thankfully we don't count games played as a determining factor (though someone at some point will argue for Luongo because of 1000 games played).
Click to expand...

on the other hand, nobody is talking about career games played here. Save percentage, as valuable and helpful as it may be, is still a rate statistic. And being able to maintain a rate statistic over a larger sample is more impressive. That's why something like gsaa can be helpful, because it takes into consideration save percentage and how long they did it for. Hasek should be looked at more critically due to his relatively low season by season games played totals.
 
The Macho King

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,773
29,306
seventieslord said:
on the other hand, nobody is talking about career games played here. Save percentage, as valuable and helpful as it may be, is still a rate statistic. And being able to maintain a rate statistic over a larger sample is more impressive. That's why something like gsaa can be helpful, because it takes into consideration save percentage and how long they did it for. Hasek should be looked at more critically due to his relatively low season by season games played totals.
Click to expand...
Isn't he though? One of the reasons he might not make my top 5 this round is he undoubtedly pulled *himself* out of action to the detriment of his team. We may not dive into the statistical backing for that super deeply, but I think it's certainly factored in for most of us.
 
VanIslander

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,285
6,483
South Korea
seventieslord said:
Hasek should be looked at more critically due to his relatively low season by season games played totals.
Click to expand...
He averaged over 60 games a season over a 9-year stretch if you give him a mulligan for one season of 35.

The 6-year stretch in which he led the league in save percentage each season he played:

72
67
64
59
58
41

... there's no reason to knock him...

Yeah, kuddos to Glenn Hall for 500 consecutive games and Brodeur for workload too. And Luongo. Maybe give a brownie point or two for stamina.

We don't knock Crosby for time not played, being more rested, but for specific lack of performance totals when he did play.
 
MXD

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,810
16,548
VanIslander said:
He averaged over 60 games a season over a 9-year stretch if you give him a mulligan for one season of 35.

The 6-year stretch in which he led the league in save percentage each season he played:

72
67
64
59
58
41

... there's no reason to knock him...

Yeah, kuddos to Glenn Hall for 500 consecutive games and Brodeur for workload too. And Luongo. Maybe give a brownie point or two for stamina.

We don't knock Crosby for time not played, being more rested, but for specific lack of performance totals when he did play.
Click to expand...

If we wouldn't knock Crosby for games not played, he'd be AT WORSE 6th overall, and I'm pretty sure this isn't happening anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe and Michael Farkas
Canadiens1958

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Mike Farkas said:
@BM67 Can we get Hasek head to head vs. Brodeur please? I want to know if I should be holding off voting for any goalies until Brodeur comes around...
Click to expand...

Yes we should. Neither Roy nor Hasek are worthy of top 5 All Time goalie status let alone top 5 overall.

Both required managed RS starts and took longer than most to claim #1 status with an NHL team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerBruce
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom