Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 20

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
But "platoon" situations weren't uncommon in his day. In the 1960's, he was actually 2nd in games played (to Hall). Looking at the "goals saved above average" method, which weighs save percentage and games played, despite often sharing the workload with others, he still led the NHL based on this metric three times (and was second five more times).

On the other hand, He palyed 11 seasons with the Leafs and he was only the undisputed starter in four of those seasons (51-66 GP) and platooned in seven others (20-43 GP). It's no shame platooning with Sawchuk, but that only explains three of those seven years, the other times it was Chadwick, Simmons and Gamble).

(he did outperform those guys, by 9, 8, and 38 sv% points those seasons, but still, if he was clearly better why not start him more than they did?)
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
When Savard left the Canadiens and played with the Jets for two seasons he was -35.

Brad McCrimmon, in his last three seasons with Hartford and Phoenix, was still +24.

I think Savard was a -32 (-8 and -24) actually, but look at the circumstances. Savard was not exactly playing with a defensive dynamo, and particularly the era itself lent itself to some very low minuses. Any Jets success they had during those years can be attributed to offense (particularly the likes of Hawerchuk and possibly Thomas Steen), not defense.

Then you look at McCrimmon's final two seasons (where he was a combined plus 17, not plus 24). That was in the heart of the dead puck era, not the early 80's where I had a few goals just by attending Jet games.

Then there's the merit of plus/minus itself. Kinda iffy at best.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I was much higher on Bower than others appear to be. I had him close to 70 on my initial list, which I now think was too high, but I still think he deserves a serious look for the last six spots.

The thing that had always impressed me about Bower is he put up great personal stats, while also contributing to significant team success. From a personal standpoint, he led the NHL in save percentage six times in a span of eight years (and was a decimal place away from doing this a seventh time in nine years). The only other goalie in NHL who's led the league in save percentage so consistently, for so many years, is Hasek.

From a team success standpoint, Bower won four Stanley Cups, three as a starter. He had great numbers and (for what it's worth) was awarded the 1963 "retro" Conn Smythe trophy. In 1964 he helped the Leafs come back from a 3-2 deficit by holding the Habs to one goal over games 6 and 7 (stopping 38 of 39 shots); then shutting out Detroit in game 7 the next series to win the Cup (33 save shutout).

The two main issues with him are games played and awards recognition. His relatively low games played are a result of him not becoming an NHL regular until age 34 (!), and generally being a goalie in a platoon situation. I have no response to the first point; much like Martin St. Louis, his late start should be (and I would argue already has been) used against him. But "platoon" situations weren't uncommon in his day. In the 1960's, he was actually 2nd in games played (to Hall). Looking at the "goals saved above average" method, which weighs save percentage and games played, despite often sharing the workload with others, he still led the NHL based on this metric three times (and was second five more times).

The other issue (and I think I had forgotten about this when I put together my initial list) is he didn't get a lot of personal recognition. He was a first-team all-star in 1961 (and runner-up for the Hart trophy), but was never again a year-end all-star (remember that pre-1982, the Vezina trophy is a team statistical award, essentially the same as the Jennings trophy today). It's damaging for his case that even in his other really strong seasons where he played lots of games (1960; 1964; 1966; 1968), he never earned a year-end all-star spot, finishing 3rd, 3rd, 4th, and out of the top three (one of those years we just have the top three in voting).

Comparing him to Esposito, Tony-O dwarfs Bower in regular season career value. Bower was a bit better per game, but Esposito has close to another decade of strong play. Bower has a much better playoff resume though.

I flat out don't trust the shot totals coming out of 60s Toronto. I mean, do you believe that defensive-minded dynasty gave up more shots than any other team in the league?
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
Yeah- not surprising, I suppose. There's very good sound-wave carry here in the chamber. But let's get this out of the way now, before we get too far off the path...

It's long past time to put the lie to the canard that BERNIE PARENT had an exceptional Peak and scant else that would be of consequence in a Top-100 discussion. A look at Bernie Parent year-by-year suffices to illustrate that he's more-than-worthy of immediate consideration this Round.

1965-66: Breaks into the league 6 months before his 21st birthday, for Boston- in the waning stages of the O-6 competition-furnace. Boston breaks the counter for shots allowed- over 200 more than the next worst team(s). Welcome to the show, rookie! Save percentage is .898. Nothing special-sounding... but keep in mind that the collective rest-of-Boston clocked in at .882.

1966-67: Weirdly cycled between Boston and the Oklahoma farm-team. The plurality of the minutes go to journeyman Eddie Johnston. One would have to conclude that Cheevers (who was also rotated out to the Sooner State) adjusted to the prairie-shuttle better than Parent, as he outperforms Bernie this season, nosing ahead on the depth-chart.

Boston decides their future lay with Cheevers, and expose Parent in the expansion draft, setting up perhaps the last and most interesting 'what-if' we're likely to contemplate before we bid farewell to the Project.

1967-68: First year in freshly-minted expansion Philadelphia. As a team, fellow nominee Johnny Bower's Toronto team leads the league in Save %-- but 22-year-old Bernie Parent's Flyers are 2nd in the league in that stat. In the First Round of the playoffs, Philadelphia falls to St Louis, but Bernie Saves at a .963 clip, perhaps providing a harbinger of what can be expected from the future of 'Playoff Parent.'

1968-69: Another year, another Team 2nd place in Save %. The only individuals to outperform Parent in that stat are these guys named Plante & Hall.

1969-70: Second among starters in Save %, trailing well-known Regular-Season Beast Tony Esposito. Philadelphia cultivates credible back-up in Doug Favell, who will play a role in our story next season...

1970-71: This is the season where Philadelphia decides that Doug Favell will serve adequately as an NHL-starter, and (knowing that Parent is the hotter property) trades him to Toronto. It is only by the standards one would attach to Bernie Parent that this could be considered a disappointing season, falling out of the top-10 in Save % (but still .014 above league average). At this point, a canny observer would surmise that one gets the very best out of Parent if he's spared the mid-season disruptions.

1971-72: More of the same- splitting time with Plante and finishing .014 above league-average in Save %. Toronto, doing what comes naturally to them when it comes to contract matters, leaves Parent receptive to the siren-call of the WHA.

1972-73: Parent's "other" Philadelphia year- the Blazers of the WHA. We're all pretty hard-wired to discount WHA performances... but maybe we shouldn't discount this one so much- since what little evidence we have shows that Parent faced "a barrage of shots" [sourced: Wikipedia] and was no worse than the second most effective goalie in the upstart circuit (and perhaps better than that). Then, something curious happened... evidently, Parent's paycheck delivery was interrupted- shortly after the start of their opening playoff round. Parent, applying what little leverage he had, exited the team. The Blazers responded with a suspension- and in the aftermath, his WHA-rights were shifted from one franchise of dubious solvency to another. Meanwhile, in the NHL's parallel but less entropic universe, Toronto traded Parent's NHL-rights back to the Flyers- and with regards to career-certainty, saved Bernie Parent from a murky future.

And, as long as we've mentioned "saving," Parent would more than square the account when it came to the act of "saving."

What follows the next two years should need no explanation to anyone who takes this project with modest seriousness. It is, quite simply, the finest two year period of sustained goaltending excellence in the entire century-plus history of the Sport.

After this, Fate intervened- not tragically as in the case of Gardiner, or cruelly as in the case of Ace Bailey, but capriciously inasmuch as a neck injury resulted in Parent's shut-down from the start of the season until towards the end of February. Not really regaining form that year, the Flyers '76 playoff run proceeded gamely on with Wayne Stephenson, until it was steamrolled by the dawn of (still) the most recent iteration of Dynasty Montreal.

1976-77: Bernie Parent, working at trying to get back to Bernie Parent performance-standards, has perhaps his least effective year since the farm-carousel year. He doesn't even achieve .900 in Save %... but he's still .010 ahead of league-average that season. Roy's had a few Colorado-years less impressive than that.

1977-78: Consulting once more with The Grandmaster, Plante, Parent returns to form in 1977-78, leading the league in shutouts, and finishing behind only K. Dryden & T. Esposito in Save %, all while The Bullies continue to easily top the league in Power Play Opportunities Against.

If one could retroactively engage the modern stat "High Danger Scoring Chances Denied" percentage, then Parent's greatness would be even more manifest than it already is.

Unfortunately, the Wheel of Misfortune had the final word in this tale, as Bernie Parent's career ends with his eye injury. Happily, though, his place in Hockey History is unassailable, or at least should be by any rights that matter.

I'm not a native to the Delaware Valley... I'm a migrant. Still, ask a Philly Hockey fan of a certain age (say, an age where they will have seen the Flyers' entire history while it happened) who the Greatest Flyer of Them All was, they'd say Clarke. No controversy there. Ask them to name their second on that list, and it's more probable that they'd cite Bernie Parent than Lindros or Mark Howe. They wouldn't be wrong.

Now, I believe that Lindros deserves consideration this Round. He deserved consideration last Round. But, a better option than Bernie Parent he ain't.

If nothing else, hopefully, I've taken the unconscionable ******** *****-***** that Bernie Parent's top-100 credentials are his two Peak seasons and little else with which we need to concern ourselves, and sent that steaming piece of ****-**** off to bed (without supper).



You posts are always interesting and entertaining.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
....and he's got the 2nd best offensive numbers in this round (best if you consider things like even strength and relative lack of PP time).... and he's still just in a mashup for 6th-10th for you??

He can move up as my list isn't set in Stone. Howe, Lindros, Gerard are top 3. Keon could move up to 3rd. Also, I had Keon already at 4th.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
Or just reduce the importance that people are placing on it, period.

I tried to be topical and select Iginla's 2007 Flames. It was in the right direction, but not as illustrative as the more off topic chart below.

2004 PlayerGamesR-ONR-OFFRATIO
Neil821.931.350.43
Havlat681.351.44-0.06
Alfredsson771.261.51-0.17
Hossa811.091.62-0.33
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Presumably, we all disagree with this chart based on sight alone. Stats that are capable of misinforming us to this extent should probably be taken with a grain of salt and not be used as a key instrument in the decision making for this process.

To me this means that Chris Neil was much more then a "goon" and had value as a 4th line grinder. Some players play better in the playoffs then others.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
I flat out don't trust the shot totals coming out of 60s Toronto. I mean, do you believe that defensive-minded dynasty gave up more shots than any other team in the league?
remember, however, in my goaltender analysis from The Martin Brodeur round, the data doesn't seem to show that Toronto was overcounting shots.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
To me this means that Chris Neil was much more then a "goon" and had value as a 4th line grinder. Some players play better in the playoffs then others.

The takeaway from this is nothing but this: time on ice matters. If a player is playing in a sheltered, bottom of the lineup role, then strange numbers can sometimes occur when they go up against other poor players and dominate them. those types of results are not directly comprable to elite players with more ice time and responsibility. as far as it applies to the players in this round, they were all elite players who had a lot of ice time and a lot of responsibility so we can compare them to eachother, while of course keeping in mind whatever caveats apply to certain players, because there are always at least a couple.

sample size matters too, of course. In the case of Chris Neal in this season, how did he arrive at a 1.93? being out and about without my spreadsheets, I am guessing he was probably 27 and 14. Not a particularly huge sample of goals from which to draw any conclusions. Better players have much bigger samples even within one season and of course nobody is suggesting to just use the results of one season as though it matters all that much anyway. Look at multiple seasons and spot the trends.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,290
Then when you consider Bure's defensive impact, he's a slum dunk, hey?

I agree.

tenor.gif
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
remember, however, in my goaltender analysis from The Martin Brodeur round, the data doesn't seem to show that Toronto was overcounting shots.

Can you find the post?

It just seems strange to me that a team with a reputation as one of thr tightest defensive teams of all-time would give up that many shots. Unless they were playing a system that intentionally gave up lots of low quality chances.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
I’m a little thrown off by Iginla’s 110 and 108 seasons in even-strength VsX. I’m assuming the one is from his 64-59 margin over Naslund in 2001-02, but when else did he register that far above 2nd place?

He was 29 points south of the leader in 2002-03, 11 points in 2003-04, 39 points in 2005-06, 5 points in 2006-07, 10 points in 2007-08, 13 points in 2008-09, 35 points in 2009-10, 6 points in 2010-11, 27 points in 2011-12, and 22 points in 2012-13.

I guess I just can’t figure out another year where he would register as the standard let alone exceed it to the weight of 108.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
What follows the next two years should need no explanation to anyone who takes this project with modest seriousness. It is, quite simply, the finest two year period of sustained goaltending excellence in the entire century-plus history of the Sport.
With the possible exception of early Terry Sawchuk, I concur whole-heartedly.
There is also no way that the Flyers have any Stanley Cups under their belts, never mind two, if not for Parent. Regardless of "Budweiser-for-Breakfast" Freddy the Fog's system, regardless of heart-and-soul Bobby Clarke and regardless of the Philly Flu, if you had to pick one reason for either of those Cups, it was Parent (as evidenced by his Conn Smythes).
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
ES VsX Summary
Jarome Iginla110108959090848280757394.188.7
Martin St. Louis10097979493888683757293.688.5
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So- when you normalize Special Teams out of the matter, St Louis 7 & 10 year scoring edge over Iginla more-than-disappears.

Then you factor in the softer Division. And the teammates. And the toughness-edge. And the half-dozen-or-so NHL-seasons worth of added material competition. This is not even a little bit like a close-call, to me...
I expected Keon to do better - I thought that once easy PP points were removed he'd start to look more even with the rest of the pack, but I guess these are some elite producers any way you slice it.
Dave Keon- Effort-Cost-Management pioneer?!
Edit: added Toe Blake, as I had forgotten that ES/PP/SH stats now go back beyond the start of his career.
And having slotted him in there, he doesn't look out-of-place. There's another Forward out there- sometimes lined up against Blake. Not seeing him there. I'm sure it's an oversight. Wonder how he'd look...
 
Last edited:

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Can you find the post?

It just seems strange to me that a team with a reputation as one of thr tightest defensive teams of all-time would give up that many shots. Unless they were playing a system that intentionally gave up lots of low quality chances.

Next chance I get.

I’m a little thrown off by Iginla’s 110 and 108 seasons in even-strength VsX. I’m assuming the one is from his 64-59 margin over Naslund in 2001-02, but when else did he register that far above 2nd place?

He was 29 points south of the leader in 2002-03, 11 points in 2003-04, 39 points in 2005-06, 5 points in 2006-07, 10 points in 2007-08, 13 points in 2008-09, 35 points in 2009-10, 6 points in 2010-11, 27 points in 2011-12, and 22 points in 2012-13.

I guess I just can’t figure out another year where he would register as the standard let alone exceed it to the weight of 108.

I will get that to you when I get back home to my computer. Even-strength points are a little bit different in that you're much more likely to find a situation where there are a couple players clustered near the top, and then a gap, and then the pack. When it comes to esvsx, and dvsx, for the standard I always use the point where the pack starts. So there must be a season where Iginla is noticeably ahead of a pack of players, although off the top of my head I can't tell you which one it is.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Can you find the post?

It just seems strange to me that a team with a reputation as one of thr tightest defensive teams of all-time would give up that many shots. Unless they were playing a system that intentionally gave up lots of low quality chances.

Here's what I said:

As far as Bower is concerned, you know, now that I take a closer look, I can't make a compelling case that the leafs were overcounting shots. I guess one would expect the 60s Leafs to surrender fewer shots than average, but my impression looking at Bower's totals some years, was that they surrendered more. Aside from 1967, that doesn't really appear to be the case:

League average shots, leafs shots against, difference

196031.61 33.141.53
196132.19 32.240.05
196231.63 30.95(0.68)
196331.79 29.50(2.29)
196432.80 31.06(1.74)
196531.12 31.400.28
196631.50 32.240.74
196731.79 35.283.48
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Bower's most impressive seasons by adjusted sv% are 65-66, when the Leafs surrendered just 0.74 more than the league average, 1964, when they allowed 1.74 fewer than average, and 1967, which looks like a massive smoking gun at 3.48, but the 1967 Leafs weren't what they once were. It's quite possible they were an old, slow, tired team with a lot of mileage that allowed a lot of shots and counted on a stellar tandem to bail them out.

1961 is Bower's next best season and they allowed exactly league average. 1968 is his next best, and this time they were 3.9 shots above average, which is the fifth straight season their team shots against relative to league average increased. It seems this was less a case of overcounting, and more a case of the Leafs just becoming more and more porous defensively.

I would not look at this data as evidence of overcounting. Rather, I'd say it is evidence that Bower was underrated. However, his most dominant seasons, statistically, saw him top out at 59 games, so it's not surprising or inappropriate he was passed over for all-star teams repeatedly in favour of goalies who handled more full workloads.

the only way to prove overcounting would be to check the Leafs' home games against their away games. I'm not saying for sure it didn't happen, but I am saying these numbers don't prove it.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I flat out don't trust the shot totals coming out of 60s Toronto. I mean, do you believe that defensive-minded dynasty gave up more shots than any other team in the league?

How accurate is your perspective? Leafs from 1961 onwards were usually 2nd or 3rd in goals for thru their dynasty 1964, ahead of Chicago but behind Montreal.

Strong defensively, basically rolling four lines, excellent transition.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
How accurate is your perspective? Leafs from 1961 onwards were usually 2nd or 3rd in goals for thru their dynasty 1964, ahead of Chicago but behind Montreal.

Strong defensively, basically rolling four lines, excellent transition.
Strong defensively, basically rolling four lines, excellent transition.
They had four lines back then? I believe is was 16 skaters (not counting goalies), so I guess they could have 12 forwards and four d-men, or ten forwards (three lines and a "spare") and six d-men?
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Here's what I said:

As far as Bower is concerned, you know, now that I take a closer look, I can't make a compelling case that the leafs were overcounting shots. I guess one would expect the 60s Leafs to surrender fewer shots than average, but my impression looking at Bower's totals some years, was that they surrendered more. Aside from 1967, that doesn't really appear to be the case:

League average shots, leafs shots against, difference

196031.61 33.141.53
196132.19 32.240.05
196231.63 30.95(0.68)
196331.79 29.50(2.29)
196432.80 31.06(1.74)
196531.12 31.400.28
196631.50 32.240.74
196731.79 35.283.48
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Bower's most impressive seasons by adjusted sv% are 65-66, when the Leafs surrendered just 0.74 more than the league average, 1964, when they allowed 1.74 fewer than average, and 1967, which looks like a massive smoking gun at 3.48, but the 1967 Leafs weren't what they once were. It's quite possible they were an old, slow, tired team with a lot of mileage that allowed a lot of shots and counted on a stellar tandem to bail them out.

1961 is Bower's next best season and they allowed exactly league average. 1968 is his next best, and this time they were 3.9 shots above average, which is the fifth straight season their team shots against relative to league average increased. It seems this was less a case of overcounting, and more a case of the Leafs just becoming more and more porous defensively.

I would not look at this data as evidence of overcounting. Rather, I'd say it is evidence that Bower was underrated. However, his most dominant seasons, statistically, saw him top out at 59 games, so it's not surprising or inappropriate he was passed over for all-star teams repeatedly in favour of goalies who handled more full workloads.

the only way to prove overcounting would be to check the Leafs' home games against their away games. I'm not saying for sure it didn't happen, but I am saying these numbers don't prove it.

Leafs always the Sunday away game after a Saturday home game which skews the numbers.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
Late 1950's.1960 SC video, game report and stats confirm. Some of the teams used a 5th dman who also played forward.
Phil Esposito always said that he couldn't play in the modern era because of the short shifts, and that in his day it was a 3 line game. I guess in Boston, it was 3 lines and guys who rode the bench.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
I look at Dave Keon and I wonder, what is he that Jonathan Toews or Patrice Bergeron aren't? Is that a fair concern or am I way out to lunch on that comparison?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
I look at Dave Keon and I wonder, what is he that Jonathan Toews or Patrice Bergeron aren't? Is that a fair concern or am I way out to lunch on that comparison?
(Cheekie response alert): He played for Toronto, which automatically elevates his legacy whether we like it or not.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->