Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 21

[DN28]

Very busy week but I will post some stuff on Maltsev and Martinec on Saturday / Sunday, so hold your judgement on these players yet.

I believe that, in short, Maltsev has slightly more high-end elite seasons than Martinec, and he also has slightly more "normal" seasons than Martinec, which means: still meaningful seasons where Maltsev was no star but solid and serviceable player on USSR squad.

So that is the argument for Maltsev... Pro-Martinec argument will have to come on the grounds of him having scored more than Maltsev versus tough opponents (both Soviets and Canadians) and on his all-round play.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

The One Where I Tilt At Windmills

In 2003-04, Jarome Iginla, just one year removed from a finger-dislocation condition that hampered his effectiveness the season before, bounced back to his second Hart-finalist season, garnering the Richard trophy and thoroughly rinsing the taste of the previous season out of his mouth.

Good time for a Lockout. As I mentioned before, St Louis lost out, too- but so did this guy.

The careers of Slava Fetisov and Valeri Vasiliev, collectively, span about 30 years- from the late '60s to the late '90s. Yes, we know, 81 Canada Cup & 96 World Cup/Hockey aside, Canada was the top hockey nation of that or any other era. However, the closest anyone ever came to presenting a threat to that hegemony were the 70s to early 80s Soviets. It certainly wasn't utterly uncompetitive. I don't think it's quota/set-aside thinking to say that if Canada produced double-digits top-100 players who played defense, Russia produced, oh, let's get wild and say two.

As a fan, I would happily accept the two apex years of Bernie Parent over ALL of Ed Belfour's Chicago résumé. [And, of course, Parent's non-apex years are certainly nothing for which he needs to apologize.]

The mid-70s were hockey's closest thing to a clear, sort-of competitive 1-2-3 punch between Canada, Russia, and Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia's runner-up 1976 Canada Cup showing certainly served notice to the North Americans. Of course, there were also the times Czechoslovakia topped the Soviets, too. In that '76 Cup tourney, the Canadians had eight top-100 players on their roster. In Czechoslovakia's victorious 1972 World Championship campaign, the Soviets had three top-100 players on their roster. [And, to my mind, that's almost certainly an under-count.] Is it unthinkable to suggest that the Czechoslovaks of that era had one measly top-100 player in the early to mid '70s?!? We really should have looked at Jíři Holeček and Vladimir Martinec long before this time. The fact that they'll both lose out in the numbers-game, even on my ballot, is regrettable.

Two final thoughts in passing- outside the shape-shifting cyber-halls of the History of Hockey sub-forum, Bernie Parent as a top-100 player is NOT a particularly controversial assertion. [Neither is the same assertion applied to Sid Abel, but that'll be addressed in a more "practical" post.]

One last visit to Czechoslovakia- mention was made of Martinec's three Golden Hockey Sticks, exceeded only by Jágr and Hašek. Well, we've had Retro-Smthyes and Retro-Norrises. If someone were to do such a thing as Retro-Golden Hockey Sticks, Martinec's total of three would almost certainly be crested, by someone who did not even get a stinking whiff here in this discussion.

 

[wetcoast]

His answer is already there:

My bad I should stop viewing on my phone in quick moments obviously

 

[DannyGallivan]

For the record, Parent's peak was not what I was debating. I essentially said that outside of those two years he's completely irrelevant to this. With those two years, he's just regular irrelevant.

His peak is legendary. For those of us who place peak at the top of the priority list when defining greatness, Parent's best two years rival the best of any goalie at any time. And no, despite Clarke, Shero and the bullies, the Flyers don't ever win a Stanley Cup without Parent. It's a team game and all, and mostly the same squad made it to the finals a couple more times without Bernie, but they don't win in '74 and '75 without him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Got it. Still wasn't debating that part. Two years is a fairly small peak, but he gets credit for carrying it through the playoffs. And... *shuffles through notes* still isn't relevant here...

Let's move along, shall we...as any talk about Parent is time that we could have used to talk about ballot-able candidates...

 

[DannyGallivan]

Got it. Still wasn't debating that part. Two years is a fairly small peak, but he gets credit for carrying it through the playoffs. And... *shuffles through notes* still isn't relevant here...

Let's move along, shall we...as any talk about Parent is time that we could have used to talk about ballot-able candidates...

It is interesting that perhaps the best two years of goaltending in NHL history (give or take an early Terry Sawchuk or Hasek) is such an island onto itself. Parent will obviously rate much higher for me than you, although he will still be a far cry from the top tier of this particular round. He just needs his due.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The One Where I Tilt At Windmills

In 2003-04, Jarome Iginla, just one year removed from a finger-dislocation condition that hampered his effectiveness the season before, bounced back to his second Hart-finalist season, garnering the Richard trophy and thoroughly rinsing the taste of the previous season out of his mouth.

Good time for a Lockout. As I mentioned before, St Louis lost out, too- but so did this guy.

The careers of Slava Fetisov and Valeri Vasiliev, collectively, span about 30 years- from the late '60s to the late '90s. Yes, we know, 81 Canada Cup & 96 World Cup/Hockey aside, Canada was the top hockey nation of that or any other era. However, the closest anyone ever came to presenting a threat to that hegemony were the 70s to early 80s Soviets. It certainly wasn't utterly uncompetitive. I don't think it's quota/set-aside thinking to say that if Canada produced double-digits top-100 players who played defense, Russia produced, oh, let's get wild and say two.

As a fan, I would happily accept the two apex years of Bernie Parent over ALL of Ed Belfour's Chicago résumé. [And, of course, Parent's non-apex years are certainly nothing for which he needs to apologize.]

The mid-70s were hockey's closest thing to a clear, sort-of competitive 1-2-3 punch between Canada, Russia, and Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia's runner-up 1976 Canada Cup showing certainly served notice to the North Americans. Of course, there were also the times Czechoslovakia topped the Soviets, too. In that '76 Cup tourney, the Canadians had eight top-100 players on their roster. In Czechoslovakia's victorious 1972 World Championship campaign, the Soviets had three top-100 players on their roster. [And, to my mind, that's almost certainly an under-count.] Is it unthinkable to suggest that the Czechoslovaks of that era had one measly top-100 player in the early to mid '70s?!? We really should have looked at Jíři Holeček and Vladimir Martinec long before this time. The fact that they'll both lose out in the numbers-game, even on my ballot, is regrettable.

Two final thoughts in passing- outside the shape-shifting cyber-halls of the History of Hockey sub-forum, Bernie Parent as a top-100 player is NOT a particularly controversial assertion. [Neither is the same assertion applied to Sid Abel, but that'll be addressed in a more "practical" post.]

One last visit to Czechoslovakia- mention was made of Martinec's three Golden Hockey Sticks, exceeded only by Jágr and Hašek. Well, we've had Retro-Smthyes and Retro-Norrises. If someone were to do such a thing as Retro-Golden Hockey Sticks, Martinec's total of three would almost certainly be crested, by someone who did not even get a stinking whiff here in this discussion.

Agree on the Czechs having a good argument that at least one guy from the Iron Curtain era ought to make it. I think ultimately we went a little overboard on modern players and it has left us in the unfortunate position of not having room to recognize both the Iron Curtain Czechs and pre-NHA eras.

I think at this point I'm leaning more towards Bowie. The pre-NHA era was a lot longer than the Czech golden age in the mid to late 70s, that might be what tips the balance for me.

 

[Batis]

One last visit to Czechoslovakia- mention was made of Martinec's three Golden Hockey Sticks, exceeded only by Jágr and Hašek. Well, we've had Retro-Smthyes and Retro-Norrises. If someone were to do such a thing as Retro-Golden Hockey Sticks, Martinec's total of three would almost certainly be crested, by someone who did not even get a stinking whiff here in this discussion.

Martinec actually won four Golden Hockey Sticks (73, 75, 76 and 79). And regarding the Retro-Golden Hockey Sticks I assume that you are talking about Suchy who was voted the top player in Czechoslovakia by newspaper Mlada Fronta in both 67 and 68 and then won the first two Golden Hockey Sticks in 69 and 70? While I am high on Suchy myself and consider him to have peaked the highest of all pre-Hasek Czechoslovaks it is in my opinion also rather easy to understand why he did not come up for voting here considering his lack of elite longevity. But it would definitely have been nice to have him up for discussion and for posters who values peak performance very highly Suchy could certainly rank well within the top 100 players of all time.

 

[ted2019]

It is interesting that perhaps the best two years of goaltending in NHL history (give or take an early Terry Sawchuk or Hasek) is such an island onto itself. Parent will obviously rate much higher for me than you, although he will still be a far cry from the top tier of this particular round. He just needs his due.

Bernie didn't even make my top 120 list. He's maybe, top 175 at best.

 

[ted2019]

So, where is everyone at with Martinec and Maltsev ?

 

[blogofmike]

Bernie didn't even make my top 120 list. He's maybe, top 175 at best.

What separates Parent and Gardiner, (if you had Charlie in there?)

 

[Michael Farkas]

Two years vs. not two years.

 

[streitz]

Are people seriously arguing Francis is the 21st best player of all time?


Great center for sure, but realistically I'm not even sure if he's a top 20 center in the 80's/90's.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Nope. No one is doing that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just because a player only has some of the greatest seasons in the history of the position twice does not mean that he has only played two years; he’s just set an incredibly high standard for the rest of his career to be held against.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Bernie didn't even make my top 120 list. He's maybe, top 175 at best.

I value peak more than you. It's likely why I had Lafleur higher than anybody else, too. And it's hard to argue against your point of view, (I assume that every one of your potential top 150 or 160 had several years of A-plus seasons if Parent would barely make your top 175.)

But. at the end of the day, without Parent your avatar would be missing that black patch on the right side of his chest. And to prove I'm just as unbiased as you (in a reverse kinda way), I cheered against Parent in each of his two Stanley Cup seasons. I hated the Flyers back then.

 

[streitz]

Nvm I think I completely misunderstood this thread lol. This will be my last post here. >.<

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

His peak is legendary. For those of us who place peak at the top of the priority list when defining greatness, Parent's best two years rival the best of any goalie at any time. And no, despite Clarke, Shero and the bullies, the Flyers don't ever win a Stanley Cup without Parent. It's a team game and all, and mostly the same squad made it to the finals a couple more times without Bernie, but they don't win in '74 and '75 without him.

They don't win the Cups without Rick MacLeish either.

But he's not a top 120 player.

 

[wetcoast]

Ron Francis:

1981-1990:

13th in points
Tied for 17th in points per game (min. 200 GP)
Ninth and tenth in Hart voting
Fifth in Selke voting one season
Never top ten in points
-52


Eric Staal:

2006-2013:

Tenth in points
Tied for 20th in points per game (min. 200 GP)
Fourth and 23rd in Hart voting
16th in Selke voting one season
Sixth and seventh in points
-22


Eh.

Why are you using Francis and his D+1 and D+2 years but for Stall skip both his D+1 and D+2 years?

Really makes the comparison weak doesn't it?

And that totally skips over the fact that Francis aged much better.

 

[wetcoast]

As I mentioned, I take the media more seriously from eras further back in time. They were seeing the same teams and players night after night when the league was small. Media in modern times have shown repeatedly that they do not even know the positions of the players they are handing out awards to.

It's also debatable is Gadsby played Defense in his last post season all star.

Part of the position thing can be also explained by 2 things.

It's much easier to look at current guys as we can 100% fact check it if we want and players often play different positions at forward in different games.

I have healthy critical eye when looking at all media sources with hockey and try to see if it stands up to critical analysis and often it comes up short nearly over the entire time of hockey doesn't it?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Very busy week but I will post some stuff on Maltsev and Martinec on Saturday / Sunday, so hold your judgement on these players yet.

I'll look forward to this perspective.

While I am high on Suchy myself and consider him to have peaked the highest of all pre-Hasek Czechoslovaks it is in my opinion also rather easy to understand why he did not come up for voting here considering his lack of elite longevity.

To touch on this just briefly- typically, I'm a longevity-guy when it comes to Defensemen... but when a player skates like an elite Forward, and adds to the scoreboard like an elite Forward, (and remains passably responsible in his own end [pace Karlsson]), I can forgive such a player for having the career-arc of scoreboard-changing Forward. Coffey-like longevity is the exception when it comes to such players. Other Panelists aren't quite so forgiving about such absence of longevity. Consider that we were dangerously close to omitting Brian Leetch, which would have been a clown-move. Suchý need not shy away from a comparison to Brian Leetch. But, one can only advance the players who are nominated.

...they don't win in '74 and '75 without [Bernie].

They don't win the Cups without Rick MacLeish either. But he's not a top 120 player.

I'm going to presume that this was accidental fatuousness, and not of the willful/deliberate variety. You see, on many Cup-winning teams, there are typically several "couldn't-have-done-it-without-you" guys. Marian Hossa. Kevin Stevens. Rick MacLeish. THEN, there are the "biggest-single-reason-we-won" guys. Duncan Keith. Mario Lemieux. Bernie Parent. Yeah- he was THAT level of a difference-maker. [In fact, in those back-to-back playoffs, he was more like a Lemieux-level difference maker than a Duncan Keith-level difference maker-- and this comes from someone who's relatively high on Keith and think he completely belongs on our List.]

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Parent - Could not be more irrelevant to this discussion. Two seasons, then the same team went to the Final with some kong donkey at the helm.

Longevity is the clear knock on Bernie, but the peak is legitimately good. As for that kong donkey replacing him, in the Cup years, the Flyers outscored the NHL average by 24 and 19 goals.

True- and valuable... but you know what else I noticed about that kong-donkey/garden-type-variety stiff? He was having his annus mirabilis, finishing 3rd in All-Star voting at the position, behind Dryden and Islanders Regular-Season stud Resch. By modern rendering, that would make that mediocity a Vezina-finalist.

Breezy, context-free quips are quite breezy, and ineffably context-free.

 

[DannyGallivan]

They don't win the Cups without Rick MacLeish either.

But he's not a top 120 player.

So Parent was also supposed to score, too?
Hey, it's not like I had Bernie in my top ten, or even in my top 100, but I am suddenly put in a position where I feel compelled to stick up for a player who may have had the best two years of goaltending ever. And some people don't even think he belongs in their own top 175.

He's not going to be at the top of my voting this round, but he certainly isn't going to be at the bottom either (and he'll likely finish ahead of a couple of goalies available this round for me). I'm more interested in making my point about his excellence... even if he didn't play 20 years... than where he actually ends up.

 

[MXD]

What separates Parent and Gardiner, (if you had Charlie in there?)

Also, Bobby Clarke vs. Not Bobby Clarke.
Also, The Flyers ranged between 4th and 6th offensively for those two big seasons (in a 18 teams league). Gardiner's team was, what, 8th? 9th? 10th? I say that, because I can't remember how many teams there were back then.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's also debatable is Gadsby played Defense in his last post season all star.

Part of the position thing can be also explained by 2 things.

It's much easier to look at current guys as we can 100% fact check it if we want and players often play different positions at forward in different games.

I have healthy critical eye when looking at all media sources with hockey and try to see if it stands up to critical analysis and often it comes up short nearly over the entire time of hockey doesn't it?

How is it debatable that Gadsby played defense during his last post-season all star year? I've never seen it suggested anywhere that he played any position besides defense.

The problem with supposing that media portrayal often doesn't stand up to critical analysis is that for players of a certain vintage, the stat sheet is the only other piece of evidence. Declaring the media's view of Player X from 1920 as faulty based on research conducted a century after the fact doesn't strike me as a scholarly course of action. We're trying to piece together a complete picture long after the fact; contemporary media accounts and the statistical record are two separate pieces of the puzzle. Sometimes they corroborate each other, sometimes not so much.