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

[seventieslord]

Kind of surprised to see Dougie here. Anyone going to vote for him?

In my top-10? Yes, absolutely. I haven't worked out how high yet, but I'll definitely have room.

There is A TON to like about Gilmour here.

- He's arguably the best defensive forward available in this round (others may disagree about Francis and Ullman; it's possible to see those three in any order, they are reasonably close)
- He's got the 2nd-best Hart voting record of any forward in this round
- He's the best playoff scorer in this round (by 5-year playoff VsX, we have Gilmour 94.2, Blake 93.2, Ullman 89.4, Abel 87.0, Francis 77.8, Stastny 56.8, Bure 53.2, Iginla 50.8). In addition, his ratios in the playoffs are, like, all-time excellent.
- For those who like peak, he has arguably the greatest peak of any player in this round.

What's not to like? Not a heck of a lot, except that his peak regular season offense isn't great for this round. I think he gets screwed by a couple of bad benchmarks in a few of his best seasons, and that's the only reason he's not right there in that 85-87 pack with Stastny, Abel, Francis, Iginla, Blake and Bure, but VsX is sacred and the benchmarks have to be calculated a certain way, with no room for fudging or human intervention to correct its inadequacies, so let's just leave it. Even if it was fairer to him, he wouldn't be a standout in regular season offense.

Is Gilmour just the rich man's center version of Bernie Parent? So much of his legacy rests on two back to back regular seasons and playoffs. His hart voting mirrors Parent in those two seasons, too. It's arguable they delivered the same overall value in those two seasons.

But while Parent is a 2-year wonder, Gilmour is a three-regular-season-and-four-playoff wonder. Take away parent's two best years and he looks rather thin. To make Gilmour look rather thin, you either have to put him in a double OT playoff game and weigh him afterwards, or remove 1993, 1994, AND 1987, AND the 1986 playoffs, AND the 1989 playoffs.

And once you remove all that, what you have left may be somewhat comparable. In Gilmour's case you have seven seasons as an above-average #1 center, 18th-26th in points, with an excellent two-way game (1988-1992, 1997, 2000). In Parent's case it's seven seasons as a definitely above average starting goaltender 1968-1972, 1977, 1978). During that time, Parent was 5th in all-star voting twice and ignored (perhaps unfairly) in voting the other seasons. Gilmour, of course, as a center, was only a factor in selke voting those seasons.

Beyond those seven seasons, Parent has just a WHA season and some below-average NHL years to consider, where Gilmour has a 70-point season and multiple 50+ point seasons, including some that built the two-way reputation that got him onto arguably the greatest roster of all-time - where, it should be added, he performed very well.

It seems really easy to put Gilmour ahead of Parent, not necessarily by a lot, but clearly so. Not because he was better in his two-season peak or his whole prime, but because he has 86, 87 and 89 to hang his hat on, and plenty of early and late-career value-adds.

Hrumph... Gilmour ahead of Hawerchuk. Silliness.

No problem with Gilmour over Hawerchuk whatsoever.

I doubt Hawerchuk would get any traction after seeing how Stastny has fared.

You're absolutely right - I wouldn't consider Hawerchuk over Stastny for more than a moment, and Stastny is still in tough in this round.

@bobholly39

Francis' offensive numbers got a bit boosted by playing for an extended period of time (basically the whole 1990s) with Jagr in Pittsburgh (and to a less extended period M. Lemieux, PP wise). Despite this he couldn't hit 30 goals in a season but functioned as a second wave set up guy/defensive presence. Look at how Kovalev's stats took off when he joined the same party.

I'm not anti-Francis but he can't touch Fedorov's three year peak 1993–1996.

Yeah, don't forget that Francis is really unique in this round in that his offensive numbers in his very best seasons are hugely boosted by the superior players he played with.

A great fudge that someone came up wigh for VsX (sturminator, maybe?) was to treat secondary players on teams that "broke the system" differently by comparing their totals to those of the system-breaking players. I don't know if it was instituted for anyone other than the 1974 Bruins, but it would definitely apply to a player like Francis.

Doesn't it bother anyone that he gets the same scores for years that Jagr dragged him up into the top-10 in scoring, as Doug Gilmour does for the years he carried Nik Borschevsky, Dave Andreychuk and Wendel Clark to career seasons?

In 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, his point total should really be compared to that of the highest-scoring Penguin. This would make his scores 85, 84, 74 and 74. If I calculated correctly, he'd be at about 83.6 for his best seven years, which is a much more accurate reflection of his true offensive ability.

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.

...perhaps it was easy playing goal in Philadephia from about 1973 to 1988.

Not "perhaps". It really was. Just about any goalie who attained strong statistics or award recognition in that period is now seen in retrospect as being overrated by their Philly years. It's possible Bernie Parent is an exception, but also... maybe he's not. That doesn't mean he was a Wayne Stephenson or Bob Froese level scrub, but maybe he was only a Vezina candidate caliber player, elevated to runaway vezina winner caliber for a short time.

One thing I've appreciated more throughout this project - how tough a standard the top 100 is.

Potentially all of Norm Ullman, Tony Esposito, Johnny Bower, Bernie Parent and Sid Abel will be excluded from our list (not to mention non-NHLers like Russell Bowie, Jiri Holecek and Alexander Maltsev). Before I sat down to write my initial list, I would have thought that all of them would make it. Ten or fifteen years ago it would have been crazy to suggest that none of these players would qualify.

I'll do a longer post when our list is finalized tomorrow night (or Monday), but we've been privileged to watch so many great players over the past decade, who have given us little choice but to push some excellent players from our 2007 list off of our current one.

I know many (usually younger) posters excitedly write things like "Malkin is top 30 all-time" on the main board. It's easy to make bold claims, but I don't think anybody fully appreciates just how tough a standard the top 100 (or 30, or 50, etc) is, until they sit down and actually try to assemble a list and are forced to make some tough choices.

I tell people something similar to this all the time.

That's an interesting opinion as the AHL scoring leader in 1966-67 was a 26 year old Gord Labossiere with 95 points.

The same player aged 35 in 75-76 WHA scored 55 points good for a tie at 59th in the WHA.

75-76 WHA top 10 scorers also look vastly more talented than 1966 AHL.

AHL 1966-67 League Leaders at hockeydb.com

WHA 1975-76 League Leaders at hockeydb.com

His best placing in the WHA was 9th in 72-73 aged 33.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. 35 years old is very different from 26.

To put it as simply as possible, if you assume that in 1967, all the best players from North America were in the NHL, and the next-best were in the AHL, and rosters were 20-man, then approximately the 300th best player in North America was filling out the 4th line RW spot on the shallowest AHL team. By 1977, you could also similarly assume that the best players were in the NHL, and the next-best in the WHA. Using a 20-man roster again, that means that the 600th best north american player was filling out the last job in the WHA, while the 300th would be an NHL role player or a very good WHA player. Sure, we can adjust those figures a little to account for the slightly larger pool feeding the leagues over ten years, but there's no way that 300th best in 1967 isn't still significantly better than 600th best in 1977. There should be little doubt that there were far more terrible players to exploit in the 1977 WHA, than there were in the 1967 AHL.

 

[seventieslord]

Summary of where I stand for this round:

1. Norm Ullman. With MSL (and Lindros) no longer up for voting, it's not even arguable - Ullman is the greatest offensive forward available. It only looks even more ridiculous when you look at even strength scoring separately:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7yr	10yr
Norm Ullman	128	110	98	96	95	92	88	86	86	83	101	96.2
Jarome Iginla	110	108	95	90	90	84	82	80	75	73	94.1	88.7
Pater Stastny	110	107	98	95	83	82	74	64	62	58	92.7	83.3
Pavel Bure	122	100	93	84	84	75	60	60	60	46	88.3	78.4
Doug Gilmour	96	88	85	85	84	81	76	76	72	63	85	80.6
Ron Francis	93	92	85	84	81	80	78	75	73	71	84.7	81.2
Toe Blake	100	100	92	82	82	78	76	72	67	61	81	81

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

We shouldn't be saying "Player X is the best offensive player remaining and has been for three rounds", unless player X is someone like Evgeni Malkin, Marcel Dionne, Andy Bathgate or Martin St. Louis - guys who did little other than put up points. When that player is someone like Norm Ullman - who every contemporary observer thought was great defensively and the top forechecker of the era - then it's downright embarrassing. Summary: Best offensively + in the mix with Francis and Gilmour for best defensively = best overall forward, easily.

2. Doug Gilmour. Iginla was my top holdover from the last round, but with all things considered, I don't see how I could put him above Gilmour. He is a guy who just checks every box. Iginla's resume looks sparse by comparison - particularly in the playoff department. I know he doesn't stand a serious chance - but he's more comparable to some guys like Lach and Fedorov (and Ullman) than many people want to admit.

3. Jarome Iginla. Still lots to like about Iginla - he should have gone above MSL, but nothing we can do about that now.

4. Tony Esposito. Just disgusting regular season value, almost unparalleled.

5. Erik Karlsson. Like I said last time - Not just an offenseman. Highly relied on player. Maybe the best possession player of his generation. Way better at not getting scored on than anyone gives him credit for. 1-1-2-2 in Norris voting and that may underrate him. Somewhat short career, though.

6. Sid Abel. Like I said last time - Great player, but screams "lesser version of Ullman". even if you take war years into account, he just didn't accomplish as much - he reached the same heights, just not nearly as often or for as long. Not quite the same defensive reputation, either.

7/8. Martinec and Maltsev. This "feels" right but I'm not really sure about it, either.

9. Serge Savard. From last round: Classy, understated, impeccable defensively. Lack of recognition in his time is a definite downside. As much as we want to see a guy like this make it, there are guys who give you the same feels and were recognized very highly in their own eras.

10. Toe Blake. A poor man's Jarome Iginla. Achieved less with better linemates. However - sneaky good playoff resume.

A chance to sneak in: Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Eddie Gerard, Peter Stastny, Valeri Vasiliev.

No chance to sneak in: Ron Francis, Pavel Bure, Johnny Bower, Scott Niedermayer, Russell Bowie.

Y'all have the next couple of hours to convince me of where I've gone wrong here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

70s - I'm not surprised you're not higher on Eddie Gerard...what's the score there for you?

 

[seventieslord]

70s - I'm not surprised you're not higher on Eddie Gerard...what's the score there for you?

I've read all the same things you guys have read, and I don't seem to come to the same conclusions. So much in-game stuff saying he had a good game, less saying he was the best player, and very little from outside of games, talking about where he ranks in the hockey world. Quotes like, "in today's hockey world, hockeyists agree Frank Nighbor is the master of all players today, with Eddie Gerard close behind", or "the best defender in today's hockey matches is clearly Eddie Gerard, for offenseman have no hope of reaching the ottawa net when he plays", go a really long way for me.

I mean, maybe he was the 2nd best player on the dynasty... maybe. But it's a really subjective point, where at least a couple other guys are solidly in that conversation.

Dynasty aside, for a guy with this many prime seasons played, he would have to be, like, the 3rd-4th best player in the world, consistently, for a few years to have a serious shot. Look at Lindros. He got in, barely, with minority support - and I'm not even in favour of that. Did Gerard really occupy a spot on hockey's pecking order as high as a guy like Lindros did? I can't confidently say he did, or that he was reasonably close to that, either.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Not a perfect analogy, but I think putting Gilmour above Hawerchuk may be somewhat comparable to putting Kopitar or Zetterberg above Stamkos or Modano above Sundin or Turgeon. I don't think it's indefensible.

 

[seventieslord]

Not a perfect analogy, but I think putting Gilmour above Hawerchuk may be somewhat comparable to putting Kopitar or Zetterberg above Stamkos or Modano above Sundin or Turgeon. I don't think it's indefensible.

Yeah, I mean clearly at least some people agree. One came up for voting, one didn't.

 

[blogofmike]

5. Erik Karlsson. Like I said last time - Not just an offenseman. Highly relied on player. Maybe the best possession player of his generation. Way better at not getting scored on than anyone gives him credit for. 1-1-2-2 in Norris voting and that may underrate him. Somewhat short career, though.

Little has been said about him this round, but Karlsson will be on my list too. Before he had an off season in his last year in Ottawa, when Karlsson was playing well Ottawa had 2 modes: 1) Karlsson is off the ice and the team is getting murdered, and 2) Karlsson is on the ice and the Sens have the puck more often, and the Sens get more controlled zone entries rather than dumps, and the Sens come within a goal of the Finals (or a perhaps few phantom calls for Phil Kessel - the Phaneuf interference penalty in Game 7 that led to a Pens lead, or maybe the time Phil drew a slashing penalty by pretending the wrong wrist was hurt).

Karlsson could lead the NHL in assists without playing with a 30-goal scorer. And was clearly one of the best players in the world, albeit for a short time. The short time is not too big of a red flag by this point though. It boggles my mind that Erik Karlsson might have already accomplished more than Eric Lindros.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Yeah, I also have a lot of time for Gilmour. It is clear he was a player who could have a much larger impact on his team's performance than say Ron Francis for instance.

 

[Batis]

Now are there any "intangibles" for Alexander Maltsev too?

Not that I´m aware of with the exception of two things:

a) Positional versatility.
I assume Maltsev mostly played C in the League in Dynamo, but he was more frequetly used as RW in the Soviet National Team.

b) Lack of stable National Team linemates.
Maltsev´s great disadvantage was that he was tossed around through the USSR´ lineups as the coaches saw fit, so he couldn´t develop chemistry with his partners as Kharlamov, Mikhailov or Makarov could and did for example... All of these were CSKA forwards, so they´ve played with - in part - the same players domestically and internationally. While Maltsev simply didn´t have the same kind of luxury, as Dinamo Moscow of the 1970s managed to produce some elite or semi-elite d-men (Vasiliev, Pervukhin, Bilyaletdinov) but no other high-end quality forward outside of Maltsev himself.

Don´t know if it should count as an "intangible" but thanks to his puck possession ability Maltsev was a useful penalty killer himself during most of his career. But yes when comparing Martinec to Maltsev "intangibles" and two-way play is certainly one of the main points that can be used when arguing in the favour of Martinec.

I would also say that Martinec was a clearly greater penalty killer than Maltsev. The only Czechoslovakian forward which I rank ahead of Martinec when it comes to penalty killing is Jiri Holik while I probably would rank Maltsev somewhere in the 15-20 range among Soviet forwards when it comes to penalty killing. But for what it is worth here is the post about Maltsev from the Soviet penalty killing study.

6. Alexander Maltsev

Ice time finishes: Tied for 1st at the 1970 WHC, 2nd at the 1976 WHC, 2nd at the 1978 WHC, 2nd at the 1981 WHC, 3rd at the 1980 WOG, 4th at the 1976 WOG, 6th at the 1974 Summit Series, 7th at the 1976 Canada Cup, 8th at the 1972 Summit Series

Overall stats: 0 goals forward and 2 goals against over 34 min, 26 sec

As mentioned earlier the penalty killing of Alexander Maltsev was probably the most positive surprise for me during this study. I think that the fact that Maltsev did not spend that much time on the penalty kill during the Summit Series of 1972 and 1974 may have been what had given me the impression that he wasn't really a main-stay on the Soviet penalty kill. But when looking at the whole picture during this study it was obvious that Maltsev was one of the many great penalty killers of his era as evident by his strong ice time finishes.

Maltsevs penalty killing was mainly built on his ability to play keep-away with the puck which considering his skill level may not be that surprising. As you can see in the videos below Maltsev could make playing keep-away look very easy. In Maltsevs strongest tournaments he mainly killed penalties with Starshinov (1970 WHC), Mikhailov and Kharlamov (1976 WHC), V. Golikov and A. Golikov (1978 WHC), Lebedev and Krutov (1980 WOG) and V. Golikov (1981 WHC. So he also showed that he was capable of having success with many different players.



Incredible shorthanded play by Maltsev during this shift at the 1974 Summit Series where he turns Hull inside out and gives Anisin a great chance to score.



Great shorthanded shift from Maltsev and Starshinov at the 1970 WHC where they keep the puck away from Sweden with some great passing.



Another example of Maltsevs puck possession ability against USA at the 1981 Canada Cup.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Voted.

Wonder who the lucky 100th will be.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Did a few revisions of my ballot...seems a bit clunky for some reason...but it's all said and done. Hard to even guess at who #100 is going to be.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Summary of where I stand for this round:

1. Norm Ullman. With MSL (and Lindros) no longer up for voting, it's not even arguable - Ullman is the greatest offensive forward available. It only looks even more ridiculous when you look at even strength scoring separately:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7yr	10yr
Norm Ullman	128	110	98	96	95	92	88	86	86	83	101	96.2
Jarome Iginla	110	108	95	90	90	84	82	80	75	73	94.1	88.7
Pater Stastny	110	107	98	95	83	82	74	64	62	58	92.7	83.3
Pavel Bure	122	100	93	84	84	75	60	60	60	46	88.3	78.4
Doug Gilmour	96	88	85	85	84	81	76	76	72	63	85	80.6
Ron Francis	93	92	85	84	81	80	78	75	73	71	84.7	81.2
Toe Blake	100	100	92	82	82	78	76	72	67	61	81	81

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

We shouldn't be saying "Player X is the best offensive player remaining and has been for three rounds", unless player X is someone like Evgeni Malkin, Marcel Dionne, Andy Bathgate or Martin St. Louis - guys who did little other than put up points. When that player is someone like Norm Ullman - who every contemporary observer thought was great defensively and the top forechecker of the era - then it's downright embarrassing. Summary: Best offensively + in the mix with Francis and Gilmour for best defensively = best overall forward, easily.

2. Doug Gilmour. Iginla was my top holdover from the last round, but with all things considered, I don't see how I could put him above Gilmour. He is a guy who just checks every box. Iginla's resume looks sparse by comparison - particularly in the playoff department. I know he doesn't stand a serious chance - but he's more comparable to some guys like Lach and Fedorov (and Ullman) than many people want to admit.

3. Jarome Iginla. Still lots to like about Iginla - he should have gone above MSL, but nothing we can do about that now.

4. Tony Esposito. Just disgusting regular season value, almost unparalleled.

5. Erik Karlsson. Like I said last time - Not just an offenseman. Highly relied on player. Maybe the best possession player of his generation. Way better at not getting scored on than anyone gives him credit for. 1-1-2-2 in Norris voting and that may underrate him. Somewhat short career, though.

6. Sid Abel. Like I said last time - Great player, but screams "lesser version of Ullman". even if you take war years into account, he just didn't accomplish as much - he reached the same heights, just not nearly as often or for as long. Not quite the same defensive reputation, either.

7/8. Martinec and Maltsev. This "feels" right but I'm not really sure about it, either.

9. Serge Savard. From last round: Classy, understated, impeccable defensively. Lack of recognition in his time is a definite downside. As much as we want to see a guy like this make it, there are guys who give you the same feels and were recognized very highly in their own eras.

10. Toe Blake. A poor man's Jarome Iginla. Achieved less with better linemates. However - sneaky good playoff resume.

A chance to sneak in: Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Eddie Gerard, Peter Stastny, Valeri Vasiliev.

No chance to sneak in: Ron Francis, Pavel Bure, Johnny Bower, Scott Niedermayer, Russell Bowie.

Y'all have the next couple of hours to convince me of where I've gone wrong here.

I like where you have Tony Esposito.

7 of my 10 are in your "a chance to sneak in" & "No chance to sneak in".

 

[wetcoast]

In my top-10? Yes, absolutely. I haven't worked out how high yet, but I'll definitely have room.

There is A TON to like about Gilmour here.

- He's arguably the best defensive forward available in this round (others may disagree about Francis and Ullman; it's possible to see those three in any order, they are reasonably close)
- He's got the 2nd-best Hart voting record of any forward in this round
- He's the best playoff scorer in this round (by 5-year playoff VsX, we have Gilmour 94.2, Blake 93.2, Ullman 89.4, Abel 87.0, Francis 77.8, Stastny 56.8, Bure 53.2, Iginla 50.8). In addition, his ratios in the playoffs are, like, all-time excellent.
- For those who like peak, he has arguably the greatest peak of any player in this round.

What's not to like? Not a heck of a lot, except that his peak regular season offense isn't great for this round. I think he gets screwed by a couple of bad benchmarks in a few of his best seasons, and that's the only reason he's not right there in that 85-87 pack with Stastny, Abel, Francis, Iginla, Blake and Bure, but VsX is sacred and the benchmarks have to be calculated a certain way, with no room for fudging or human intervention to correct its inadequacies, so let's just leave it. Even if it was fairer to him, he wouldn't be a standout in regular season offense.

Is Gilmour just the rich man's center version of Bernie Parent? So much of his legacy rests on two back to back regular seasons and playoffs. His hart voting mirrors Parent in those two seasons, too. It's arguable they delivered the same overall value in those two seasons.

But while Parent is a 2-year wonder, Gilmour is a three-regular-season-and-four-playoff wonder. Take away parent's two best years and he looks rather thin. To make Gilmour look rather thin, you either have to put him in a double OT playoff game and weigh him afterwards, or remove 1993, 1994, AND 1987, AND the 1986 playoffs, AND the 1989 playoffs.

And once you remove all that, what you have left may be somewhat comparable. In Gilmour's case you have seven seasons as an above-average #1 center, 18th-26th in points, with an excellent two-way game (1988-1992, 1997, 2000). In Parent's case it's seven seasons as a definitely above average starting goaltender 1968-1972, 1977, 1978). During that time, Parent was 5th in all-star voting twice and ignored (perhaps unfairly) in voting the other seasons. Gilmour, of course, as a center, was only a factor in selke voting those seasons.

Beyond those seven seasons, Parent has just a WHA season and some below-average NHL years to consider, where Gilmour has a 70-point season and multiple 50+ point seasons, including some that built the two-way reputation that got him onto arguably the greatest roster of all-time - where, it should be added, he performed very well.

It seems really easy to put Gilmour ahead of Parent, not necessarily by a lot, but clearly so. Not because he was better in his two-season peak or his whole prime, but because he has 86, 87 and 89 to hang his hat on, and plenty of early and late-career value-adds.



No problem with Gilmour over Hawerchuk whatsoever.

Agree with most of this, Gilmour has a case for first this round if I had a ballot, just not sure if he really has that much more career value than Stastny or Ullman among centers, heck maybe even Francis but I'm less sure about that.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. 35 years old is very different from 26.

The point was that he was the best offensive player in the AHL in 66-67 and that his best WHA year he was 9th and in the 76 WHA season lots of older guys did well in the scoring.

I just used him as an example because he did lead the AHL in scoring in the sample year cited in the orginal quote, it was a good starting point.

To put it as simply as possible, if you assume that in 1967, all the best players from North America were in the NHL, and the next-best were in the AHL, and rosters were 20-man, then approximately the 300th best player in North America was filling out the 4th line RW spot on the shallowest AHL team. By 1977, you could also similarly assume that the best players were in the NHL, and the next-best in the WHA. Using a 20-man roster again, that means that the 600th best north american player was filling out the last job in the WHA, while the 300th would be an NHL role player or a very good WHA player. Sure, we can adjust those figures a little to account for the slightly larger pool feeding the leagues over ten years, but there's no way that 300th best in 1967 isn't still significantly better than 600th best in 1977. There should be little doubt that there were far more terrible players to exploit in the 1977 WHA, than there were in the 1967 AHL.

This looks logical on the surface but doesn't pass the smell test when looking at the top scoring players in the WHA in 1976.

I think what you point out is quite true at first glance.

Sure some of the bottom players in the WHA were no doubt quite poor hockey players (but the AHL was a 9 team league while the WHA was a 14 team league) the top players in the league were far better hockey players than the top players in the AHL in 66-67 as 8 of the top 10 in scoring had some elite to excellent and great stretches in the NHL.

Also the AHL wasn't the only minor pro hockey league in North America and some of the players in the IHL and even CPHL would have been better than the bottom type of players in the AHL that same year.
The last point is that the WHA had probably over 50 players that year that could view for top 9 roles on quite a few NHL team in that same year, Dmen and goalies perhaps a bit less so but the AHL sure didn't have that, heck a smaller % of those guys would go on to have any significant NHL carers than you would think and many of the guys who did were already NHL regualrs in that season.

I guess the final point here is that it's generally accepted for the top WHA guys that we can take a 75% level of production translating to the NHL.

The % would have been quite lower in 1966 AHL right?

 

[seventieslord]

the top players in the league were far better hockey players than the top players in the AHL in 66-67 as 8 of the top 10 in scoring had some elite to excellent and great stretches in the NHL.

This looks logical on the surface but doesn't pass the smell test... I think what you point out is quite true at first glance...

BUT - the 8 players you are referring to (Cloutier, Hedberg, Nilsson, Ftorek, Lacroix, Tardif, Stoughton and Napier) all had some great stretches in the NHL when there were 17-21 teams. It's debatable whether any of these players would have made the O6 NHL, let alone had the opportunity to be scoring line players.

I guess the final point here is that it's generally accepted for the top WHA guys that we can take a 75% level of production translating to the NHL.

The % would have been quite lower in 1966 AHL right?

This would be very difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. The AHL was almost entirely made up of career minor leaguers, or players on their way up to, or down from, the NHL. Any time a player played a full NHL season adjacent to a full AHL season, it would be very likely to be in their early 20s or mid-late 30s, so age would affect the calculation way too much, whereas with the WHA/NHL study I did, there were dozens of players going back and forth between the two leagues at all ages.

 

[blogofmike]

Ha! Just caught on to the quote name changes.

Anyways, 1976 and 1977 may be bad times for the WHA in terms of league quality. I believe they were at 15 teams. Top end teams like the Jets, Nords, and Aeros may have been solid, but I'd venture to guess that most of what was beneath that was probably sub-AHL 1966 quality.

That being said, I am still of the view that in these 15 teams, plus new European talent, emerging US talent, etc., there was enough talent to cover 4 teams post 79-80 merger and thus there was a rise in talent in the 80s.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Parent is a 2-year wonder... Take away Parent's two best years and he looks rather thin.

Debunked.

Debunked situationally:

Given the degree of difficulty of having a difficult high PK situation, Parent may have knocked more GA off the board during his short prime than Esposito did over his very long one.

Debunked chronologically:

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).

Debunked statistically:

I agree with @ChiTownPhilly that Bernie Parent is more than a two-year wonder.

We all know that he had arguably the greatest two-year peak of any goalie in NHL history. Let's see how he stacks up using the Goals Versus Threshold statistic (basically this looks at how many goals a netminder prevented, relative to a theoretical marginal NHL goalie - this metric gives a goalie credit for playing a lot, even if he's at or below the league average, since it's better than needing to start a borderline minor-league replacement):

Best two years, based on GVT, 1956-2018

Goalie	YR1	YR2	Total
Dominik Hasek*	114.6	113.3	228.0
Tony Esposito*	114.2	100.4	214.6
Bernie Parent*	123.3	85.2	208.5
Ken Dryden*	103.6	99.5	203.1
Roberto Luongo	112.9	90.1	203.0
Curtis Joseph	103.6	90.3	193.9
Jacques Plante*	95.9	95.6	191.5
Mike Palmateer	95.9	92.3	188.2
Glenn Hall*	101.7	82.6	184.3
Patrick Roy*	90.6	87.1	177.7

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Parent, as expected, ranks very high - in the top three. This is based on regular season only - we all know he won two Conn Smythe trophies this seasons. (No, I wasn't expecting to see Mike Palmateer on this list either).

Best results for years 3-7, based on GVT, 1956-2018

Goalie	YR3	YR4	YR5	YR6	YR7	Total
Dominik Hasek*	105.7	105.0	89.4	87.6	75.7	463.6
Tony Esposito*	95.8	93.1	83.7	83.7	79.2	435.5
Glenn Hall*	81.5	79.6	76.1	71.9	71.6	380.7
Patrick Roy*	85.0	77.9	71.6	68.2	66.1	368.9
Ken Dryden*	87.5	78.5	77.8	62.2	61.7	367.8
Jacques Plante*	81.0	68.5	68.0	64.6	63.4	345.5
Roberto Luongo	85.8	69.4	66.1	64.9	57.2	343.4
Curtis Joseph	89.3	70.9	66.5	53.8	51.8	332.3
Martin Brodeur*	72.0	70.1	69.4	58.5	56.4	326.4
Henrik Lundqvist	67.9	67.9	65.1	63.4	61.3	325.7
Tomas Vokoun	74.1	74.0	59.5	55.2	49.8	312.5
Bernie Parent*	79.2	67.1	58.9	52.7	51.2	309.1
Gump Worsley*	65.6	63.4	63.2	55.9	55.7	303.8
Johnny Bower*	69.0	65.7	63.5	57.9	45.9	302.1
Ed Belfour*	70.3	63.8	62.2	49.2	48.2	293.7

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

To be clear, this table shows each goalie's results for the 3rd to 7th best seasons of their career - that is, their top two seasons are removed entirely. Parent ranks 12th, which is way higher than I expected. I thought he might have been something like 50th with his two-year peak removed. I agree it doesn't look good that he's behind Tomas Vokoun, but everyone else on the list (except probably Curtis Joseph) is a Hall of Famer.

GVT isn't a perfect stat (nothing in hockey is) - but I think it's a useful data point. I'd argue that, if anything, he's probably underrated by GVT, which is based in part on save percentage. The Flyers were the most penalized team in the league for a significant part of Parent's career. Him facing so many short-handed situations (which have been statistically proven to produce more dangerous shots on average compare to even-strength) means that his save percentage likely understates his performance.

I'm still not sure if I have room for Parent in my top ten. But I think that people who are dismissing him because of the notion that he had nothing of significance past his best two years are simply wrong.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I've not seen an AHL game from 1966 or whatever, but I have seen WHA games. I imagine 1966 AHL is a better league than 1976 WHA...that feels right to me, in the dark.

Not really feeling that. Hull, the Howes, Hedberg, Nilsson. Tardiff, Trembley, Houle, Bernier, Napier, Mahovlich, Ullman, Backstrom, Curt Brackenbury (okay...NOT Curt Brackenbury), Sjoberg, Cloutier...

Naw...mayyyyybe overall depth but not top half talent.

 

[DannyGallivan]

You're absolutely right - I wouldn't consider Hawerchuk over Stastny for more than a moment, and Stastny is still in tough in this round

Hawerchuk was the better player. Stastny had better offensive support.

 

[ted2019]

Summary of where I stand for this round:

1. Norm Ullman. With MSL (and Lindros) no longer up for voting, it's not even arguable - Ullman is the greatest offensive forward available. It only looks even more ridiculous when you look at even strength scoring separately:

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7yr	10yr
Norm Ullman	128	110	98	96	95	92	88	86	86	83	101	96.2
Jarome Iginla	110	108	95	90	90	84	82	80	75	73	94.1	88.7
Pater Stastny	110	107	98	95	83	82	74	64	62	58	92.7	83.3
Pavel Bure	122	100	93	84	84	75	60	60	60	46	88.3	78.4
Doug Gilmour	96	88	85	85	84	81	76	76	72	63	85	80.6
Ron Francis	93	92	85	84	81	80	78	75	73	71	84.7	81.2
Toe Blake	100	100	92	82	82	78	76	72	67	61	81	81

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

We shouldn't be saying "Player X is the best offensive player remaining and has been for three rounds", unless player X is someone like Evgeni Malkin, Marcel Dionne, Andy Bathgate or Martin St. Louis - guys who did little other than put up points. When that player is someone like Norm Ullman - who every contemporary observer thought was great defensively and the top forechecker of the era - then it's downright embarrassing. Summary: Best offensively + in the mix with Francis and Gilmour for best defensively = best overall forward, easily.

2. Doug Gilmour. Iginla was my top holdover from the last round, but with all things considered, I don't see how I could put him above Gilmour. He is a guy who just checks every box. Iginla's resume looks sparse by comparison - particularly in the playoff department. I know he doesn't stand a serious chance - but he's more comparable to some guys like Lach and Fedorov (and Ullman) than many people want to admit.

3. Jarome Iginla. Still lots to like about Iginla - he should have gone above MSL, but nothing we can do about that now.

4. Tony Esposito. Just disgusting regular season value, almost unparalleled.

5. Erik Karlsson. Like I said last time - Not just an offenseman. Highly relied on player. Maybe the best possession player of his generation. Way better at not getting scored on than anyone gives him credit for. 1-1-2-2 in Norris voting and that may underrate him. Somewhat short career, though.

6. Sid Abel. Like I said last time - Great player, but screams "lesser version of Ullman". even if you take war years into account, he just didn't accomplish as much - he reached the same heights, just not nearly as often or for as long. Not quite the same defensive reputation, either.

7/8. Martinec and Maltsev. This "feels" right but I'm not really sure about it, either.

9. Serge Savard. From last round: Classy, understated, impeccable defensively. Lack of recognition in his time is a definite downside. As much as we want to see a guy like this make it, there are guys who give you the same feels and were recognized very highly in their own eras.

10. Toe Blake. A poor man's Jarome Iginla. Achieved less with better linemates. However - sneaky good playoff resume.

A chance to sneak in: Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Eddie Gerard, Peter Stastny, Valeri Vasiliev.

No chance to sneak in: Ron Francis, Pavel Bure, Johnny Bower, Scott Niedermayer, Russell Bowie.

Y'all have the next couple of hours to convince me of where I've gone wrong here.

I had Ullman 2nd, Iggy 3rd, Karlsson 4th, Abel 5th, Martinec 8th, Savard 9th, Blake 12th

 

[seventieslord]

Hawerchuk was the better player. Stastny had better offensive support.

The point collaboration data doesn't really support that.

 

[sr edler]

Curt Brackenbury

You gotta love Wikipedia with these type of indecisive formulations

Prior to the merger of the upstart WHA and the NHL, the WHA played European teams and Curt Brackenbury was an MVP in at least one game.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The point collaboration data doesn't really support that.

I'd say during the 80's, Stastny had far superior linemates.

 

[DannyGallivan]

You gotta love Wikipedia with these type of indecisive formulations

Of course you realize I was joking about Brackenbury. I think he was the penalty minute leader in '76, so I put his name down for a chortle (or was it a chuckle, I don't remember).

 

[seventieslord]

I'd say during the 80's, Stastny had far superior linemates.

Perhaps he did, but he also outscored them by a greater degree. He also lacked an elite puck moving defenseman, which collaboration scores also help to take into account.

In their respective first 9 seasons, Hawerchuk had 1.30 PPG, and the average PPG of a player to collaborate on a goal with him was 0.75. Stastny's collaborators averaged 0.81 in his first 9 years, which is better, but he averaged 1.46, so it's pretty safe to say, statistically at least, that his slightly greater linemate situation was transcended by his even more superior production.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Perhaps he did, but he also outscored them by a greater degree. He also lacked an elite puck moving defenseman, which collaboration scores also help to take into account.

In their respective first 9 seasons, Hawerchuk had 1.30 PPG, and the average PPG of a player to collaborate on a goal with him was 0.75. Stastny's collaborators averaged 0.81 in his first 9 years, which is better, but he averaged 1.46, so it's pretty safe to say, statistically at least, that his slightly greater linemate situation was transcended by his even more superior production.

Very close. Other things to consider... puck possession (Paul Maclean and Brian Mullen didn't carry the puck much, and Larry Hopkins... ha, ha). Eye test (Michel Goulet was SO much better than any of Hawerchuk's wingers, it isn't even funny. Marion and Anton also had better puck possession abilities than Hawerchuk's wingers. Brian Mullen was a B-minus level star at his best, while Maclean was a slightly above average sniper).

... it ain't totally cut and dry for either of them (and add Denis Savard to the mix for more 1980's "under Wayne Gretzky" superstar fun), but the eye test gives me Hawerchuk by a hair.

For the sake of our top 100, it's kinda moot anyways.