Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3 (Secret of the Ooze)

[danincanada]

Alright, let's throw this one out then and say it was a toss-up. Does it really change our overall outlook, that being Detroit having a dip in post-season performance relative to expectations while Lidstrom was driving the bus, in between the Yzerman/Fedorov and Zatterberg/Datsyuk eras? I don't want to belabour this point; I mean it is just one talking point of many. But Lidstrom is perceived as a low-peak player relative to the guys he's up against in this vote. I think this 2003-2007 stretch as a whole lends support to this idea. If it can be dispelled as bad timing and he really did have a Bourque-like positive impact while Deroit went down to Anaheim, Calgary, and Edmonton in succession as heavy favorites, I'm all ears.

Lidstrom has the most playoff wins all-time as a skater, and was the only player of his era to win 4 Cups as a key cog/star player. Seems rather nit picky to focus on 3 years when his team lost to teams that went all the way to the finals on the backs of hot goaltending to nearly win it all.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I said “the top centre” as in the top centre in the game, 1st team all-star centre like Beliveau was most seasons for those Habs teams and like Plante was in net for many of those seasons. Lidstrom had some great centers but he didn’t have the top centre in the game, except for ‘94, which was before his prime. Goaltending? He had one second team AS in Osgood and that’s the best he had his whole career in terms of AS nominations. Hasek was at least in his very last season of his prime, if not right out of it but we all know how that turned out anyway.

Funny that you defend Lidstrom saying he didn't have "the top center" nor a great goalie for his fails. But you're constantly bashing on Bourque for not being able to win the Cup before to win it with the Avalanche in his very last season. Bourque's Bruins teams were worse than any Lidstrom's Red Wings teams that the latter played on. He didn't have the top center too and NEVER had center quality like Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg before joining the Avalanche with Sakic/Forsberg. But despite of it, Bourque still managed to be better than Lidstrom.

 

[danincanada]

Funny that you defend Lidstrom saying he didn't have "the top center" nor a great goalie for his fails. But you're constantly bashing on Bourque for not being able to win the Cup before to win it with the Avalanche in his very last season. Bourque's Bruins teams were worse than any Lidstrom's Red Wings teams that the latter played on. He didn't have the top center too and NEVER had center quality like Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg before joining the Avalanche with Sakic/Forsberg. But despite of it, Bourque still managed to be better than Lidstrom.

Needed to spin away from my point, eh?

Am I constantly bashing Bourque for not winning with a weaker team? I have him right there with Lidstrom all-time, see them as the second and third best defenders of all-time, and I’ve always admitted he generally had much less of a supporting cast while in Boston.

You are new here so I’ll tell you this. What I’ve always found funny is that this argument gets used by so many to propel Bourque above, which is a good argument, yet Harvey played on the most stacked team ever for his era, even more than Lidstrom, but it doesn’t get used. His teams won tons and we see every star player get the credit instead of it being distributed properly. You put arguably the top centre, D, goalie, several elite wingers, a terrific supporting cast (Johnson won the Norris the season Harvey was hurt!) and the best coach together in a small league like that and they’ll win a lot. It doesn’t necessarily mean you have 3 of the top 10 players of all-time on that roster plus numerous others who will make this list early. The world of hockey history has too many great players to think that IMO. And most of the individual metrics used point to it being Bourque>Lidstrom>Harvey but barely anyone votes that way.

 

[VanIslander]

... Harvey played on the most stacked team ever for his era, even more than Lidstrom, but it doesn’t get used. His teams won tons and we see every star player get the credit instead of it being distributed properly. You put arguably the top centre, D, goalie, several elite wingers, a terrific supporting cast (Johnson won the Norris the season Harvey was hurt!) and the best coach together in a small league like that and they’ll win a lot. It doesn’t necessarily mean you have 3 of the top 10 players of all-time on that roster plus numerous others who will make this list early. The world of hockey history has too many great players to think that IMO.

Agreed.

Beliveau, Richard, Harvey.. now Plante... (4 of the top 10 hockey players of all time, really?) later a left winger will get credit... all have proponents claiming they are crucial to Habs dynasty success. I've been puzzled why an ineligible right winger that is the highest playoff scorer of that 5-year dynasty is the one of the bunch who rarely gets attention on this board for his role in Habs' success. The point here is I agree with you that Harvey was inducted too early and too much weight is being spread around rather than divided up from the 1950's Habs. Some even say Plante over Hasek because of the Habs success.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You make it sound like Lidstrom had prime Hasek behind him his whole career. What he got was 37 year old Hasek and looked how that turned out. Again, he had the top centre in the game once and that was prior to his prime. The Red Wings were never as stacked as the 50’s Habs, especially due to their goaltending, which often became their Achilles heel in the playoffs.



Their “excellent” goaltenders usually were the second best goaltender in any given playoff series, and it often wasn’t close. When is Osgood coming up in this project anyways?

Fascinating. So 37 year old Hasek is weak, yet the 1960s Canadiens won two SCs with a 38 and 39 year old Gump Worsley. Worsley must be better than Hasek.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Agreed.

Beliveau, Richard, Harvey.. now Plante... (4 of the top 10 hockey players of all time, really?) later a left winger will get credit... all have proponents claiming they are crucial to Habs dynasty success. I've been puzzled why an ineligible right winger that is the highest playoff scorer of that 5-year dynasty is the one of the bunch who rarely gets attention on this board for his role in Habs' success. The point here is I agree with you that Harvey was inducted too early and too much weight is being spread around rather than divided up from the 1950's Habs. Some even say Plante over Hasek because of the Habs success.

A RW who was the weakest skating forward, second fiddle on the PP whose only playoff contribution was staying healthy while in season he was always getting hurt.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I compiled a lot of information on Jagr in the ATD a few years ago...
ATD 2013 BIO Thread (quotes, stats, pics, sources, everything)

Contemplated this interesting piece of Jágr trivia earlier today. It's not anything that will make anyone reconsider their assessment of Jaromir-- but I just found it fascinating in its near-uniqueness:

There have been three major "time-loss" events for the NHL in the last quarter-century- the 1994-95 abbreviated season, the 2004-05 Lost Season (Lockout) and the 2012-13 abbreviated season. There were about 150 lost games in that span- and only two players that we will discuss in this project who were collected in ALL THREE events: Jaromir Jágr & yet-to-be-nominated player Teemu Selänne*.

Now, the impact of the 2004-05 Completely Lost Season is, of course, measurably more significant that even the combination of the other two "unscheduled events." The ramifications of this have likely already been baked into our respective cakes.

[*I double-checked the nominees. No-one nominated Adrian Aucoin, Alexei Kovalev, Jamie Langenbrunner, Ray Whitney, Ryan Smith, or Sergei Gonchar.]

 

[MXD]

Will cast vote shortly.

This round (and previous round) had the effect of widening (more like, creating) something of a gap between Bourque and Lidstrom. It's not anymore back-to-back. And that one is mostly due to transitive properties : Bourque and Crosby... To me, are nearly interchangeable. Crosby and Lidstrom are not interchangeable at all.

 

[bobholly39]

I voted.

Im still very high on peak play and as such ended up placing Jagr quite high even though i was initially in this round a bit lower on him. Simply put i think he has the best peak here (when u factor in height and length) and so i see it as a big plus.

Potvin and Mikita unranked.

I left Messier behind Bourque. Simply put i think Bourque is maybe a top 2-5 defender all time and Messier is a top....15 forward...maybe? Even though i could justify Messier over Bourque perhaps i couldn't justify moving both players enough to make it happen. Bourque did drop some and Messier raised some tho.

Im hoping theres less bickering in the next round.

 

[bobholly39]

Contemplated this interesting piece of Jágr trivia earlier today. It's not anything that will make anyone reconsider their assessment of Jaromir-- but I just found it fascinating in its near-uniqueness:

There have been three major "time-loss" events for the NHL in the last quarter-century- the 1994-95 abbreviated season, the 2004-05 Lost Season (Lockout) and the 2012-13 abbreviated season. There were about 150 lost games in that span- and only two players that we will discuss in this project who were collected in ALL THREE events: Jaromir Jágr & yet-to-be-nominated player Teemu Selänne*.

Now, the impact of the 2004-05 Completely Lost Season is, of course, measurably more significant that even the combination of the other two "unscheduled events." The ramifications of this have likely already been baked into our respective cakes.

[*I double-checked the nominees. No-one nominated Adrian Aucoin, Alexei Kovalev, Jamie Langenbrunner, Ray Whitney, Ryan Smith, or Sergei Gonchar.]

Two ways of looking at this.

On the one hand this really hurts Jagr as he missed some serious prime years/games that would add to his resume.

Flip side is - the 2005 stoppage seemingly rejuvenated his career a lot and allowed him to come back in full force in 2005-2006 (Selanne too right?). Maybe without it he doesnt come back as strong.

Personally - i ignore the lockouts altogether. I just look at games and seasons actually played. Too much hypotheticals if not

 

[VanIslander]

Potvin and Mikita unranked.

HAHA! We all hope Potvin is unranked!

(I've made that brain fart before too.)

 

[MXD]

I voted.

Im still very high on peak play and as such ended up placing Jagr quite high even though i was initially in this round a bit lower on him. Simply put i think he has the best peak here (when u factor in height and length) and so i see it as a big plus.

Potvin and Mikita unranked.

I left Messier behind Bourque. Simply put i think Bourque is maybe a top 2-5 defender all time and Messier is a top....15 forward...maybe? Even though i could justify Messier over Bourque perhaps i couldn't justify moving both players enough to make it happen. Bourque did drop some and Messier raised some tho.

Im hoping theres less bickering in the next round.

With all due respect and no snarkiness of any kind...

You're saying you're high on peak AND you aren't ranking Potvin?

I just can't see how his peak isn't bloody impressive. Potvin has some issues vs. that group... but lack of peak isn't one of them. I mean... Maybe it's me who is missing something.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I echo anyone who has called for an end to the personal bickering. In fact I would hope the mods, @quoipourquoi, @Theokritos , @Bear of Bad News etc, would be quick to put an end to that sort of nonsense and I'm one who is a big proponent of free speech (site rules are clear here though regardless) and being given a wide berth in terms of opinion. However, that doesn't mean people, especially on this sub forum and project, should be engaging in pointless insults. All that does is make the overall group and project look weak. As I've said many times, and as a long time lurker in the past, many people are reading these threads. Set a good example.

And I'm someone in the past who's had his transgressions with this sort of thing. I paid the price at one time and learned from it. I hope others do the same.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Agreed.

Beliveau, Richard, Harvey.. now Plante... (4 of the top 10 hockey players of all time, really?) later a left winger will get credit... all have proponents claiming they are crucial to Habs dynasty success. I've been puzzled why an ineligible right winger that is the highest playoff scorer of that 5-year dynasty is the one of the bunch who rarely gets attention on this board for his role in Habs' success. The point here is I agree with you that Harvey was inducted too early and too much weight is being spread around rather than divided up from the 1950's Habs. Some even say Plante over Hasek because of the Habs success.

*presses play* this is why watching the games and properly evaluating the talent is paramount...so you don't have to guess or get roped exclusively into hearsay nonsense from newspapers...*presses stop*

Also, so you don't get duped into thinking someone of Geoffrion's caliber was more important than Beliveau or whoever...sorry, I didn't have that part recorded.

Editor's note: it's a royal "you" intended.

 

[ImporterExporter]

We say the days of dynasties are gone...until one comes up.

It's not like the 2010s were a model of parity.

You're right. 3 teams more or less owned the Cup for the better part of a decade long stretch. Before that the Wings, and to a lesser degree, Avs and Devils were routinely fighting for, and winning multiple Cups.

But the larger point I was trying to make is it's harder to RETAIN that status.

Look at the Hawks? Where are they? Bottom feeders. Qunneville fired. How about the Pens? Last place in the East right now. Matt Murray went from being a young, 2 time Cup winner, looking brilliant doing it, to probably the worst goalie in the entire NHL over the past year. Team is in complete disarray. The LA Kings, winners of 2 more recent Cups are the worst team in the NHL right now.

Why haven't we seen a 3 or 4 time consecutive champion in 30-40+ years? We see teams flirting with "dynasty" status but there are multiple reasons why it's nearly impossible to actually get there and hold serve.

 

[bobholly39]

With all due respect and no snarkiness of any kind...

You're saying you're high on peak AND you aren't ranking Potvin?

I just can't see how his peak isn't bloody impressive. Potvin has some issues vs. that group... but lack of peak isn't one of them.

Fair counter.

To be clear i'm very high on peak but i don't consider it above all else (which is why despite Hasek > Roy peak, I had Roy > Hasek overall, for example). Another thing i'm very high on is having a complete resume (resume, not so much complete game). So prime, longevity, etc etc matter too. Potvin lacks too much longevity vs other defenseman (and players) in this round. And his peak wasn't outwardly good to counter that. And - he declined rather significantly at a pretty young age.

I mean you can probably say Potvin peaked higher than Bourque but...not even sure i'd go there? Potvin has a 2nd place in Hart voting (though he lost clearly, too Bobby Clarke, a great player but hardly a Gretzky). Bourque has 2 2nd hart placements (one behind Gretzky peak where he'd win otherwise, and one where he's 50/50 with Messier and barely lost).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Clarke was a little more lonely perhaps than Potvin...he says, overhearing the conversation in passing...

 

[MXD]

Fair counter.

To be clear i'm very high on peak but i don't consider it above all else (which is why despite Hasek > Roy peak, I had Roy > Hasek overall, for example). Another thing i'm very high on is having a complete resume (resume, not so much complete game). So prime, longevity, etc etc matter too. Potvin lacks too much longevity vs other defenseman (and players) in this round. And his peak wasn't outwardly good to counter that. And - he declined rather significantly at a pretty young age.

I mean you can probably say Potvin peaked higher than Bourque but...not even sure i'd go there? Potvin has a 2nd place in Hart voting (though he lost clearly, too Bobby Clarke, a great player but hardly a Gretzky). Bourque has 2 2nd hart placements (one behind Gretzky peak where he'd win otherwise, and one where he's 50/50 with Messier and barely lost).

Fair answer too -- and mostly the reasons why, to me, Potvin has issues in this group as well. I've ranked him in the bottom half of the list, due to transitive properties (can't rank him ahead of Lidstrom...)

I just wished to comment that "high on peak" and "not ranking Potvin" isn't something you see quite often. I also see Bourque as the best skater this round (a bit in a coin-flipping way, but still) and I do understand the need for a gap between Potvin and Bourque.

On Clarke : I don't think many players available this round beats him to the 75-76 Hart. And don't forget that Potvin is a D.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You're right. 3 teams more or less owned the Cup for the better part of a decade long stretch. Before that the Wings, and to a lesser degree, Avs and Devils were routinely fighting for, and winning multiple Cups.

But the larger point I was trying to make is it's harder to RETAIN that status.

Look at the Hawks? Where are they? Bottom feeders. Qunneville fired. How about the Pens? Last place in the East right now. Matt Murray went from being a young, 2 time Cup winner, looking brilliant doing it, to probably the worst goalie in the entire NHL over the past year. Team is in complete disarray. The LA Kings, winners of 2 more recent Cups are the worst team in the NHL right now.

Why haven't we seen a 3 or 4 time consecutive champion in 30-40+ years? We see teams flirting with "dynasty" status but there are multiple reasons why it's nearly impossible to actually get there and hold serve.

That has been true of most dynasties too.Montreal from the 50s to the 60s is a bit of a special case, but even they had a gap between the dynasties.My point is that if Chicago or LA or Pittsburgh had been just a little stronger, maybe one extra impact player they could have been a dynasty.They would have declined just like they do right now despite this.

So I don't think Chicago declining has anything to do with the possibility of dynasties.

 

[danincanada]

Fascinating. So 37 year old Hasek is weak, yet the 1960s Canadiens won two SCs with a 38 and 39 year old Gump Worsley. Worsley must be better than Hasek.

And now the straw man argument. I didn’t say Hasek was weak, just that he wasn’t an AS with Detroit and possibly near the tail end of his prime and probably no longer at his peak. He was clutch in the big games and had a great playoff though. 6 shutouts speaks to that.

Again, the ‘02 team ran away with the President’s trophy and won the Cup so if anything, it goes to show what the Red Wings could have done with an elite goalie. Imagine them with prime Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, or even Belfour through the 90’s and into the 2000’s? It would have been closer to your Habs had with Plante. Instead the Wings had to constantly face those elite goalies with lesser net minders and, even though it has become cliche, it really often was their Achilles heel.

Either way, you love winners and great players who contributed to winning so Lidstrom should be very high on your list, since he is the all-time leader in wins by a skater.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Detroit lost to 03' Ducks and 04' Flames, when both Giguere and Kiprusoff had historically significant performances that turned into very deep runs. 07 Ducks won the Cup. Add to that 06 Oilers, and you have four losses to the teams that went to the Finals. Blaming it on Lidstrom is a very fresh take, when Shanahan, Hull, and Luc have seemingly forgotten how to score and Datsyuk hasn't learned yet.


There was no player on Detroit team in those years similar to Neely at his peak, when Bourque's Boston did anything of note in playoffs.

Blaming it on Lidstrom? Hardly. Just finding it curious that Detroit had issues in the playoffs during the period where Lidstrom was their clear best player.

I don't think Shanahan is a big step down from Neely. Overall I'm pretty sure most people are taking Detroit's supporting cast over Boston's for the periods in question.

Lidstrom has the most playoff wins all-time as a skater, and was the only player of his era to win 4 Cups as a key cog/star player. Seems rather nit picky to focus on 3 years when his team lost to teams that went all the way to the finals on the backs of hot goaltending to nearly win it all.

I think we have to be nitpicky in this project in order to find the separation between players. On the surface, Lidstrom and Bourque are identical; both won a bunch of Norris trophies, were considered the best defenseman in hockey for a time, and played forever at a high level. We need to go deeper and start nitpicking to break the tie.

 

[danincanada]

Agreed.

Beliveau, Richard, Harvey.. now Plante... (4 of the top 10 hockey players of all time, really?) later a left winger will get credit... all have proponents claiming they are crucial to Habs dynasty success. I've been puzzled why an ineligible right winger that is the highest playoff scorer of that 5-year dynasty is the one of the bunch who rarely gets attention on this board for his role in Habs' success. The point here is I agree with you that Harvey was inducted too early and too much weight is being spread around rather than divided up from the 1950's Habs. Some even say Plante over Hasek because of the Habs success.

Old habits die hard for some and there are a lot of Habs fans so I’ve come to expect it. I think the O6 is generally overrated anyways simply because the talent pool that fed it was shallow compared to what came after. This project seems to mostly be peer to peer comparisons so, again, expected.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think I’m most curious about what happens with Potvin here. While I think it’s fair to excuse his general longevity for the fact that big money had yet to come in, it does seem like he and Mikita had more compacted periods of high-level play, especially against this particular field.

 

[danincanada]

I think we have to be nitpicky in this project in order to find the separation between players. On the surface, Lidstrom and Bourque are identical; both won a bunch of Norris trophies, were considered the best defenseman in hockey for a time, and played forever at a high level. We need to go deeper and start nitpicking to break the tie.

Wish you would have been nit picky with Harvey. We aren’t even sure he ever had a positive +\- for a season without Plante behind him. He got the Rangers to the playoffs once, missed the second year, then they said adios. Somewhat similar to Lidstrom’s 3 years you’re pointing to. No sign of him “carrying” teams like Bourque did.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think I’m most curious about what happens with Potvin here. While I think it’s fair to excuse his general longevity for the fact that big money had yet to come in, it does seem like he and Mikita had more compacted periods of high-level play, especially against this particular field.

I think both will get more attention in the next round. As you said, their overall peaks are more compacted than others and those peaks aren't as good as some other options this round. Potvin suffers from the lack of longevity. Mikita more so because of his rather blah playoff resume. I like both players quite a bit but they're simply over matched IMO when one looks at the entire picture, regular and postseasons. I originally had Mikita barely over Morenz, however, because of some great discussion and finds by folks like theo, Habs58, overpass, 70's and BB, I had no choice but to move Howie up a few spots.