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

[bobholly39]

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.

Explain the lack of money statement?

Also - shouldnt we not be looking to excuse things even if theres a reason for it? If he lacks longevity he lacks it - and if others dont well thats a net positive.

 

[MXD]

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.

That's probably something that prevented me from ranking Harvey 5th more than anything else.

 

[MXD]

Explain the lack of money statement?

Also - shouldnt we not be looking to excuse things even if theres a reason for it? If he lacks longevity he lacks it - and if others dont well thats a net positive.

The issue with this argument is that it will pretty much always introduce a bias favourable to modern players, who usually don't have to bother about things like money.

... I'm just not sure the money argument applies to Potvin, however. Wasn't the guy completely done physically? Even if he wasn't done, something I'm not quite sure about, playing hockey was, almost certainly, the most lucrative activity Potvin could do for a living, other than... you know... starting a lucrative (equipment rental) business.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I definitely dont like when people draw too much importance to bad seasons/playoffs because i dont think thats done equally for all players.

Im more a fan of counting positives then subtracting for negatives.

Unless a specific argument can be made that Lidstroms bad play/specific shortcomings are the reasons why his teams lost when they should have won it doesnt do much for me.

I probably would have liked to have Harvey around to compare with other defensemen here but that ship has sorta sailed already.

 

[BM67]

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.]

Brodeur says hello.

 

[bobholly39]

The issue with this argument is that it will pretty much always introduce a bias favourable to modern players, who usually don't have to bother about things like money.

... I'm just not sure the money argument applies to Potvin, however. Wasn't the guy completely done physically?

To the first paragraph i can see why it would introduce a bias yes but.... nonetheless i still feel this way and i guess it makes me bias. Shouldnt i?

If im comparing a player who started in 1990 to Morenz and all else being equal i decide that player has 13 top seasons to Morenzs 10 (made those numbers up) - shouldnt it be a differentiator? Were evaluating careers and i think longevity should matter.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Personally, I think they only look identical if you’re keeping them in their lane with other defensemen. Bourque made his first big splash in Hart voting (5th) in a year when another teammate finished top-5 as well. And it was on a 5-3-1 ballot in a 200+ Gretzky season, meaning he had to get 9/62 voters to say he was one of the two best players after Gretzky while splitting votes with a teammate. Next year it was 11/62 who had him in one of the two spots after Gretzky.

But if we put a ceiling on how great of a season Bourque had in 1983-84 and 1984-85 and instead treat them like 3rd and 2nd place Norris finishes, we’re missing out, because Bourque was doing in two non-Norris seasons in his mid-20s what it took until 2007-08 for Nicklas Lidstrom to do: be rated highly against other positions for his contributions in an individual season. And given the type of ballot used, where he’s not picking up spare 4ths and 5ths, it’s even more impressive.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Brodeur says hello.

Yes but not to far.

 

[MXD]

To the first paragraph i can see why it would introduce a bias yes but.... nonetheless i still feel this way and i guess it makes me bias. Shouldnt i?

If im comparing a player who started in 1990 to Morenz and all else being equal i decide that player has 13 top seasons to Morenzs 10 (made those numbers up) - shouldnt it be a differentiator? Were evaluating careers and i think longevity should matter.

The more modern player has presumably no interest in not playing player (due to money). The older player has such an interest. Of course, the older player can't achieve something when he's retired, and sometimes, such as in Potvin's case, we have good reasons to believe he was a bit done physically. TBF, I'm not even sure the money issue is even super relevant until, what, Bill Durnan, maybe?

As for longevity, your 13 and 10 figures are... raw numbers who do not mean much out of context. If having 13 top seasons in the later player's era is nothing special, and having 10 top seasons in Morenz's era is special (positively special, I mean), it would probably totally incorrect to give the "more recent" the upper hand in longevity.

...

Unless you also think that George Hainsworth had the best goaltending season of all-time in 28-29.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

Actually it would seem Harvey did carry the Rangers in Bourque-like fashion in 1962. Norris winner, Hart Trophy runner up. The Rangers improved 10 points in the standings and allowed 41 fewer goals against compared to the year before. And they also lost a HOF defenseman in Bill Gadsby, who was traded for a proverbial bag of pucks. Harvey was the only major addition. You'll have to explain to us how this is in any way similar to Lidstrom's situation from 2003-2006 on a multiple times 1st overall team.

[MOD]

 

[quoipourquoi]

Explain the lack of money statement?

When the real absurd money came in, you’d see players hanging around past their expiration date.

IN: What do you think of Potvin’s decision to retire, although it appeared he still had a few good seasons left in him?

Orr: I admire it, and I marvel at it. He was able to leave the game while still playing very well and before he suffered any severe type of injury that could hold him back from leading a normal life. I’m sure he’s got a lot of bumps and bruises, but nothing too serious.

IN: Will the transition from the spotlight of the National Hockey League to his new role as a real estate company Vice-President be tough for him?

Orr: That’s really hard to say, since it depends on the personality. I’m sure what Denis brought with him and learned from the Islander organization will carry on into his future. My one question is this: because he left while he still was performing very well, will hockey be on his mind when next season starts? Will he be telling himself, “Well, maybe I could’ve played another year?” Those thoughts go through the mind of everyone who retires from the game they love.

Does he go into real estate so quickly if he’s pulling $5-6 million instead of $500,000?

 

[The Macho King]

When the real absurd money came in, you’d see players hanging around past their expiration date.



Does he go into real estate so quickly if he’s pulling $5-6 million instead of $500,000?

I doubt his salary was 5-6 million as a VP, but it could have been comparable to his NHL salary (without the risk of injury, travel, etc.).

 

[quoipourquoi]

I doubt his salary was 5-6 million as a VP, but it could have been comparable to his NHL salary (without the risk of injury, travel, etc.).

By the $5-6 million, I meant what players in their twilight were making in the NHL just 10 years later. Bourque, for instance, signed a $5.5 million deal in 2000. Messier had his $6 million deal in 1998.

 

[The Macho King]

By the $5-6 million, I meant what players in their twilight were making in the NHL just 10 years later. Bourque, for instance, signed a $5.5 million deal in 2000. Messier had his $6 million deal in 1998.

My bad. I can't actually read.

I think salaries have a role in it, although I don't know if more seasons from Potvin would have moved the needle in *this* list. His last four seasons didn't generate significant Norris attention/AS attention. They weren't bad seasons, but they weren't "prime" seasons.

Maybe you get one spike season or assisting a team on a playoff run, but I think we'd be dinging Potvin for longevity even if he played 20 seasons. And that's without acknowledging that his retirement came at the same time as the golden age of Dmen began, which would have made it even harder to stand out.

 

[bobholly39]

The more modern player has presumably no interest in not playing player (due to money). The older player has such an interest. Of course, the older player can't achieve something when he's retired, and sometimes, such as in Potvin's case, we have good reasons to believe he was a bit done physically. TBF, I'm not even sure the money issue is even super relevant until, what, Bill Durnan, maybe?

As for longevity, your 13 and 10 figures are... raw numbers who do not mean much out of context. If having 13 top seasons in the later player's era is nothing special, and having 10 top seasons in Morenz's era is special (positively special, I mean), it would probably totally incorrect to give the "more recent" the upper hand in longevity.

...

Unless you also think that George Hainsworth had the best goaltending season of all-time in 28-29.

Isnt that delving in hypotheticals? And im saying this assuming i follow ur argument fully which seems to lack an extra sentence which could be

"Older players retired earlier to go earn more money elsewhere - but they probably could have played at a high level a few more years had they wanted to"

You can probably replace money with lack of advanced medicines too with a similar statement thinking of injuries.

Im still not sure i understand (nor certainly do i agree) why this should matter.

Its not that different than considering missed time during a players injury and hypothetically wondering what player would have done if healthy (Crosby 11-13 fits that).

If older players lack longevity i think it is a differentiator vs more modern ones all else being equal - even if we can justify it.

When the real absurd money came in, you’d see players hanging around past their expiration date.



Does he go into real estate so quickly if he’s pulling $5-6 million instead of $500,000?

I agree with the 2nd part but doesnt the fact that you first said "past their expiration date" kind of nullify the significance of this argument for Potvin in relation to this round of voting? He doesnt not have longevity vs other players here because he chose to retire but rather because he was a significant step off of his peak player in his last few years. Especially compared to Bourque and Lidstrom

Had he played 1 or 10 more years at a much lesser level it doesnt move the needle a ton.

 

[MXD]

Isnt that delving in hypotheticals? And im saying this assuming i follow ur argument fully which seems to lack an extra sentence which could be

"Older players retired earlier to go earn more money elsewhere - but they probably could have played at a high level a few more years had they wanted to"

You can probably replace money with lack of advanced medicines too with a similar statement thinking of injuries.

Im still not sure i understand (nor certainly do i agree) why this should matter.

Its not that different than considering missed time during a players injury and hypothetically wondering what player would have done if healthy (Crosby 11-13 fits that).

If older players lack longevity i think it is a differentiator vs more modern ones all else being equal - even if we can justify it.

Do you think George Hainsworth had the best goaltending season of all time in 1928-29?

If you say "YES", well... that's probably a very unique take amongst this panel.

If you say "NO", well, you're then applying raw numbers to longevity in a way that goes AGAINST a certain era of hockey, while refusing to apply raw numbers to goaltending in a way that would FAVOR a certain era of hockey.

 

[bobholly39]

Do you think George Hainsworth had the best goaltending season of all time in 1928-29?

If you say "YES", well... that's probably a very unique take amongst this panel.

If you say "NO", well, you're then applying raw numbers to longevity in a way that goes AGAINST a certain era of hockey, while refusing to apply raw numbers to goaltending in a way that would FAVOR a certain era of hockey.

Fantastic season but no not the best ever.

Can you explain what you mean? Im simply not fully grasping your reasoning.

 

[MXD]

Fantastic season but no not the best ever.

Can you explain what you mean? Im simply not fully grasping your reasoning.

I'm saying that your longevity argument regarding Modern Player vs. Older Player rests solely on raw numbers (in that case, of elite seasons), which is, with all due respect, quite a shallow way to come to a conclusion.

... A bit like, you know, concluding that Hainsworth's 28-29 season was the best in the history of goaltending.

Full disclosure : I've ranked Crosby ahead of Morenz this round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

For consideration, maybe the league just got "too better", too fast for players exiting their prime...the talent level disparity and overall crumminess (relatively speaking) of game play from around 1980 to 84 or 85 or so might help to explain this...

Fairly prominent early 80's guys crashed and burned pretty hard at around age 33 or 34 when the game took a turn for the better: King Richard, Don Lever, Peter McNab, Mike Milbury, Bobby Nystrom, Jim Schoenfeld, Bob Gainey, Lanny McDonald, Dave Lewis, Denis Potvin (relative to what he was doing), Tom Lysiak, Andre Savard, Blaine Stoughton, Blair MacDonald, Danny Gare, Doug Risebrough, Stef Persson, Mike Rogers, Mike Palmateer, Brian Engblom, Cowboy Willi Plett, Wilf Paiement, Don Edwards, Pat Price, Dennis Maruk...why did Pierre Mondou quit again? I don't recall...

"Yes, but Mikey, you can find examples in any era of players retiring early or breaking down early at any time...Mike Richards, etc. what's your point?"

Glad you asked mysterious stranger...my hypothesis is that 1980 to 1984 or 85 or 86 or so is a weaker time for hockey. Especially 1981 thru 1983. As such, that time extended the careers of players because it was easier to hang around. Where as, 1985, 86 or 87 somewhere in there, closed off the league from players hanging around (names noted above)...but what about on the whole?

Removing players with less than 100 career games to help to avoid Don Cherry's getting called up for a game here and there...

Year	Total	After 1980	Pct that made it
1946	55	9	16.4%
1947	59	13	22.0%
1948	67	20	29.9%
1949	88	33	37.5%
1950	83	33	39.8%
1951	73	30	41.1%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Total	After 1985	Pct that made it
1952	97	10	10.3%
1953	87	9	10.3%
1954	104	19	18.3%
1955	108	28	25.9%
1956	99	26	26.3%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As you can see, it was terribly uncommon (comparatively) for the later birthdays (theoretically, access to slightly better training, advances, more rinks, etc.) to hang around through the mid-80's than it was for the 40's kids to hang on through the early 80's...

"Well, it's because the league was all Canada at [Point A] and not all Canada at [Point B]..."

Meh, not really...

1980-81: 81.9% Canadian
1981-82: 80.6% Canadian
1982-83: 80.7% Canadian
1983-84: 78.8% Canadian
1984-85: 75.7% Canadian
1985-86: 76.0% Canadian
1986-87: 76.3% Canadian

And a decent portion of that percentage is eaten up by the startling amount of American high school kids that just waltzed into the league in the time that I'm saying is on the weaker side...Brian Lawton, Tom Barrasso, Phil Housley, Bobby Carpenter...all made some impact in the league (some more than others, naturally) fresh out of high school...U.S. high school...yet, just ten years before that, you could take every American in the NHL and put them on the same team and not have enough skaters...

 

[bobholly39]

I'm saying that your longevity argument regarding Modern Player vs. Older Player rests solely on raw numbers (in that case, of elite seasons), which is, with all due respect, quite a shallow way to come to a conclusion.

... A bit like, you know, concluding that Hainsworth's 28-29 season was the best in the history of goaltending.

Full disclosure : I've ranked Crosby ahead of Morenz this round.

I don't mind adjusting within seasons of course. I'm not here saying Crosby > Morenz because 82 games > 40 games, or because 120 points > 51 points. You obviously have to adjust for era to get a sense of domination.

I don't think longevity (or specifically # of elite seasons) should similarly be adjusted though. If a player did it longer, or more often, well good for him and too bad for the other one. I think that's absolutely a legitimate differentiator.

I still can't get past that and you've not really presented any strong reasoning why I should. I think this will continue to be the way i look at longevity across eras unless someone is able to convince me why i shouldn't.

 

[MXD]

I still can't get past that and you've not really presented any strong reasoning why I should. I think this will continue to be the way i look at longevity across eras unless someone is able to convince me why i shouldn't.

There was a table posted on the first thread of this "vote" about this and I really, but really can't remember where, when and by whom exactly it was posted.

The reason why longevity shouldn't be regarded on a pure one for one is fairness.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Voted. Nothing made me adjust me list since about Thursday, but it did adjust a bit from the starts of the week. Hasek/Bourque/Crosby ended up in a different order than they did last vote. Morenz stayed in the same spot, but Eddie Shore was the biggest riser from the start of the week. Thanks Seventieslord for that info. I do expect those 5 to get through this round, but I usually surprised by 1 or 2 guys each round.

Plante and Messier got my two "also ran" spots.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Explain the lack of money statement?

Also - shouldnt we not be looking to excuse things even if theres a reason for it? If he lacks longevity he lacks it - and if others dont well thats a net positive.

i'm just thinking out loud here, not necessarily making a comment on what should count as a + or a - or whatever.

do we give extra points for longevity as an elite player? absolutely.

do we give extra points for a guy hanging on forever as a non-elite player for whatever reason?** i think that depends on whether those extra years added to his legacy. like, it matters whether your 30+ or 35+ years look like chelios' vs recchi's vs andreychuk's vs messier's vs shane doan's. i'm not going to spell out the differences here because that's not an argument i want to get into, but those are five distinct categories of hanging on (i'm talking about results, not reasons for hanging on) and i'll leave it to everyone to classify them for themselves.

as for potvin specifically, i guess the question is if the money was 1990s money, or 2010s money, would he have kept playing? probably. who gives up that kind of money? hell, we consider bobby orr a buddha/jesus/communist and i don't think even he gives chicago back its money if that's a $7 million paycheque.

so we obviously shouldn't give potvin years he didn't play, vs bourque, lidstrom, or whomever. he cut it short and that was his choice. salming was two years older and he lasted two years longer before hanging them up. we also should qualify "short" here—potvin played 15 years. that is not a short career in any era.

but on the other hand, if we want to compare potvin to someone like, say, fetisov and give potvin the benefit of the doubt for some 35+ seasons that fetisov played, at a contributing but sub-elite level, i think that's a decently reasonable conversation we can have. if potvin had been five or so years younger, i think it's reasonable that he might stick around for some salad day seasons like fetisov and his peers (lowe, mccrimmon, kasatonov—these guys all played 18-20 seasons). i think it's reasonable to expect that potvin, even if just to cash in, could compile later career seasons like those guys, pick up an extra cup or two, or accrue some mentorship points. but i don't think we could possibly know whether potvin could have put up 35+ seasons like bourque, lidstrom, or chelios so it makes no sense at this point in the project to say anything about potvin's career length except to maybe suggest he could have had three or so more seasons of extra compiler stats to get him within earshot of housley's and murphy's career totals (which, at this point, who cares?)

but if/when potvin falls to a round where fetisov is available, maybe we care.


** whether we're talking about the player hanging on because the money is just too good, or because he can't not play, or he is terrified of what life after hockey looks like, or something else—and let's not moralize about what the reasons might be because i think it's the results, not the player's intentions, that matter for us here.

 

[BraveCanadian]

... I'm just not sure the money argument applies to Potvin, however. Wasn't the guy completely done physically? Even if he wasn't done, something I'm not quite sure about, playing hockey was, almost certainly, the most lucrative activity Potvin could do for a living, other than... you know... starting a lucrative (equipment rental) business.

If I recall correctly, after having been to the top of the mountain, Potvin wasn't interested in sticking around as he inevitably declined and the Isles rebuilt. He had nothing left to accomplish.

 

[Captain Bowie]

If I recall correctly, after having been to the top of the mountain, Potvin wasn't interested in sticking around as he inevitably declined and the Isles rebuilt. He had nothing left to accomplish.

Except to move his name up the all-time players list that fans will inevitably create decades in the future!