Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

From my perception, Lafleur was much better in the playoffs than Jagr was, and I think he has a slightly better regular season peak (and that he clearly has a better peak if we're to include PO ni peak) as well, though it's probably arguable and.

...But I don't quite know why there's a discussion about this, considering Lafleur isn't up for voting (...and for cause, I might add), and that he's probably not even the best winger who is not yet available.

I agree but Lafleur is not available unfortunately.

 

[MXD]

With Crosby vs. Morenz we're in hair-splitting territory.

Between 2008 and 2015, to win the cup you had to face Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Toews or Bergeron (by the way coincidence that all the top two-way power centers are present on the list of players you were likely to face to challenge for the cup? In fairness they all had a great #1 D behind them, so that's that).Could add Kesler to the list.

It was almost certain that you'd end up facing one of them.How you do against such a player is pretty important, even if it's not the entire story.

To be honest, if a player does well, it will be reflected on...Everything. Stats, team wins, ESGA/ESGF...
My point -- I don't see a point in penalizing or rewarding a player twice.

 

[Sentinel]

Ovechkin did such a thing?

Yes, once. In 2006 OGQF he scored a winning goal against Canada.

Yeah, where is all of the 1996 Team USA?!

I'm sure Brett Hull and Chelios will both be underrated when their time comes.

 

[The Macho King]

Well Richard making it over Hasek/Bourque/Morenz/Crosby is a travesty, but alas here we are.

One 15 year span (of primes) is grossly overrepresented in the top 9, and one team in that span makes up 1/3rd of the top 9. That boggles my mind how one dynasty claims 3 of the top 9 when no player from equally impressive dynasties as the 70s Habs, 80 Islanders and Oilers, or 60s Leafs have made it in, and only one player has made it in from the 50s Red Wings. I respect Old Time hockey, but this is supposed to be era neutral, while this is turning into "glorify the 50s and early 60s to the detriment of every other era".

 

[Sentinel]

Well Richard making it over Hasek/Bourque/Morenz/Crosby is a travesty, but alas here we are.

One 15 year span (of primes) is grossly overrepresented in the top 9, and one team in that span makes up 1/3rd of the top 9. That boggles my mind how one dynasty claims 3 of the top 9 when no player from equally impressive dynasties as the 70s Habs, 80 Islanders and Oilers, or 60s Leafs have made it in, and only one player has made it in from the 50s Red Wings. I respect Old Time hockey, but this is supposed to be era neutral, while this is turning into "glorify the 50s and early 60s to the detriment of every other era".

Lots of 50s Canadiens fans here. I never understood it either.

 

[The Macho King]

Anyway - the only guy from Vote 2 who might not make my top 5 here is Shore. I don't really see any good arguments for the newcomers to be ahead of those remaining. Bourque is easily the best D left. Crosby and Morenz stand out at forward for me. Hasek is far and away the best goaltender left. Shore is vulnerable-ish, but who tops him? Potvin? ehhhhhhh... I would hesitate to make that call.

Also kind of disappointed that Messier is here over Clarke or Lafleur.

 

[BenchBrawl]

***THIS IS A REPOST FROM LAST ROUND***

Sidney Crosby vs. Howie Morenz

Since both might get in, it's now or never.They're extremely close and similar.I offer no conclusion, I'm just putting their overall case side by side.Any suggestion and addition or feedback is welcomed.

I think most would agree Béliveau is ahead of both.

Hart Voting

Morenz: 1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 7
Crosby: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6

All-Star Teams*

Morenz: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2
Crosby: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2

*I added 1st, 1st and 2nd to Morenz, for more info see TheDevilMadeMe's excellent post on Morenz, section V: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151745959/

All-Around Game

Howie Morenz: Taking you back again to TDMM's post, section IV.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151745959/

TDMM: Morenz seemed to have developed an effective defensive game by 1927 and was excellent defensively by 1929

''Hooley Smith and Boucher are potential candidates for the pivot, but Morenz is too fast and his ability to hurdle through a defense right into the goal mouth gives him the edge over the other candidates. Howie also can poke-check with the best and his scoring proclivities, not much better than Boucher's, surpasses Smith.''

''Last season Howie Morenz started to use a poke-check and at the close of the year he was getting very effective.''

Toe Blake called Morenz "one of the greatest backcheckers I ever saw," and Tommy Gorman said "Morenz was the fastest and greatest two-way center in the game."

There are far more on Morenz' all-around game if you check his bios, but I'll keep it succinct.

Sidney Crosby: His reputation along the boards is well-known.In recent years Crosby started getting minor Selke attention: 7, 10, 9.

Crosby is good, though not great, at faceoffs, averaging 52.2% over his career according to h-r.This is above-average among strong offensive centers.

Some quotes (thanks to ImporterExporter for his excellent Crosby biography):

''There’s not a single part of Crosby’s game that we can take advantage of. He’s simply an all-around unbelievable hockey player.'' - JONATHAN TOEWS

“He’s really a great leader,” he said. “Everybody judges Sid on his points and how many goals he gets and all of that. But he’s really an all-around player. He plays in all zones of the rink. He leads by example. But he does things quietly.” - JIM RUTHERFORD

''Just watch for a couple of shifts or a period the effort that Crosby expends in his zone. Coming back around his net. Getting in passing lanes. Winning battles. He’s not hanging out above the circles, waiting for someone else to do the work.

“He’s really committed to that side right now,” Blue Jackets captain Nick Foligno said in the Eastern Conference quarterfinals. “You can see it. He understands the 200-foot game. It’s made him even more dangerous.”

What is it that separates Crosby defensively? Let’s ask two other centers on the Penguins. Nick Bonino pointed to Crosby’s smarts.

“He’s a really good skater, and he has good anticipation; he knows where to go,” Bonino said. “Another of his best attributes is how quickly he can go from defense to offense. He knows when to jump, when not to jump. It helps him get out of his zone quicker.”

Matt Cullen pointed to how Crosby works in the corner. How he routinely comes out with pucks. And how strong he is on his stick.

“I think that’s often overlooked with his skill set is how good he is at winning battles,” Cullen said. “He just goes into the corners and takes the puck and comes out of it. There’s not a lot of guys who just do that.” ''

"What I always go back to is his work ethic," Sullivan said. "He is a tireless worker. He's the hardest-working player I have ever been around, and I've been around a lot of players. He, without a doubt, has the highest work ethic that I've seen. He's not as good as he is by accident. He's a very talented player, but his work ethic is tremendous. It's relentless."

Crosby is on an amazing run. His body of work and practice habits make him this good. And defensively, there's no reason Crosby shouldn't be considered for the Selke Trophy. His defense, which tends to go unnoticed, is just as good as his offense.

"Most elite players tend to lean towards the one-dimensional side," Sullivan said. "If you go through the league of superstars, the challenge for coaching staffs is to get those guys to be a little bit more committed away from the puck. I don't have that conversation with Sid."

Conclusion: No conclusion.It's unclear who was the best at what in terms of all-around play.Both were at least competent all-around player, if not fairly strong and increasingly so as their career progressed.

Playoffs Performances

Howie Morenz

Kyle McMahon made a good post about Morenz's playoffs:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151725009/

Re-quoting:

The case for three-time Cup champion Howie Morenz, info pulled from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.

1924. Morenz seems to have been the best player as Montreal went 6-0 over three series to win the Cup with relative ease. Had the winning goal in a 1-0 win, 2 goals in 4-2 win over Ottawa in the NHL Final. Had a hat trick in 6-1 win over Calgary in the Stanley Cup Final, Montreal beating the Tigers 2-0 in games without much trouble.

1925. Another great effort in the NHL Final. Two goals in 3-2 win over Toronto with Joliat injured, then scored again in a 2-0 win to advance. The Habs fell behind 2-0 to Victoria in the Stanley Cup series, but Morenz got a hat trick in Game 3 to stave off elimination before Montreal fell in Game 4.

1927. His play is described well in semi final series (2 games/total goals) as he scored and assisted in 2-1 total goals win. Ottawa got ahead of Montreal quickly in the division final (same format) and played kitty bar the door. Morenz and Joliat "tried hard but to no avail".

1928. This is a disappointing performance. Morenz took a lot of penalties as the Habs lost 3-2 total goals semi final.

1929. Montreal finished first and played first place Boston in a best-of-five semi final as the playoff format now dictated. Morenz was described as "always dangerous" with his rushes, despite a 1-0 loss in Game 1. Another 1-0 loss in Game 2, then a 3-2 loss "despite determined efforts of Morenz and Joliat".

1930. Morenz scored two goals including the OT winner to win 3-2 total goals series in the first round. It is mentioned that the Canadiens were tired after the long OT game, but had a very short turnaround before the next series began. As it happened, the opening game of this round went to quadruple OT. Montreal won this series 2-0 and it is interesting that subs scored all the goals. The Habs then upset Boston to win the Stanley Cup 2 games to 0. Morenz had one goal, and was described along with Lepine as the star in the deciding game.

1931. Had three assists in opening game defeat, little mention thereafter in a 3-2 series win over Boston. Morenz was described as "easily the outstanding player" after Game 2 loss in the Cup Final, despite 0 goals in playoffs. He is said to have put up a great performance in Game 3, a triple OT loss. Morenz "did everything but score" in a Game 4 win to send the Final to a decisive game. He finally scored in Game 5 to clinch Cup. It is mentioned that he was playing with an injured shoulder.

1932. Strong effort in opening 4-3 win over the Rangers in the semi-final. Long OT game loss in game 2, then played the very next night in NY, a 1-0 loss where it seems the teams were understandably tired. Joliat and Lepine were both injured in this game, and Montreal was ousted from the playoffs the next game.

1933. Two game/total goals, Montreal lost opener 5-2, and the Morenz line was outplayed by the Cooks and Frank Boucher. Morenz then started Game 2 on defense as coach Newsy Lalonde wanted 4 forwards on the ice to try and close the gap. This seemed to work as Morenz had two assists to pull the round to 6-5 total. Two late Ranger goals sealed the series.

1934. Morenz apparently played great and scored in 3-2 loss in the first game of another two game/total goals. It is said that the Canadiens had numerous injuries, and Morenz himself left injured in Game 2 as Montreal was eliminated.

1935. Now in Chicago. The Black Hawks lost 1-0 total goals in their opening round series. Morenz being stopped on two breakaways was the only specific mention of his play.

Morenz seems to have almost always figured prominently in his teams successes, with few instances where he clearly dropped the ball. His great playoff runs occurred at a time when there simply weren't many games to be played, and he had some prime years in an extremely low scoring environment. I don't think Morenz is a must include at this stage, but at the same time I don't think his resume is lacking compared to just-listed Sidney Crosby or Phil Esposito. They just have much more attractive and easier to quantify statistical profiles. If we're being fair to all eras (and why wouldn't we), we have to remember that modern players might not look so impressive at a glance if they only got to play 6 games during a Conn Smythe-level Cup run.

Sidney Crosby

Crosby is easily the most productive playoff performer of his generation, and if you factor in his four deep playoff runs, plus his couple of good half-runs, his two Conn Smythes (whatever you think of the first one), his captaining of three championships and his general all-around game, he is easily the best playoff performer of his generation (unless you count Chris Pronger, who might be his only serious competitor IMO).

Playoffs PTS and PPG since 2005-2006

Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Sidney Crosby	185	1.16
2	Evgeni Malkin	165	1.04
3	Patrick Kane	123	0.97
4	Ryan Getzlaf	120	0.96
5	Alex Ovechkin	117	0.97
6	Marian Hossa	115	0.75
7	Henrik Zetterberg	115	0.95
8	Daniel Briere	113	0.96
9	Jonathan Toews	110	0.86
10	Joe Thornton	105	0.84
11	Pavel Datsyuk	101	0.84

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Keeping in mind that Morenz is usually underrated in the playoffs, has he done enough to be considered the equal of a guy who is by far the best of his generation?

Regular Season Offense

Let's ignore the seasons where Crosby was injured, and focus on those where Morenz and Sid were in the Top 10 in scoring.Let's take a ballad through those seasons side by side, roughly ordered according to best VsX value.

***Note that there are reasons to suspect Montreal received less assists than the rest of the league during Morenz's career, which would affect his point totals a little bit***

27-28					2013-14
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Howie Morenz	51	1.19		1	Sidney Crosby	104	1.3
2	Aurele Joliat	39	0.89		2	Ryan Getzlaf	87	1.13
3	Frank Boucher	35	0.8		3	Claude Giroux	86	1.05
4	George Hay	35	0.83		4	Tyler Seguin	84	1.05
5	Nels Stewart	34	0.83		5	Corey Perry	82	1.01
6	Art Gagne	30	0.68		6	Taylor Hall	80	1.07
7	Bun Cook	28	0.64		7	Phil Kessel	80	0.98
8	Bill Carson	26	0.81		8	Nicklas Backstrom	79	0.96
9	Frank Finnigan	26	0.68		9	Jamie Benn	79	0.98
10	Bill Cook	24	0.56		10	Alex Ovechkin	79	1.01
30-31					2006-07
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Howie Morenz	51	1.31		1	Sidney Crosby	120	1.52
2	Ebbie Goodfellow	48	1.09		2	Joe Thornton	114	1.39
3	Charlie Conacher	43	1.13		3	Vincent Lecavalier	108	1.32
4	Ace Bailey	42	1.05		4	Dany Heatley	105	1.28
5	Bill Cook	42	0.95		5	Martin St. Louis	102	1.24
6	Joe Primeau	41	1.08		6	Marian Hossa	100	1.22
7	Frank Boucher	39	0.89		7	Joe Sakic	100	1.22
8	Nels Stewart	39	0.93		8	Jaromir Jagr	96	1.17
9	Cooney Weiland	38	0.86		9	Marc Savard	96	1.17
					10	Daniel Briere	95	1.17
26-27					2009-10
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Bill Cook	37	0.84		1	Henrik Sedin	112	1.37
2	Dick Irvin	36	0.82		2	Sidney Crosby	109	1.35
3	Howie Morenz	32	0.73		3	Alex Ovechkin	109	1.51
4	Frank Fredrickson	31	0.7		4	Nicklas Backstrom	101	1.23
5	Babe Dye	30	0.73		5	Steven Stamkos	95	1.16
6	Ace Bailey	28	0.67		6	Martin St. Louis	94	1.15
7	Frank Boucher	28	0.64		7	Brad Richards	91	1.14
8	Billy Burch	27	0.63		8	Joe Thornton	89	1.13
9	Bun Cook	25	0.57		9	Patrick Kane	88	1.07
10	George Hay	24	0.69		10	Marian Gaborik	86	1.13
31-32					2016-17
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Busher Jackson	53	1.1		1	Connor McDavid	100	1.22
2	Joe Primeau	50	1.09		2	Sidney Crosby	89	1.19
3	Howie Morenz	49	1.02		3	Patrick Kane	89	1.09
4	Charlie Conacher	48	1.09		4	Nicklas Backstrom	86	1.05
5	Bill Cook	47	0.98		5	Nikita Kucherov	85	1.15
6	Hooley Smith	44	1.02		6	Brad Marchand	85	1.06
7	Dave Trottier	44	0.92		7	Mark Scheifele	82	1.04
8	Dit Clapper	39	0.81		8	Leon Draisaitl	77	0.94
9	Aurele Joliat	39	0.81		9	Brent Burns	76	0.93
10	Babe Siebert	39	0.81		10	Vladimir Tarasenko	75	0.91
24-25					2012-13
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Babe Dye	46	1.59		1	Martin St. Louis	60	1.25
2	Aurele Joliat	42	1.68		2	Steven Stamkos	57	1.19
3	Cy Denneny	41	1.41		3	Sidney Crosby	56	1.56
4	Howie Morenz	39	1.3		4	Alex Ovechkin	56	1.17
5	Jack Adams	35	1.3		5	Patrick Kane	55	1.17
6	Red Green	35	1.17		6	Eric Staal	53	1.1
7	Billy Boucher	30	1		7	Phil Kessel	52	1.08
8	Hap Day	27	1.04		8	Chris Kunitz	52	1.08
9	Shorty Green	27	0.96		9	Taylor Hall	50	1.11
10	Billy Burch	26	0.96		10	Pavel Datsyuk	49	1.04
28-29					2014-15
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Ace Bailey	32	0.73		1	Jamie Benn	87	1.06
2	Nels Stewart	29	0.66		2	John Tavares	86	1.05
3	Andy Blair	27	0.61		3	Sidney Crosby	84	1.09
3	Carson Cooper	27	0.61		4	Alex Ovechkin	81	1
3	Howie Morenz	27	0.64		5	Jakub Voracek	81	0.99
6	Frank Boucher	26	0.59		6	Nicklas Backstrom	78	0.95
7	Bill Cook	23	0.53		7	Tyler Seguin	77	1.08
8	Harry Oliver	23	0.53		8	Jiri Hudler	76	0.97
9	Bill Carson	22	0.51		9	Daniel Sedin	76	0.93
10	Jimmy Ward	22	0.5		10	Nick Foligno	73	0.92
29-30					2015-16
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Cooney Weiland*	73	1.66		1	Patrick Kane	106	1.29
2	Frank Boucher*	62	1.48		2	Jamie Benn	89	1.09
3	Dit Clapper*	61	1.39		3	Sidney Crosby	85	1.06
4	Bill Cook*	59	1.34		4	Erik Karlsson	82	1
5	Hec Kilrea	58	1.32		5	Joe Thornton	82	1
6	Nels Stewart*	55	1.25		6	Johnny Gaudreau	78	0.99
7	Howie Morenz	53	1.2		7	Joe Pavelski	78	0.95
8	Normie Himes	50	1.14		8	Blake Wheeler	78	0.95
9	Dutch Gainor	49	1.17		9	Evgeny Kuznetsov	77	0.94
10	Joe Lamb	49	1.11		10	Artemi Panarin	77	0.96
25-26					2005-06
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Nels Stewart*	42	1.17		1	Joe Thornton	125	1.54
2	Carson Cooper	36	1		2	Jaromir Jagr	123	1.5
3	Cy Denneny*	36	1		3	Alex Ovechkin	106	1.31
4	Jimmy Herbert	35	0.97		4	Daniel Alfredsson	103	1.34
5	Jack Adams*	29	0.81		5	Dany Heatley	103	1.26
6	Aurele Joliat*	26	0.74		6	Sidney Crosby	102	1.26
7	Howie Morenz	26	0.84		7	Eric Staal	100	1.22
8	Frank Nighbor*	26	0.74		8	Ilya Kovalchuk	98	1.26
9	Hooley Smith*	25	0.89		9	Marc Savard	97	1.18
10	Billy Burch*	24	0.67		10	Jonathan Cheechoo	93	1.13
32-33					2008-09
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Bill Cook*	50	1.04		1	Evgeni Malkin	113	1.38
2	Busher Jackson*	44	0.92		2	Alex Ovechkin	110	1.39
3	Baldy Northcott	43	0.9		3	Sidney Crosby	103	1.34
4	Paul Haynes	41	0.85		4	Pavel Datsyuk	97	1.2
5	Hooley Smith*	41	0.85		5	Zach Parise	94	1.15
6	Aurele Joliat*	38	0.79		6	Ryan Getzlaf	91	1.12
7	Marty Barry*	37	0.79		7	Ilya Kovalchuk	91	1.15
8	Bun Cook*	37	0.77		8	Jarome Iginla	89	1.09
9	Johnny Gagnon	36	0.75		9	Nicklas Backstrom	88	1.07
10	Howie Morenz	36	0.78		10	Marc Savard	88	1.07
					2017-18
					Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
					1	Connor McDavid	108	1.32
					2	Claude Giroux	102	1.24
					3	Nikita Kucherov	100	1.25
					4	Evgeni Malkin	98	1.26
					5	Nathan MacKinnon	97	1.31
					6	Taylor Hall	93	1.22
					7	Phil Kessel	92	1.12
					8	Anze Kopitar	92	1.12
					9	Blake Wheeler	91	1.12
					10	Sidney Crosby	89	1.09

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This ignores all the peak seasons Crosby missed because of injuries where he was on the verge of decapitating the league.I think despite the fact Morenz have the highest peak seasons in VsX, Crosby looks better here.

Star Power

I feel like they're dead even in this category.

Again from TDMM's post:

''Easily won a 1950 Canadian Press Poll for the greatest hockey player from 1900-1950.

Howie Morenz - 27 votes
Maurice Richard - 4 votes (only 5 seasons into his career!)
Cyclone Taylor - 3 votes
Frank Nighbor - 2 votes''

So Morenz was widely considered the greatest hockey player of all-time before Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe (at least in Canada).Very strong star power.

OTOH, Crosby is without a doubt the biggest star since Lemieux, and the biggest non-Big 4 star since 1970.He's been the face of the league for his entire career and a flawless ambassador to the game.His name goes beyond hockey.

Overall, I see no difference between their star power.

 

[bobholly39]

With Crosby vs. Morenz we're in hair-splitting territory.

Between 2008 and 2015, to win the cup you had to face Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Toews or Bergeron (by the way coincidence that all the top two-way power centers are present on the list of players you were likely to face to challenge for the cup? In fairness they all had a great #1 D behind them, so that's that).Could add Kesler to the list.

It was almost certain that you'd end up facing one of them.How you do against such a player is pretty important, even if it's not the entire story.

If this was Morenz's era odds are he'd have had to face 1 of (or 2 or more of) Zetterberg, Datsy, Kopitar, Toews, Bergeron every year to get to the cup. This isn't true of Crosby - which is my point.

1. He never faced off against Toews or Kopitar in playoffs
2. Between 2008 and 2018 Crosby played in 28 playoff series. Detroit (Zett & Dats) were 2 series, Boston (2013) was 1 series. 3 out of 28 is 10% of the time.

Crosby could hypothetically be the crappiest player in the history of defensive center matchups and still find a path to win multiple cups and be a top playoff performer in an all-time sense.

Which is the point. It's less of a factor in Crosby's era than it is in Morenz's era.

p.s. I'm not saying Crosby is actually bad at these matchups - if someone wants to present data it'd be interesting to see - i'm just saying it shouldn't matter a whole lot how good/bad he is vs specific matchups.

 

[MXD]

Well Richard making it over Hasek/Bourque/Morenz/Crosby is a travesty, but alas here we are.

One 15 year span (of primes) is grossly overrepresented in the top 9, and one team in that span makes up 1/3rd of the top 9. That boggles my mind how one dynasty claims 3 of the top 9 when no player from equally impressive dynasties as the 70s Habs, 80 Islanders and Oilers, or 60s Leafs have made it in, and only one player has made it in from the 50s Red Wings. I respect Old Time hockey, but this is supposed to be era neutral, while this is turning into "glorify the 50s and early 60s to the detriment of every other era".

So, you'd have another DPE player or Active player or Pre-WWII player over a more deserving O-6 to make the whole thing "Era Neutral"? Seems that would achieve quite the opposite.

 

[The Macho King]

So, you'd have another DPE player or Active player or Pre-WWII player over a more deserving O-6 to make the whole thing "Era Neutral"? Seems that would achieve quite the opposite.

I'm saying that said player is not "more deserving" - and saying he is despite lack of of accolades in a light competition era reeks of team/era bias, not objective assessment.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

What are your thoughts on having Mario as [Jagr's] teammate in a few of those seasons, the gap in elite Cup runs, and the wider gap in 2-way play?

No doubt, this is worth a review. I would say that Lemieux and Jagr as teammates for a significant period of time should be taken into consideration... in the same way that we've taken into consideration the fact that Béliveau and M. Richard were teammates for a goodly span, too. That is to say, The Sub-Forum has made a sound relevant distinction between dependent-relationships and mutually-beneficial relationships. [Béliveau & M. Richard is synergistic. Lemieux & Jagr is synergistic. Dionne and Dave Taylor... now we're getting more towards the realm of dependent relationships.] I have every confidence that we won't fall into the pit-trap of selective application now.

As to the points about Jagr's post-seasons, I fully agree with the post immediately following the quoted one above. With regard to criticism of Jagr's defensive play, the metrics, such as I'm reading them, don't suggest that he's some sort of defensive liability- or if he is, he's adding pluses to the scoreboard at such an exceptional rate that they stop mattering quite so much.

One more thing I noticed when comparing these two side-by-side. I saw that Jagr never led the league in goals (Crosby has)-- but Crosby's never led the league in even-strength goals. [Jagr has- THREE TIMES.] So, I took out my up-'til-30 measuring stick and looked-

Through age 30- Jagr had 388 power-play points out of 1235 points, total, making his output 31% power-play dependent.
Through age 30, Crosby has more power-play points, 412, with fewer total points tallied- 1116-- making him far-and-away the more power-play dependent- with a 37% rate.

Perhaps, like Lemieux before him, some of his penalties are on account of people being forced to commit restraining fouls against him. I'd also argue that the conventional wisdom that Crosby helps make this happen by going into his Klaus Dibiasi routine has some legs, as well.

 

[BenchBrawl]

If this was Morenz's era odds are he'd have had to face 1 of (or 2 or more of) Zetterberg, Datsy, Kopitar, Toews, Bergeron every year to get to the cup. This isn't true of Crosby - which is my point.

1. He never faced off against Toews or Kopitar in playoffs
2. Between 2008 and 2018 Crosby played in 28 playoff series. Detroit (Zett & Dats) were 2 series, Boston (2013) was 1 series. 3 out of 28 is 10% of the time.

Crosby could hypothetically be the crappiest player in the history of defensive center matchups and still find a path to win multiple cups and be a top playoff performer in an all-time sense.

Which is the point. It's less of a factor in Crosby's era than it is in Morenz's era.

p.s. I'm not saying Crosby is actually bad at these matchups - if someone wants to present data it'd be interesting to see - i'm just saying it shouldn't matter a whole lot how good/bad he is vs specific matchups.

I don't see things that way.This isn't a case of looking at your environment, your era, and paufining a skill (or choosing a style of play over another) relevant to said era to dominate it.Being bad against other top players isn't a display of adaptation to one's era.It's a wart.That it's possibly less a wart in Crosby's era is pure luck.

Since it's not an adaptation, it doesn't transfer at all.As soon as the big boys appear in front of you you start losing.You don't control your destiny.

 

[MXD]

I'm saying that said player is not "more deserving" - and saying he is despite lack of of accolades in a light competition era reeks of team/era bias, not objective assessment.

Since you're talking about Maurice Richard...

Richard had two things that were going REALLY, REALLY well for him : Ridiculous longevity for players in his age group and playoffs scoring. He was also, in all likelihood, robbed of a Art Ross in 46-47. It's not like his case would've been better with a Art Ross (because he would have been the exact same player!!!), but it's the kind of thing that's apparently very important.

 

[overg]

Have the 3 trillion threads about Bourque vs. Lidstrom killed all interest in discussing either, even against other players? It didn't seem like there was a whole lot of interest in pimping Bourque last round, and preliminary talks in this round indicate Lidstrom may be a forgotten man this time around.

For that matter, it appears that at least so far, this group is a bit down on Defensemen as a whole compared to past rankings. Orr and Shore both slipped from where they were in '08 and '09, and Harvey is down from his '09 ranking (although he rose one spot from his '08 placement). Bourque will need to place either first or second this round to match his '09 (10th) or '08 (11th) ranking.

We're not talking huge movements from any of these players, but all of these drops occurred without any recently active players (at least since the last vote in '09) being placed. So this isn't just a case of new players bumping down old. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues throughout the voting, or if it's just a random bit of noise at the top of the charts.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't see things that way.This isn't a case of looking at your environment, your era, and paufining a skill (or choosing a style of play over another) relevant to said era to dominate it.Being bad against other top players isn't a display of adaptation to one's era.It's a wart.That it's possibly less a wart in Crosby's era is pure luck.

Since it's not an adaptation, it doesn't transfer at all.As soon as the big boys appear in front of you you start losing.You don't control your destiny.

So something that is relevant in around 10% of playoff series is as important as something that is relevant in....likely quite a bit more.....in Morenz's era?

It's not "luck" it's a factor of the era. Being great in a "vacuum" is more useful in Crosby's era than being great in specific key matchups. Because there are 30 teams and not 6.

Because if we're not applying proper context while comparing eras - well Crosby played 82 games seasons, and so they're worth twice as much as Morenz's seasons. etc. Slippery slope.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So something that is relevant in around 10% of playoff series is as important as something that is relevant in....likely quite a bit more.....in Morenz's era?

It's not "luck" it's a factor of the era. Being great in a "vacuum" is more useful in Crosby's era than being great in specific key matchups. Because there are 30 teams and not 6.

Because if we're not applying proper context while comparing eras - well Crosby played 82 games seasons, and so they're worth twice as much as Morenz's seasons. etc. Slippery slope.

There are 30 teams but to win the cup you more often have to face top centers.Maybe you'll avoid them, then good for you, but there's still less glory in that than facing the best and winning.This is why we care about level of competition when comparing players.Not sure why we would ignore it all of a sudden.

Federer winning the French Open was nice, and there's some merit in showing up every time - in case the top dogs don't - so you can grab the low hanging fruit, but it doesn't come with the same level of glory than when he did beat Nadal in the Australian Open 2017 for example (though in that case Nadal was not in his prime, but neither was Federer).

 

[bobholly39]

No doubt, this is worth a review. I would say that Lemieux and Jagr as teammates for a significant period of time should be taken into consideration... in the same way that we've taken into consideration the fact that Béliveau and M. Richard were teammates for a goodly span, too. That is to say, The Sub-Forum has made a sound relevant distinction between dependent-relationships and mutually-beneficial relationships. [Béliveau & M. Richard is synergistic. Lemieux & Jagr is synergistic. Dionne and Dave Taylor... now we're getting more towards the realm of dependent relationships.] I have every confidence that we won't fall into the pit-trap of selective application now.

As to the points about Jagr's post-seasons, I fully agree with the post immediately following the quoted one above. With regard to criticism of Jagr's defensive play, the metrics, such as I'm reading them, don't suggest that he's some sort of defensive liability- or if he is, he's adding pluses to the scoreboard at such an exceptional rate that they stop mattering quite so much.

One more thing I noticed when comparing these two side-by-side. I saw that Jagr never led the league in goals (Crosby has)-- but Crosby's never led the league in even-strength goals. [Jagr has- THREE TIMES.] So, I took out my up-'til-30 measuring stick and looked-

Through age 30- Jagr had 388 power-play points out of 1235 points, total, making his output 31% power-play dependent.
Through age 30, Crosby has more power-play points, 412, with fewer total points tallied- 1116-- making him far-and-away the more power-play dependent- with a 37% rate.

Perhaps, like Lemieux before him, some of his penalties are on account of people being forced to commit restraining fouls against him. I'd also argue that the conventional wisdom that Crosby helps make this happen by going into his Klaus Dibiasi routine has some legs, as well.

Powerplay vs ES shouldn't matter a whole lot - just results.

Sidney Crosby's points are just as important as Jagr's and vise versa whether they occur on the PP or at ES. The only time looking at PP and ES makes sense is when talking about future projections. ie if you can make a case that 2 active players (let's say Ovi and Crosby) are almost equals, but that Crosby relies a lot more on PP - well since you never know when Powerplays in the league might go up or down it makes more sense to chose the player less reliant on PP going forward.

But when looking at the past - i simply don't understand why it matters if one player is better on the PP than the other. So what? Those power play, ES or SH points helped affect the outcome of the game just as much.

 

[bobholly39]

There are 30 teams but to win the cup you more often have to face top centers.Maybe you'll avoid them, then good for you, but there's still less glory in that than facing the best and winning.This is why we care about level of competition when comparing players.Not sure why we would ignore it all of a sudden.

Federer winning the French Open was nice, and there's some merit in showing up every time in case the top dogs don't so you can grab the low hanging fruit, but it doesn't come with the same level of glory than when he did beat Nadal in the Australian Open 2017 for example (though in that case Nadal was not in his prime, but neither was Federer).

Why are you talking about Tennis? Lol. If you're going to compare sports, at least talk Football, Baseball or Basketball. Not that those would be all that relevant either - since this is about Hockey.

"Less glory"? Winning a cup = winning a cup. Glory is subjective. Results and championships should count in the end - not subjectively deciding which wins are more glorious than others.

And you say "you more often have to face top centers". Well not for Crosby. You listed a bunch of top centers, and i showed you data that says that only in 3 out of 28 series he faced those guys, or 10% of the time. Meaning 90% of the time you don't face those guys.

 

[The Macho King]

So on Jagr -

Five Art Ross trophies is impressive, but it's in a kind of crappy era for forward competition.

Playoffs - eh... kinda disappointing. Would classify them largely as "just okay". Not a laurel, not a mark against him either.

Two-way play - nonexistant

And I think we have to address the elephant in the room. He lost in Harts 2-1 to Hasek during their respective peaks. There is zero acceptable arguments for Jagr over Hasek.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First impressions:

#1/2. Howie Morenz and Sidney Crosby. These 2 men easily need to go this round.

Link to my megapost about them for future readers: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151745959/
Link to Howie Morenz's ATD profile:

I'm still not 100% sure what order those two will be in, but I am 100% sure they are my top 2 this round.

#3. Ray Bourque - best defenseman left, best defenseman since Bobby Orr, and shouldn't go too far behind Harvey.

After Lidstrom, and Shore start to look good. Maybe Ovechkin.

Disappointed that Mikita and Potvin show up before Red Kelly, but it's a bit too early for any of them.

There should be a decent gap between the Harvey/Bourque/Lidstrom/Shore group of defensemen and the rest of them.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Jagr is a plus playoff performer for me...he was the bell cow for a team that had largely no third or fourth line, no defense and little goaltending...he was a horse in the postseason though overall...

 

[MXD]

Have the 3 trillion threads about Bourque vs. Lidstrom killed all interest in discussing either, even against other players? It didn't seem like there was a whole lot of interest in pimping Bourque last round, and preliminary talks in this round indicate Lidstrom may be a forgotten man this time around.

For that matter, it appears that at least so far, this group is a bit down on Defensemen as a whole compared to past rankings. Orr and Shore both slipped from where they were in '08 and '09, and Harvey is down from his '09 ranking (although he rose one spot from his '08 placement). Bourque will need to place either first or second this round to match his '09 (10th) or '08 (11th) ranking.

We're not talking huge movements from any of these players, but all of these drops occurred without any recently active players (at least since the last vote in '09) being placed. So this isn't just a case of new players bumping down old. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues throughout the voting, or if it's just a random bit of noise at the top of the charts.

First paragraph : I don't have much of an interest in a Bourque vs. Lidstrom myself. Lidstrom vs. Potvin vs. Shore (if we're to keep it intra-positionnal, and there's already Bourbon in my coffee), and Lidstrom vs Jagr vs. Messier (and, hopefully NEXT round, Lidstrom vs. Martin Brodeur), now I'll listen.

Second paragraph : If you read the Vote 2 thread, you'll realize something : LOTS of people came forward and said they ended up "bumping" Patrick Roy. I did so myself... at that happened at the expense of Doug Harvey, amongst others. Patrick Roy's RS prime/peak has always been really underrated (Not guilty here; it's the playoffs was actually underrating!) and some people apparently realized that. And you know who MIGHT be getting an appreciation bump because of Roy getting such a bump? ... Dominik Hasek. Because there was indeed a point where Hasek WAS better than Roy. One of the players also likely to pass Bourque is Sidney Crosby, and you kindof covered that possibility in your 3rd paragraph.

And you know else might just look better than it did in the past? Martin Brodeur. (and so on)

 

[K Fleur]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember someone on this forum showing that Jagr played an exorbitant amount of time on the power play in relation to his peers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

HOWIE MORENZ STUFF REPOSTED FOR FUTURE READERS

Howie Morenz

I. Easily won a 1950 Canadian Press Poll for the greatest hockey player from 1900-1950.

Howie Morenz - 27 votes
Maurice Richard - 4 votes (only 5 seasons into his career!)
Cyclone Taylor - 3 votes
Frank Nighbor - 2 votes

7 players also received 1 vote: Syl Apps, Turk Broda, Aurel Joliat, Newsy Lalonde, Milt Schmidt, Eddie Shore, Nels Stewart

Source: Saskatoon Star-Phoenix - Google News Archive Search

The poll was conducted by "sports editors and sportscasters;" It was only 13 years since Morenz' last hockey game, so most, if not all of these voters would have seen him play. There probably something of a sympathy vote for Morenz since he died young, but still, 27 of 43 voters is a landslide.

II. He was the best offensive player in the world by a wide margin in the 5 years leading up to the forward pass, and the best offensive player in the world (by a smaller margin) in the couple of years after the forward pass.

Take a longer view - look at multiple seasons at a time to even out the hot and cold streaks. If you do this you see that Morenz was the best offensive player in the world by a wide margin in the 5 years leading up to the forward pass, and that he remained the best offensive player in the world (by a smaller margin) in the few years after the forward pass. AND he did all this while playing excellent all-round hockey

Pre forward pass prime (1924-25 to 1928-29):
Morenz was:
1st in points, with 124% of 2nd place Aurele Joilat
1st in points-per-game with 119% of 2nd place Nels Stewart
1st in goals, with 125% of 2nd place Aurele Joliat
1st in goals-per-game with 110% of 2nd place Nels Stewart
1st in assists, with 114% of 2nd place Frank Boucher
2nd in assists per game, with 79% of 2nd place Frank Boucher (who came from the WCHL when that league folded in 1926).

I'm using a 50 game minimum for all per-game numbers

Post forward pass prime (1930-31 and 1931-32)

The numbers are so crazy in 1929-30 due various rule changes that it's impossible to use in a multi-year sample like this. Unfortunately, 1932-33 seems to have been the start of Morenz's decline (he was 10th in scoring, but had been top 5 in every season between 1924-25 and 1931-32 except for his 7th place finish in the weird 1929-30). So we only get 2 full years of Morenz in his absolute prime after the forward pass and offsides rules were established.

Morenz was
1st in points with 110% of 2nd place Charlie Conacher
1st in points-per-game with 103% of 2nd place Charlie Conacher
3rd in goals with 80% of 1st place Charlie Conacher (Bill Cook was 2nd)
3rd in goals-per-game with 75% of 1st place Charlie Conacher (Bill Cook was 2nd)
3rd in assists with 70% of 1st place Joe Primeau (Conacher's center!) and 96% of 2nd place (Frank Boucher)
3rd in assists-per-game with 67% of 1st place Joe Primeau (Conacher's center) and 96% of 2nd place (Hooley Smith)

III. For just one season (1927-28), Howie Morenz approached a Gretzky level of domination

If you insist on looking at it on a season-by-season basis, look at the margins of victory. Morenz's 2nd scoring title was typical, but his 1st scoring title was by Gretzky-like margins. Based on H-R's somewhat flawed adjusted stats, they have Morenz's 1927-28 season as the best offensive season of all-time by any scorer ever, and not particularly close either: NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Points | Hockey-Reference.com

1. Howie Morenz*-MTL 51
2. Aurele Joliat*-MTL 39
3. Frank Boucher*-NYR 35
George Hay*-DTC 35
5. Nels Stewart*-MTM 34

Morenz scored 23.53% more than second place, his linemate Joliat. His lead over his nearest non-teammate was 31.37%.

By comparison, here are the margins by which Gretzky and Lemieux won their scoring titles (via FissionFire in the 2008 Top 100 project):

Wayne Gretzky
1980-81: 17.68% scoring margin (164 to 135) Age: 19
1981-82: 30.66% scoring margin (212 to 147) Age: 20
1982-83: 36.73% scoring margin (196 to 124) Age: 21
1983-84: 38.54% scoring margin (205 to 126) Age: 22
1984-85: 35.10% scoring margin (208 to 135) Age: 23
1985-86: 34.42% scoring margin (212 to 141) Age: 24
1986-87: 40.98% scoring margin (183 to 108) Age: 25
1989-90: 9.15% scoring margin (142 to 129) Age: 28
1990-91: 19.63% scoring margin (163 to 131) Age: 29
1993-94: 7.69% scoring margin (130 to 120) Age: 32
Mario Lemieux
1987-88: 11.31% scoring margin (168 to 149) Age: 21
1988-89: 15.58% scoring margin (199 to 168) Age: 22
1991-92: 6.11% scoring margin (131 to 123) Age: 25
1992-93: 7.50% scoring margin (160 to 148) Age: 26
1995-96: 7.45% scoring margin (161 to 149) Age: 29
1996-97: 10.66% scoring margin (122 to 109) Age: 30

Some of Lemieux's margins would be greater if you remove Gretzky, but whatever, not the point.
By 1927-28, all the world's best talent was in the NHL and Morenz flat out dominated them. And we have evidence that Morenz was already developing his strong defensive game at this point.

IV. Morenz seemed to have developed an effective defensive game by 1927 and was excellent defensively by 1929:

All quotes contained in this 2013 bio of Howie Morenz: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/58017755/

Toe Blake called Morenz "one of the greatest backcheckers I ever saw," and Tommy Gorman said "Morenz was the fastest and greatest two-way center in the game."

Defensive forward Pit Lepine in February, 1928: "Last season Howie Morenz started to use a poke-check and at the close of the year he was getting very effective."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from March 15, 1929: "Hooley Smith and Boucher are potential candidates for the pivot, but Morenz is too fast and his ability to hurdle through a defense right into the goal mouth gives him the edge over the other candidates. Howie also can poke-check with the best and his scoring proclivities, not much better than Boucher’s, surpasses Smith."

V. Morenz "deserved" at least 3 All-Star nods before the teams became official in 1930-31.

Morenz was Hart runner up in 1924-25 behind another center.

1926-27 (From the April 4, 1927 NY Times): "With the hockey stick-swingers still briskly battling away for the Stanley Cup, several readers have thought this a golden opportunity to raise the issue of an all-star hockey team. Step up and take your pick. Almost everybody agrees that Howie Morenz of the Canadiens belongs at centre ice on any all-star combination. Beyond that, all agreements are off."

The GMs voted Morenz 1st Team All-Star in an unofficial poll in 1927-28

 

[bobholly39]

So on Jagr -

Five Art Ross trophies is impressive, but it's in a kind of crappy era for forward competition.

Playoffs - eh... kinda disappointing. Would classify them largely as "just okay". Not a laurel, not a mark against him either.

Two-way play - nonexistant

And I think we have to address the elephant in the room. He lost in Harts 2-1 to Hasek during their respective peaks. There is zero acceptable arguments for Jagr over Hasek.

That's pretty simplistic. I think if you put up their best 5 or so seasons against one another Jagr looks quite good. That's a more useful exercise of comparing peaks than just counting harts. Maybe Hasek still comes out ahead over 5 years im just saying we should look at it more closely, they're both very very strong in this metric, you can't just count harts.

Also - Jagr has more longevity/career worth outside of his peak than Hasek does, so that helps as well.