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

[VanIslander]

Boatload of obfuscating bull****. You're using Modano as a comparator to Messier, but Modano did get some serious Selke attention on his own, even more than Lehtinen at times (as attests his formal nomination in 2000-2001. Messier, as a Partner to Tikkanen, got....

Wait for it...

2, 2, 2, 2, and 3 votes for the Selke.

And Kurri lamented he scored too many goals to get the Selke.

THE SELKE CHANGED BETWEEN THE MID80s and LATE 90s. There are several threads discussing this on HfBoards.

So, no, I'm not obfuscating. I was citing WHAT I SAW. I watched and admired Messier & Tikkanen work as a duo. I've watched and admired Modano & Lehtinen as a duo. And I stand by my claim that the wingers got more credit in Selke recognition but the centers were effective in the duos.

No need for swearing. The aggression is off putting. Let's get along.

 

[MXD]

And Kurri lamented he scored too many goals to get the Selke.

THE SELKE CHANGED BETWEEN THE MID80s and LATE 90s. There are several threads discussing this on HfBoards.

So, no, I'm not obfuscating. I was citing WHAT I SAW. I watched and admired Messier & Tikkanen work as a duo. I've watched and admired Modano & Lehtinen as a duo. And I stand by my claim that the wingers got more credit in Selke recognition but the centers were effective in the duos.

No need for swearing. The aggression is off putting. Let's get along.

I have no issue with you; I just have an issue with your output.

 

[VanIslander]

Has there ever been a HOH project with as much hostility, anger and ridicule?

I'll leave it at that.

See y'all on the other side of the weekend.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Cheap shot at me... or: did you read all the post?

I go on to consider only from the 1986 accomplishments onward (not all star 83 wjc or 84 Canada Cup... i simply mentioned his earliest star moments because this is about longevity and some people myopically just look at his nhl years and think he suddenly became great in 1993... he was always great (minus 3year adjustment gap and later when over 40 years old in Ottawa) and, from 1986, significantly so for this project.

temperature is a little high in this room. i haven’t really been around so i don’t know who’s been gaslighting whom. but it was an honest comment— i don’t see how hasek’s longevity starts at 83, rather than say 84 (or later as others have argued; i personally dgas).

i mean, a lot of guys won top goalie at the wjc, including mike moffatt the year before and a guy i’ve never heard of the year after. it is a meaningless accomplishment even for the low end of the top 100. we don’t presume hasek had never played hockey before he turned pro do we?

 

[MXD]

I don't think anyone has been actually gaslighting anyone, but the best way to not get called for posting bullshit is to not post bullshit in the first place.

 

[Batis]

Interesting work. With respect to Ovechkin, I wonder how much of this has to do with Russia's revent relative lack of depth and the ability of strong teams, such as Canada, to construct a defensive game plan and assign elite 2-way players focused on shutting down / limiting Ovechkin?

Sure to a certain degree that may be one part of the explanation for his weak numbers. But in my opinion one should be able to expect that a player as great as Ovechkin should be able to shake off most defensive game plans. For example lets remember that Jagr who had far less offensive firepower to support him on the Czech national team still managed to score at a much higher rate than Ovechkin at the knockout stage.

And honestly has Ovechkin really lacked offensive support on the national team that much? I mean for most of his prime he had all of Malkin, Datsyuk and Kovalchuk on the team with him. Then in the latest tournament he had Malkin and Kucherov (admittedly only just about to really break out as a superstar at that point) on the team.

I think that Ovechkin is an amazing player and I believe that I had him ranked 20th on my Round 1 list. But there is in my opinion no way around that Ovechkin has let the Russian team down on multiple occasions at best-on-best tournaments which really bothers me considering how great of a player he in fact is. This is not saying that those Russian teams did not have other problems (they had) but when your best player goes completely cold in the knockout stage your team generally does not stand much of a chance.

 

[MXD]

Sure to a certain degree that may be one part of the explanation for his weak numbers. But in my opinion one should be able to expect that a player as great as Ovechkin should be able to shake off most defensive game plans. For example lets remember that Jagr who had far less offensive firepower to support him on the Czech national team still managed to score at a much higher rate than Ovechkin at the knockout stage.

And honestly has Ovechkin really lacked offensive support on the national team that much? I mean for most of his prime he had all of Malkin, Datsyuk and Kovalchuk on the team with him. Then in the latest tournament he had Malkin and Kucherov.

I think that Ovechkin is an amazing player and I believe that I had him ranked 20th on my Round 1 list. But there is in my opinion no way around that Ovechkin has let the Russian team down on multiple occasions at best-on-best tournaments which really bothers me considering how great of a player he in fact is. This is not saying that those Russian teams did not have other problems (they had) but when your best player goes completely cold in the knockout stage your team generally does not stand much of a chance.

It's odd, because my perception of AO in Internationnal Tournaments has mostly always been of a guy who worked too much (and thus worked very badly) as a result. I don't quite know where to file this. Technically, it shows something of a lack of hockey smarts, but...

 

[The Macho King]

Sure to a certain degree that may be one part of the explanation for his weak numbers. But in my opinion one should be able to expect that a player as great as Ovechkin should be able to shake off most defensive game plans. For example lets remember that Jagr who had far less offensive firepower to support him on the Czech national team still managed to score at a much higher rate than Ovechkin at the knockout stage.

And honestly has Ovechkin really lacked offensive support on the national team that much? I mean for most of his prime he had all of Malkin, Datsyuk and Kovalchuk on the team with him. Then in the latest tournament he had Malkin and Kucherov (admittedly only just about to really break out as a superstar at that point) on the team.

I think that Ovechkin is an amazing player and I believe that I had him ranked 20th on my Round 1 list. But there is in my opinion no way around that Ovechkin has let the Russian team down on multiple occasions at best-on-best tournaments which really bothers me considering how great of a player he in fact is. This is not saying that those Russian teams did not have other problems (they had) but when your best player goes completely cold in the knockout stage your team generally does not stand much of a chance.

If National Team arguments were the only things that made Ovechkin stand out (negatively) in high pressure situations, I'd write it off as a quirk and leave it at that. But paired with his excessively bad playoff play from say 2011 to 2017, it almost heightens its impact. 2018 did a lot to put to bed the *narrative* that Ovechkin wasn't clutch/was a bad playoff performer/what have you, but I don't think anyone should allow it to erase the truth of it.

After I let the bitterness of getting knocked out wash over from last season, I was really happy for Ovi. He got the monkey off his back, and that's an awesome thing. But let's not forget that the monkey basically had a strong adverse possession claim *to* that back based on how long it was there. Maybe the monkey just died of old age.

 

[86Habs]

Sure to a certain degree that may be one part of the explanation for his weak numbers. But in my opinion one should be able to expect that a player as great as Ovechkin should be able to shake off most defensive game plans. For example lets remember that Jagr who had far less offensive firepower to support him on the Czech national team still managed to score at a much higher rate than Ovechkin at the knockout stage.

And honestly has Ovechkin really lacked offensive support on the national team that much? I mean for most of his prime he had all of Malkin, Datsyuk and Kovalchuk on the team with him. Then in the latest tournament he had Malkin and Kucherov (admittedly only just about to really break out as a superstar at that point) on the team.

I think that Ovechkin is an amazing player and I believe that I had him ranked 20th on my Round 1 list. But there is in my opinion no way around that Ovechkin has let the Russian team down on multiple occasions at best-on-best tournaments which really bothers me considering how great of a player he in fact is. This is not saying that those Russian teams did not have other problems (they had) but when your best player goes completely cold in the knockout stage your team generally does not stand much of a chance.

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses for Ovechkin and your points are all very good ones. Ovechkin has always struck me as someone that takes great pride and has a passion for playing for his country, but his results are - as you have shown - abysmal. And you're correct in that Russia, since 2010 at least, has underperformed vis-a-vis the talent available to them. What does this say about Ovechkin? I don't know.

 

[The Macho King]

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses for Ovechkin and your points are all very good ones. Ovechkin has always struck me as someone that takes great pride and has a passion for playing for his country, but his results are - as you have shown - abysmal. And you're correct in that Russia, since 2010 at least, has underperformed vis-a-vis the talent available to them. What does this say about Ovechkin? I don't know.

Let's also put it out there - Ovi in international play doesn't just suck best-on-best. He (or Russia - however you want to frame it) even suck in secondary tournaments like the WCs (which he played in almost every year). Russia was able to field more talent than most of the big countries in those tournaments, but despite that only have 3 Golds. In 2011 He had 0 points in 5 games. In 2016 he had 2 points in 6 games. In 2007 he had 3 points in 8 games. He's had some good runs in those too (12 in 9 in 08 when they won gold, 11 in 9 in 14 when they won gold), but that should be the norm for ostensibly one of the two best players in the world in a second-rate tournament, not random one-offs.

 

[Batis]

It's odd, because my perception of AO in Internationnal Tournaments has mostly always been of a guy who worked too much (and thus worked very badly) as a result. I don't quite know where to file this. Technically, it shows something of a lack of hockey smarts, but...

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses for Ovechkin and your points are all very good ones. Ovechkin has always struck me as someone that takes great pride and has a passion for playing for his country, but his results are - as you have shown - abysmal. And you're correct in that Russia, since 2010 at least, has underperformed vis-a-vis the talent available to them. What does this say about Ovechkin? I don't know.

Just to be clear when I said that Ovechkin let his team down and went completely cold I meant productionwise. I definitely don't doubt his level of motivation when playing for the national team. Just the level of play that he has managed to produce in those big international games.

 

[MXD]

Just to be clear when I said that Ovechkin let his team down and went completely cold I meant productionwise. I definitely don't doubt his level of motivation when playing for the national team. Just the level of play that he has managed to produce in those big international games.

Yup, that's what I understood as well. Don't worry.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Ovechkin stepped up big time this last post season run, even if Kuz was Washington's best player (especially rounds 3 and 4). It's something that he desperately needed. Because beyond that his postseason and international resume is very, very bleak. It's too early for him right now (in large part because of the previous sentence) but credit due for his overall strong performance last year. I'd like to see at least one more stellar run out of him before promoting him up a rung or two but 8 can at least say he's got his signature run.

My top 4 this round is going to be Bourque first and then some combo of Crosby, Lidstrom and Hasek.

Beyond that I'm leaning towards Morenz, Shore, Messier, Plante, in the next tier with Mikita, Jagr, Ovechkin and Potvin in the bottom grouping.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Voted.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Be nice, everyone. There's way too much dung flinging going on in here.

And don't consider my note here to absolve anyone from receiving infractions for posts made prior to this note. You're adults, and you shouldn't need extra warnings.

 

[seventieslord]

I am very sure about Crosby, Bourque and Shore.

I am pretty sure about Morenz (but no one has convinced me I shouldn't have his on-paper superior, Mikita right next to him or ahead)

I am not fully convinced on Hasek (Plante might pass him in the end) or Jagr.

I feel it's too early for Messier, Ovechkin, Potvin and Lidstrom.

 

[The Macho King]

I am very sure about Crosby, Bourque and Shore.

I am pretty sure about Morenz (but no one has convinced me I shouldn't have his on-paper superior, Mikita right next to him or ahead)

I am not fully convinced on Hasek (Plante might pass him in the end) or Jagr.

I feel it's too early for Messier, Potvin and Lidstrom.

I do think we need to step back and appreciate Hasek's peak again. Because it was astronomical.

I say this generally. I'm pretty sure some posters (@Mike Farkas I think you generally rated goalies lower if I remember discussing earlier?) may not be moved by it, but I think he easily has the highest RS peak of any goaltender, 6 Vezinas in a pretty solid era is hard to contend with, and a solid international resume.

It does open the floor to the question though... If we're talking Hasek here, why aren't we talking Hall?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Be nice, everyone. There's way too much dung flinging going on in here.

And don't consider my note here to absolve anyone from receiving infractions for posts made prior to this note. You're adults, and you shouldn't need extra warnings.

Agreed.

Honestly I really hope to see zero nonsense on this sub forum. We should strive to be above petty bickering. Many, many people will be reading these threads and are probably following along regardless. We won't all agree on everything but can do so in a mature manner and if need be go to private messages to sort out possible issues with a person in particular.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I do think we need to step back and appreciate Hasek's peak again. Because it was astronomical.

Yes, as much as I championed Roy over him (for good reason IMHO) Hasek's regular season record is sterling. His peak incredible. And while he certainly cant be described as a good or better postseason player he's certainly not poor. His international resume looks strong with the obvious elite Olympic run in 98.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I see the defensive work of forwards as of three categories. Not positive vs. negative but three:

POSITIVE: contributes to defense exceptionally, widely praised for play without the puck

NEUTRAL: Is responsible defensively or is average or not expected to contribute defensively, isn't his role

NEGATIVE: Is criticized for lack of responsibility by coach, media, etc. , clear evidence of cost of inaction in checking dept.


Defensemen however are expected to play defense: it's their primary responsibility. That's a totally different kettle of fish.

Only two options.

You stepped outside your comfort zone when you brought-up coaches.

Executes the defensive game plan.

Does not execute the defensive game plan.

Very little wiggle room in the execution.

Defencemen.. Again playing defensive hockey within the game plan matters. Not simply playing defensively but creating a disjointed effort.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Boatload of obfuscating bull****. You're using Modano as a comparator to Messier, but Modano did get some serious Selke attention on his own, even more than Lehtinen at times (as attests his formal nomination in 2000-2001. Messier, as a Partner to Tikkanen, got....

Wait for it...

2, 2, 2, 2, and 3 votes for the Selke.

Consider Messier also got votes for the Lady Byng several times in his career. In 1996-97 he received a first place vote for the Lady Byng and a first and second for the Selke.

Either someone was trying to be funny or the voters were Messier groupies.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I am very sure about Crosby, Bourque and Shore.

I am pretty sure about Morenz (but no one has convinced me I shouldn't have his on-paper superior, Mikita right next to him or ahead)

I am not fully convinced on Hasek (Plante might pass him in the end) or Jagr.

I feel it's too early for Messier, Ovechkin, Potvin and Lidstrom.

I don't like to use the weight of this too heavily, which I think I made clear in the prelim thread, so I ask this honestly and not in a challenging way...

For all intents and purposes, let's say we never saw Shore or Morenz for one second ever...we had a poll of people who did and likely voted for awards that they were subject to...and in no uncertain terms picked Morenz over Shore. It was not close. Shore wasn't next. He was an afterthought.

I won't try to frame it any other way than this, as I don't want to load the question: do you feel you have enough to upend a strong majority opinion of the time?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't like to use the weight of this too heavily, which I think I made clear in the prelim thread, so I ask this honestly and not in a challenging way...

For all intents and purposes, let's say we never saw Shore or Morenz for one second ever...we had a poll of people who did and likely voted for awards that they were subject to...and in no uncertain terms picked Morenz over Shore. It was not close. Shore wasn't next. He was an afterthought.

I won't try to frame it any other way than this, as I don't want to load the question: do you feel you have enough to upend a strong majority opinion of the time?

I would have to consider Morenz passed away as a result of a injury sustained in an NHL game.

And I would have to consider Shore was still around and was still a reviled character.

Four times Shore was voted the MVP of the league. More than anyone else up to the time of that poll. Does it not seem somewhat odd that Shore received no votes at all?

 

[ImporterExporter]

I have a major problem with that often cited Canadian Press poll.

Greatest Player from 1900-1950 Poll
Morenz: 27
M Richard: 4
Taylor: 3
Nighbor: 2
(all others): 1

First off Morenz got the vast majority of votes. To get that kind of share one would expect his numbers to be off the chart and anecdotal evidence about his play far and away better than anyone in hockey between 1900-50. If that were the case he'd already be placed on this list IMO. If you're far and away the best player of a half century why are you not a consensus top 10 player ever? Legit question IMO.

But the bigger problem I have is the fact that Maurice Richard (another Montreal Canadian), who was just 28 at the time bested Cyclone Taylor and Frank Nighbor, among others. Richard's career wasn't even half over at that point. It's absolutely ridiculous to give him more votes than others.

I've seen respected folks on here scoff at trying to compare current players (Crosby and Ovechkin) to past players because the current ones don't have a complete record. I don't fully agree with that but I understand their POV. With that being said, how could you then support a poll that would put a 28 year old Maurice Richard over some incredibly accomplished players from the previous half century?

There is heavy, heavy bias in that poll and it's why I don't give it much credence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Does anyone have the date of the 1950 Canadian Press Poll. From the list above I get a distinct sense that similar to other CP polls the event or athlete had to be Canadian based.

Shore was USA based.