Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 4

[The Macho King]

Nighbor's prime is also about twice as long as Clarke's. I agree that they are fairly equal as players, but Nighbor was at the top of the league for much longer (which is especially impressive considering he played in an era with much shorter careers in general).

Actually I think it's been pointed out, but the players that peaked in the 70s mostly had fairly short careers (especially when compared to both the generation before and the generation after).

A few theories have been put forward for that - talent influx, salaries spike at the end of the 80s/early 90s which means players stick around longer, etc. - but it's pretty universal for the stars of the 70s. Potvin, Clarke, Bossy, Lafleur (although he stuck around post-prime a bit longer) all kind of fit with that.

 

[BenchBrawl]

My most important point this round is that Guy Lafleur > Jaromir Jagr and Alex Ovechkin.

Lafleur saved the dynasty at the only moment it was in danger.If Montreal "only" wins three, the legacy is quite different IMO.This is especially true since before 1979, the dynasty hadn't encounter any significant adversity.The Game 7 against Boston in 1979 is the only game throughout the dynasty that Montreal faced elimination.

The game was 3-1 Boston.
Lafleur had a primary assist to make it 3-2 Boston.
Then he had another primary assist to make it 3-3.
Then Boston scored with 4 minutes to go, making it 4-3 Boston.
Then Lafleur scored his most famous goal, making it 4-4 with less than 2 minutes left in the game.

Lafleur stepped up big time when the dynasty was in danger.Actually he played great throughout this entire MTL-BOS series.The series was 2-2 going into Game 5 in Montreal, and Lafleur scored the first two goals of the game.This was a dangerous game because if they lost they were going to Boston facing elimination in Game 6.He set the tone.

Also in the finals NYR won Game 1 in Montreal, then led Game 2 with a 2-0 score, so Montreal was in great danger of losing both home games, a very bad situation.Lambert (again!) scored to make it 2-1, then Lafleur scored to make it 2-2 goal and from then on it was all Montreal for the rest of the series.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The issue with Lafleur is he accomplished relatively little of significance (at least compared to these players) beyond his six excellent years.

Here's how Lafleur ranks in VsX over his best six years (with the five players immediately above and below him):

Rank	Player	Result
2	Phil Esposito	134.7
3	Gordie Howe	128.4
4	Bobby Orr	124.0
5	Mario Lemieux	123.1
6	Jaromir Jagr	116.5
7	Guy Lafleur	111.7
8	Stan Mikita	110.2
9	Bobby Hull	109.7
10	Ted Lindsay	106.9
11	Jean Beliveau	106.9
12	Marcel Dionne	106.1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Here's how he ranks over his next six best years (again with the five players immediately above and below him);

78	Patrik Elias	59.0
79	Rod Brind'Amour	58.9
80	Milt Schmidt	58.8
81	Mike Gartner	58.7
82	Dino Ciccarelli	58.4
83	Guy Lafleur	58.2
84	Alexander Mogilny	58.0
85	Ray Whitney	58.0
86	Patrick Kane	58.0
87	Yvan Cournoyer	57.7
88	Dave Andreychuk	57.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Just to be clear, I'm comparing Lafleur's 7th to 12th best seasons to all of these players' 7th to 12th best seasons (I'm not comparing them to these players' best six seasons). It's not terrible company - mostly weak or borderline HOFers, with one obvious exception - but it's a huge drop-off.

Taking into account regular season scoring, playoff performance, and trophies, I think it's quite possible that LaFleur had a higher peak than any forward outside of the Big Four. But with so little on his resume outside of that, I think it's too early for him.

I think I've been consistent with my stance of valuing massive Peaks/Primes over longevity (where the peaks and primes aren't as good). I also think that what he accomplished in six consecutive years was exceptionally consistent on a massive scale. I could also argue that he wasn't utilized as well as he could have been during the first three years of his career because Montreal simply didn't have to make him "the guy" right away, despite what the press and fans demanded.

 

[DannyGallivan]

My most point this round is that Guy Lafleur > Jaromir Jagr and Alex Ovechkin.

Lafleur saved the dynasty at the only moment it was in danger.If Montreal "only" wins three, the legacy is quite different IMO.This is especially true since before 1979, the dynasty hadn't encounter any significant adversity.The Game 7 against Boston in 1979 is the only game throughout the dynasty that Montreal faced elimination.

The game was 3-1 Boston.
Lafleur had a primary assist to make it 3-2 Boston.
Then he had another primary assist to make it 3-3.
Then Boston scored with 4 minutes to go, making it 4-3 Boston.
Then Lafleur scored his most famous goal, making it 4-4 with less than 2 minutes left in the game.

Lafleur stepped up big time when the dynasty was in danger.Actually he played great throughout this entire MTL-BOS series.

Simply put, Guy Lafleur was the best player on arguably the best team in history ('77 Habs). You can extend that by saying that he was the best player on a team during all four consecutive Stanley Cup victories (by comparison, can you say that the 50's Habs had one fella who so obviously was their best player? How about the Islanders... there's still much debate who was the best of that dynasty between Potvin, Bossy and Trottier. Heck, even the Oilers on their broken dynasty proved that they could win one more Cup without Gretzky).

 

[MXD]

... Had Lafleur been that exact player, but 20 years earlier or 20 years later, I'd consider him a very worthy addition for this round.

The second half the the 70ies is definitely not NHL's weakest era (in fact, it's probably stronger than during the first half of the WHA's existence), but it's not exactly a high water mark either. That is mostly why the late 50 ies Habs dynasty is considered better than the late 70ies dynasty.

 

[The Macho King]

I think I've been consistent with my stance of valuing massive Peaks/Primes over longevity (where the peaks and primes aren't as good). I also think that what he accomplished in six consecutive years was exceptionally consistent on a massive scale. I could also argue that he wasn't utilized as well as he could have been during the first three years of his career because Montreal simply didn't have to make him "the guy" right away, despite what the press and fans demanded.

I don't want to put *too* much emphasis on him being the "best player on the best team", because while he was clearly the best during that stretch, that team was still loaded from top to bottom. You had a great two-way pivot in Lemaire. You had an astoundingly deep defense, and you had great goaltending. And then you still have studs like Gainey and Shutt.

That's not to discount Lafleur - I'm with you on having him over Ovi and Jagr (at this point). He was ahead of them on my initial list and none of the arguments put forward for Jagr and Ovi last round change my impression. That being said - Lafleur v. Potvin is an argument I want to have, because from my slightly uncomfortable office chair (seriously the partners all have these wonderful leather things while the associates are stuck in these ergonomic monstrosities that make my ass hurt - I think it's to make us use the standing desks), they have similar arguments in their favor and similar knocks against them.

 

[DannyGallivan]

... Had Lafleur been that exact player, but 20 years earlier or 20 years later, I'd consider him a very worthy addition for this round.

The second half the the 70ies is definitely not NHL's weakest era (in fact, it's probably stronger during the first half of the WHA's existence), but it's not exactly a high water mark either. That is mostly why the late 50 ies Habs dynasty is considered better than the late 70ies dynasty.

Other than perhaps the Rangers in '79, I'd take the Habs' Stanley Cup final opponents over the collective group the Islanders faced right after (and even in '79, the Habs had to overcome the best Bruins team since Orr and Espo in the semi-final).

...although, I'd agree that the Montreal team of the late '50's was the best actual "dynasty" of all time (if not actually being the best team in history during any of those years). Then again, I have a hard time finding a team more stacked that the late '50's Habs anyways.

 

[daver]

I remember watching that as a young teenager. Jagr was impressive for stretches. He had a big hand in keeping the Pens going but let's not forget that Mario still managed to score an insane 31 points in only 15 games. Jagr was outscored by Francis and Stevens as well. Not to mention people forget Tom Barrasso had a strong run as well. I remember Mario saying he should have gotten the Smythe for keeping Pitt in so many games.

Jagr had a nice run but it's hardly a signature one. I'm sorry but there's no other way around that IMO.

I disagree with your main focal point in a OV and Jagr comparison being a lack of a signature Cup run by Jagr.

IMO, Jagr shoudn't really lose too many points to OV based on OV's superior Cup winning run, at least not enough to make up for the gap in their primes.

Jagr's resume of best seasons outdoes OV's while doing enough in the playoffs for it to not be a negative for him, something OV was able to shed himself last year.

Both players are not in the HOH Top 40 playoff performers which should emphasize how much weight should be placed on their respective playoff resumes.

 

[daver]

Jagr vs. OV: Best seasons by tier (*with reasonable consideration for missed games)

Tier 1 (among the best of the non-Big Four all-time)

Jagr 95/96
Jagr 98/99
Jagr 99/00*
Ovechkin 07/08
Ovechkin 09/10*

Tier 2 (among the best of their respective eras)

Jagr 94/95
Jagr 97/98
Jagr 96/97*
Jagr 00/01
Jagr 05/06
Ovechkin 05/06
Ovechkin 08/09
Ovechkin 12/13

Tier 3

Jagr 01/02*
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 14/15
Ovechkin 15/16
Ovechkin 17/18

Tier 4
Jagr 93/94
Jagr 06/07
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 13/14​

It's close but I think I would give the edge to Jagr for top end seasons and for spending more time at, or very close to, his peak.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So is there a way to change back a font to the original one? I shouldn't have changed the font in my Nighbor posts, it's hard for the eyes.Apparently the regular font is not even in the font option, or am I crazy?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Let's do an overview of the Dmen available this round:


Norris finishes:

Lidstrom
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5

Kelly*
1, 2, 2, 3

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4

-Obviously on the surface Lidstrom blows away Kelly and Potvin, but I think we can all agree that the latter 2 faced stiffer competition for Norris votes. I love Lidstrom as a player (he was letter perfect, lacking only a physical element) but I think the gap existing as far as raw data is overblown somewhat. Kelly suffers from 2 factors. One, the award only became a thing in 53-54, which Kelly won. He probably lost out on 2-3 wins (certainly 51 and 53) had the award been around from the beginning of his career. And secondly, he was going up against prime Doug Harvey.

AS finishes:

Lidstrom
1 (10) 2 (2)

Kelly
1 (6) 2 (2)

Potvin
1 (5) 2 (2)

-Again, Lidstrom certainly has longevity but I think peak goes to Kelly, given who he was facing. Same on Potvin.


Hart:

Lidstrom
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Kelly
2, 3, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 (9th and 10th came as F in Toronto)

Potvin
2, 4, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9,

-I think Lidstrom suffers from modern bias against Dmen getting Hart votes for sure, but it's hard to look past Kelly's finishes, especially given that was prime Howe, Harvey, and many other HOF's time period.


Post Consolidation VsX:

Lidstrom
69.7

Kelly
71

Potvin
74.3

-All 3 were great offensive Dmen. @overpass @Hockey Outsider might have to clarify the VsX on Kelly because I think my number includes his time at F, where he was still a very effective secondary player for Toronto.


Scoring Finishes among D:

Lidstrom
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5

Kelly
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5,

-Peak has to be Kelly IMO. Lidstrom gets the nod on longevity.


Adjusted +/- all time (regardless of position)

Lidstrom
+253

Kelly
N/A

Potvin
+253

-Kelly's an NA off my spreadsheet from 2 years back but that may be available now that the NHL has released more data. Lidstrom and Potvin are literally identical.


Postseason:

-All 3 were great in the postseason. I think the edge goes to Potvin for making an expansion team into a legit playoff contender and then anchoring the early 80's dynasty. Kelly was obviously great more than he wasn't for Detroit in the 50's but also provided key secondary scoring and offense for the 60's Toronto mini dynasty. Lidstrom won 4 Cups in Detroit, has a Smythe, and again was better more often than he wasn't. All 3 were ranked in the HoH top 40 project. Potvin 10th, Kelly 14th, and Lidstrom 23rd.

 

[The Macho King]

Let's do an overview of the Dmen available this round:


Norris finishes:

Lidstrom
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5

Kelly*
1, 2, 2, 3

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4

-Obviously on the surface Lidstrom blows away Kelly and Potvin, but I think we can all agree that the latter 2 faced stiffer competition for Norris votes. I love Lidstrom as a player (he was letter perfect, lacking only a physical element) but I think the gap existing as far as raw data is overblown somewhat. Kelly suffers from 2 factors. One, the award only became a thing in 53-54, which Kelly won. He probably lost out on 2-3 wins (certainly 51 and 53) had the award been around from the beginning of his career. And secondly, he was going up against prime Doug Harvey.

AS finishes:

Lidstrom
1 (10) 2 (2)

Kelly
1 (6) 2 (2)

Potvin
1 (5) 2 (2)

-Again, Lidstrom certainly has longevity but I think peak goes to Kelly, given who he was facing. Same on Potvin.


Hart:

Lidstrom
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Kelly
2, 3, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 (9th and 10th came as F in Toronto)

Potvin
2, 4, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9,

-I think Lidstrom suffers from modern bias against Dmen getting Hart votes for sure, but it's hard to look past Kelly's finishes, especially given that was prime Howe, Harvey, and many other HOF's time period.


Post Consolidation VsX:

Lidstrom
69.7

Kelly
71

Potvin
74.3

-All 3 were great offensive Dmen. @overpass @Hockey Outsider might have to clarify the VsX on Kelly because I think my number includes his time at F, where he was still a very effective secondary player for Toronto.


Scoring Finishes among D:

Lidstrom
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5

Kelly
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5,

-Peak has to be Kelly IMO. Lidstrom gets the nod on longevity.


Adjusted +/- all time (regardless of position)

Lidstrom
+253

Kelly
N/A

Potvin
+253

-Kelly's an NA off my spreadsheet from 2 years back but that may be available now that the NHL has released more data. Lidstrom and Potvin are literally identical.


Postseason:

-All 3 were great in the postseason. I think the edge goes to Potvin for making an expansion team into a legit playoff contender and then anchoring the early 80's dynasty. Kelly was obviously great more than he wasn't for Detroit in the 50's but also provided key secondary scoring and offense for the 60's Toronto mini dynasty. Lidstrom won 4 Cups in Detroit, has a Smythe, and again was better more often than he wasn't. All 3 were ranked in the HoH top 40 project. Potvin 10th, Kelly 14th, and Lidstrom 23rd.

This is great - so Kelly looks like he belongs *as a Dman*.

What weight do we give his years as a forward?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Let's do an overview of the Dmen available this round:


Norris finishes:

Lidstrom
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5

Kelly*
1, 2, 2, 3

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4

-Obviously on the surface Lidstrom blows away Kelly and Potvin, but I think we can all agree that the latter 2 faced stiffer competition for Norris votes. I love Lidstrom as a player (he was letter perfect, lacking only a physical element) but I think the gap existing as far as raw data is overblown somewhat. Kelly suffers from 2 factors. One, the award only became a thing in 53-54, which Kelly won. He probably lost out on 2-3 wins (certainly 51 and 53) had the award been around from the beginning of his career. And secondly, he was going up against prime Doug Harvey.

AS finishes:

Lidstrom
1 (10) 2 (2)

Kelly
1 (6) 2 (2)

Potvin
1 (5) 2 (2)

-Again, Lidstrom certainly has longevity but I think peak goes to Kelly, given who he was facing. Same on Potvin.


Hart:

Lidstrom
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Kelly
2, 3, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 (9th and 10th came as F in Toronto)

Potvin
2, 4, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9,

-I think Lidstrom suffers from modern bias against Dmen getting Hart votes for sure, but it's hard to look past Kelly's finishes, especially given that was prime Howe, Harvey, and many other HOF's time period.


Post Consolidation VsX:

Lidstrom
69.7

Kelly
71

Potvin
74.3

-All 3 were great offensive Dmen. @overpass @Hockey Outsider might have to clarify the VsX on Kelly because I think my number includes his time at F, where he was still a very effective secondary player for Toronto.


Scoring Finishes among D:

Lidstrom
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5

Kelly
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5,

-Peak has to be Kelly IMO. Lidstrom gets the nod on longevity.


Adjusted +/- all time (regardless of position)

Lidstrom
+253

Kelly
N/A

Potvin
+253

-Kelly's an NA off my spreadsheet from 2 years back but that may be available now that the NHL has released more data. Lidstrom and Potvin are literally identical.


Postseason:

-All 3 were great in the postseason. I think the edge goes to Potvin for making an expansion team into a legit playoff contender and then anchoring the early 80's dynasty. Kelly was obviously great more than he wasn't for Detroit in the 50's but also provided key secondary scoring and offense for the 60's Toronto mini dynasty. Lidstrom won 4 Cups in Detroit, has a Smythe, and again was better more often than he wasn't. All 3 were ranked in the HoH top 40 project. Potvin 10th, Kelly 14th, and Lidstrom 23rd.

This is tough for sure. I had Potvin and Lidstrom in a virtual tie (edge to Potvin) during the last vote. Now Kelly just makes things even cloudier for me. It could come down to Potvin vs Kelly for me, but his years as a forward could give him the edge. I've always been aware of Kelly's accomplishments, but I've never gone in depth on the player before.

 

[ImporterExporter]

This is great - so Kelly looks like he belongs *as a Dman*.

What weight do we give his years as a forward?

Thanks!

I think we have to give his time in Toronto some praise. We're talking about a position switch (very few players in history can say they've done this at any high level), a player getting older and yet he still managed to grab some Hart votes while nearing the end of his career there. Was a strong contributor to Toronto's 4 titles. I'll give way to those who saw him playing in the 60's for more specifics but everything I've read on his time there was he wasn't just a bystander. Good leader, proven playoff performer.

 

[DannyGallivan]

This is great - so Kelly looks like he belongs *as a Dman*.

What weight do we give his years as a forward?

I potential tie-breaker may not just be Kelly's years as a forward, but the fact that he was able to do so well at both positions. Nowadays, I am so sick of hearing of the excuse that defensemen being forced to play on the a side they're not used to (left moving to the right side or vica versa). The ability to adapt from defense to forward - and do both so successfully - is what impresses me here.

 

[The Macho King]

I potential tie-breaker may not just be Kelly's years as a forward, but the fact that he was able to do so well at both positions. Nowadays, I am so sick of hearing of the excuse that defensemen being forced to play on the a side their not used to (left moving to the right side or vica versa). The ability to adapt from defense to forward - and do both so successfully - is what impresses me here.

How are you going to rate Buff and Burns .

I agree though - it impresses the hell out of me just as a fan to play such different positions at such a high level, but I want to know the context. Was the position switch one of necessity (Toronto being deep at D and shallow at C), or was it one of Kelly maybe losing some of his skating or having hard time with the position?

 

[bobholly39]

My most important point this round is that Guy Lafleur > Jaromir Jagr and Alex Ovechkin.

Lafleur saved the dynasty at the only moment it was in danger.If Montreal "only" wins three, the legacy is quite different IMO.This is especially true since before 1979, the dynasty hadn't encounter any significant adversity.The Game 7 against Boston in 1979 is the only game throughout the dynasty that Montreal faced elimination.

The game was 3-1 Boston.
Lafleur had a primary assist to make it 3-2 Boston.
Then he had another primary assist to make it 3-3.
Then Boston scored with 4 minutes to go, making it 4-3 Boston.
Then Lafleur scored his most famous goal, making it 4-4 with less than 2 minutes left in the game.

Lafleur stepped up big time when the dynasty was in danger.Actually he played great throughout this entire MTL-BOS series.The series was 2-2 going into Game 5 in Montreal, and Lafleur scored the first two goals of the game.This was a dangerous game because if they lost they were going to Boston facing elimination in Game 6.He set the tone.

Also in the finals NYR won Game 1 in Montreal, then led Game 2 with a 2-0 score, so Montreal was in great danger of losing both home games, a very bad situation.Lambert (again!) scored to make it 2-1, then Lafleur scored to make it 2-2 goal and from then on it was all Montreal for the rest of the series.

The fact that Lafleur "saved a dynasty" is more anecdotal than in anyway relevant imo. Did he save a stanley cup? If so - full marks to him as that's something tangible, but a dynasty is an intangible designation that most people properly judge differently. It's just putting more emphasis on one cup vs another, and i don't really see why this should be a thing.

This is the 2nd round in a row where you're promoting a player with a very high peak + playoffs above other comparable players who seem to have "more" on their resume. Ovechkin, and certainly Jagr - have a lot more elite seasons and longevity than Lafleur.

Would you say playoffs are of paramount importance to you in rankings?

Because to me the case for Jagr > Lafleur seems like an absolute shoe-in unless you're extremely high on playoffs.

Jagr vs. OV: Best seasons by tier (*with reasonable consideration for missed games)

Tier 1 (among the best of the non-Big Four all-time)

Jagr 95/96
Jagr 98/99
Jagr 99/00*
Ovechkin 07/08
Ovechkin 09/10*

Tier 2 (among the best of their respective eras)

Jagr 94/95
Jagr 97/98
Jagr 96/97*
Jagr 00/01
Jagr 05/06
Ovechkin 05/06
Ovechkin 08/09
Ovechkin 12/13

Tier 3

Jagr 01/02*
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 14/15
Ovechkin 15/16
Ovechkin 17/18

Tier 4
Jagr 93/94
Jagr 06/07
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 13/14​

It's close but I think I would give the edge to Jagr for top end seasons and for spending more time at, or very close to, his peak.

You should add Esposito and Lafleur to this breakdown. It would be useful, as all 4 are offense first forwards with great primes/peaks.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The fact that Lafleur "saved a dynasty" is more anecdotal than in anyway relevant imo.

LOL well our perspective on things are so different, the gap so wide, it's beyond repair.

Yeah, nothing relevant about stepping up to save the dynasty in which you're the best player.It's like scoring a goal in a 5-2 game in October.Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[DannyGallivan]

How are you going to rate Buff and Burns .

I agree though - it impresses the hell out of me just as a fan to play such different positions at such a high level, but I want to know the context. Was the position switch one of necessity (Toronto being deep at D and shallow at C), or was it one of Kelly maybe losing some of his skating or having hard time with the position?

Buff and Burns don't get enough respect, IMO. Especially poor Buff. When he's "on", he's among the most dominant players in the league. When he's "off" he's a train wreck. Having said that, they did the reverse (forward to defenseman), with mixed results.

Back to the voting... there's a reason the great and mighty Stan Fischler ranked Red Kelly the second best player of all time in one of his "Hockey's Top 100" collections, and I aim to see why.

 

[Sentinel]

@Sturminator @overpass @seventieslord @Hockey Outsider

Basically, Frank Nighbor wold give you roughly Bobby Clarke's offense while being the greatest defensive forward of all time. And a legendary playoff performer, unlike Clarke btw.

The biggest hyperbole of all time!!!

 

[ImporterExporter]

The biggest hyperbole of all time!!!

It really isn't. If you actually read what people have dug up on him, what coaches and players said about him, it's nowhere near hyperbole. Nighbor's defensive brilliance altered the way the game was played. He routinely shut down opposing greats, more often than not. The man was, at times, an entire wall by himself.

If somebody wants to argue for another player, fine. But Nighbor belongs in the elite class and in discussion as best ever. That's based on a lot of data and a lot of quotes from HOF players and coaches.

 

[bobholly39]

LOL well our perspective on things are so different, the gap so wide, it's beyond repair.

Yeah, nothing relevant about stepping up to save the dynasty in which you're the best player.It's like scoring a goal in a 5-2 game in October.Nothing to see here, move along.

My point is winning a cup is relevant.

But trying to put more importance on one cup vs another is just your emotional investment in that team/dynasty/year flaring up. Objectively speaking, a cup is a cup.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a game in October.

 

[The Macho King]

The fact that Lafleur "saved a dynasty" is more anecdotal than in anyway relevant imo. Did he save a stanley cup? If so - full marks to him as that's something tangible, but a dynasty is an intangible designation that most people properly judge differently. It's just putting more emphasis on one cup vs another, and i don't really see why this should be a thing.

This is the 2nd round in a row where you're promoting a player with a very high peak + playoffs above other comparable players who seem to have "more" on their resume. Ovechkin, and certainly Jagr - have a lot more elite seasons and longevity than Lafleur.

Would you say playoffs are of paramount importance to you in rankings?

Because to me the case for Jagr > Lafleur seems like an absolute shoe-in unless you're extremely high on playoffs.



You should add Esposito and Lafleur to this breakdown. It would be useful, as all 4 are offense first forwards with great primes/peaks.

IMO I don't give a ton of shits about what a player does outside of their elite years. And I would contend - post lockout - it's easier to accrue meaningful latter years than it was early on.

Ovi is getting a ton of credit for his goalscoring here. And that's fine. But when was the last time he was really an *offensive force*. I'm in DC so I see a lot of Caps games, both on TV and when I have friends who have extra tickets. After 2010 (so the end of his stratospheric peak), he has 9 seasons. Five of those are PPG, but none of them are significantly above that. His +/- is all over the place (ranging from -35 to +21).

I don't know - I think it's kind of easier than ever to win a Cup (in that you're not running into dynasties anymore, and the cap has done a lot for parity), so it's easier to win a Cup outside of your peak. Gretzky? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Mario? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Howe? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Orr? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Hull? Zero Cups outside of his peak. Beliveau - eh, he has the peak where he was on the dynasty, but then the second dynasty he was more of a secondary contributor than a driver - different situation I guess. Harvey? Zero Cups outside of Peak. Outside of the Habs dynasty players, the players pre-lockout already listed or up to vote for now have zero Cups (with the exception of Bourque who mercenaried a Cup and Roy but... I don't know, Roy seems like a different case especially considering he won the Smythe in his last run).

I don't think anyone would argue that Ovechkin is still in his peak. I think he's having a bit of an extended prime, but we're talking a pretty big drop from his peak. One of the reasons I value peak so highly, is that is when an individual player has so much to say in whether a team wins the Cup. Nowadays that isn't really the case though - teams are generally weaker on top end talent but deeper in kind of middling, good-but-not-great players, so it's probably harder to "peak" your team to a Cup since you need a supporting cast, but easier to get one later in your career outside of your carry years.

Anyway - this is kind of meandering, but adding to your resume after your peak doesn't move the needle a ton to me. Ovechkin winning another Rocket? Cool. Good for him. It's impressive in a historical sense, but I don't think it adds to his "greatness" as much as it is just another bullet point on his resume.

That's where I come from with ranking Espo and Lafleur comfortably over Ovi and Jagr in this round. Ovi and Jagr are in this discussion WAY too early for my liking. Their peaks are not outside of those of other offensive players (Espo and Lafleur most notably), defensively they are laughably bad, playoffs if not a negative are at the very least not a positive, and internationally Ovechkin is actually awful (haven't really looked deeply into Jagr's international resume).

 

[DannyGallivan]

IMO I don't give a ton of ****s about what a player does outside of their elite years. And I would content - post lockout - it's easier to accrue meaningful latter years than it was early on.

Yup.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Changed the font of my Nighbor posts, should be easier for the eyes now, sorry about that.