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

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Is the Stanley Cup important? Is winning important? Is the most grueling part of the season where everything is on the line more important than a Tuesday game in November against Ottawa?

 

[MXD]

[/USER]

Not sure if any of you have the old scoring numbers that were broken down on Nighbor but I'm putting together a lengthy write up. I'm trying to find Sturm's old study but the link in Nik's bio is broken.

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!!!

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.

@Sentinel isn't wrong when claiming that there's something hyperbolic at calling Nighbor "The Greatest Defensive Forward of All-Time". Let's just say that he's one of the four or five players with such a claim, and leave it at that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Some will disagree, but I have Lidstrom as a must-add. The anchor of the best team of the post-dynasty era, not every season, but overall.

Not sure I see the same urgency. If one places highest priority on longevity and playoffs and low emphasis on peak-level (probably the most favorable mindset for assessing Lidstrom who probably has the lowest top-end of the eligible players), I could see him in a block with Kelly, Messier, Plante; but I don’t see enough there to make him a must-add unless we’re actively looking to submit a representative of the best teams as opposed to rating individual contribution.

If he was the anchor for, for instance, a Dallas-level team instead of Detroit (still a great team of the era), I don’t think he’s necessarily better or worse compared to the other eligible players who may have switched teams during their careers.

 

[bobholly39]

Is the Stanley Cup important? Is winning important? Is the most grueling part of the season where everything is on the line more important than a Tuesday game in November against Ottawa?

Of course playoffs are important.

But to get to potvin > bourque/lidstrom or lafleur > jagr/ovi i think you need to value playoffs quite a bit more than regular season which is an unusual position.

Much more games and usually seasons than playoffs (which often can be missed or just 1 round).

 

[Canadiens1958]

First impressions-

Plante is a must-add. Best goalie to play before the 1980s should get added ASAP. #2 all-time behind Roy in terms of career playoff value, only slightly behind Hall in the regular season.

Some will disagree, but I have Lidstrom as a must-add. The anchor of the best team of the post-dynasty era, not every season, but overall. Should not be that far behind Bourque, and certainly has a playoff advantage over Shore.

Most interesting of the new candidates - Red Kelly! Peaked just as high as Bourque or Harvey and has massive playoff value, but his prime was shorter. Sounds just like Potvin right? Only Kelly's second act as a key part of Toronto's dynasty (as a top 2 center) is enough to push him over Potvin for me (remember, multiple voters in the HOH top defensemen project gave Kelly ZERO credit for what he did at another position). I also have Kelly over Jagr and Mikita because of the massive advantage he has over them as a playoff performer.

Definitely agree.

Two distinct anchor phases with two teams. Great diversity and leadership without the PIMs in Toronto.

Top two Leaf centers come playoff time had speed, mobility, skills and spent significantly less time in the penalty box than Mikita.

Kelly way ahead of Lidstrom, minimum 1o-12 slots.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Urrggghhh, there's two unavailable players that would comfortably "start" in my Top-5 for this round...
I'm not even caring about Phil Esposito at this juncture. At least one round too early.

Hold my beer- here's how to do a Hot Take!

Un-nominated players whom I have ahead of Esposito include:
2 Soviet skaters
2 Pre-WWII Stars
2 Goaltenders
2 The Other Islanders

And! I have Esposito ahead of Mikita.

 

[The Macho King]

Of course playoffs are important.

But to get to potvin > bourque/lidstrom or lafleur > jagr/ovi i think you need to value playoffs quite a bit more than regular season which is an unusual position.

Much more games and usually seasons than playoffs (which often can be missed or just 1 round).

Disagree entirely. Potvin has the highest regular season peak of any Dman whose name doesn't rhyme with Schmobert Schmore, and Lafleur has a peak at the very least equivalent with Jagr and Ovi.

You are being absolutely reductive by continually presenting this argument despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Hold my beer- here's how to do a Hot Take!

Un-nominated players whom I have ahead of Esposito include:
2 Soviet skaters
2 Pre-WWII Stars
2 Goaltenders
2 The Other Islanders

And! I have Esposito ahead of Mikita.

I'll agree that the voting options are not ideal IMO, but we have the players we are dealt with. I would put Espo up against any of the other forwards up in this round, although I wish we had a legit two-way forward from a close by era in this discussion. Instead, it seems we're overly prioritizing one-way forwards with mediocre playoff performances. But that's the last I'll say on the subject, since we have what we have. At least Kelly made this round of voting.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Of course playoffs are important.

But to get to potvin > bourque/lidstrom or lafleur > jagr/ovi i think you need to value playoffs quite a bit more than regular season which is an unusual position.

Much more games and usually seasons than playoffs (which often can be missed or just 1 round).

Even when you look at the regular season in a vacuum, you have Jagr with a very impressive 5 Art Rosses (compared to Lafleur's 3) but only one Hart (compared to Lafleur's two... should have been three). But add in a Conn Smythe for Lafleur and a very impressive playoff resume, and you have Guy > Jagr.

Spoiler alert: I usually arrange my list as soon as Q posts the candidates, knowing full well that some players are likely to change spots (I've had my mind changed a few times in the earlier rounds, so I don't wear blinders). Right now, the top four are 1. Lafleur 2. Jagr 3. Ovechkin 4. Esposito. I can see good arguments for Nighbor and any of the three defensemen to break into the top four, but this is where I stand for now.

 

[MXD]

IMO I don't give a ton of ****s 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.

(...)

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).

I'm pretty sure the issue with Lafleur isn't what he did outside his peak/prime years, its that he didn't have enough prime/peak years. We can probably give him a mulligan for the first few seasons : he had a HARD way to prime icetime due to the team he joined, and to top it off, he was playing in a very conservative environment, but there's no such excuse for 1982-83 onwards (and I'm generous when not including 80-81 and 81-82; he was still on his way to 100+ points seasons, so it's not like he was totally washed up, but he was nowhere near his mid-to-late 70ies standards... and you can't credit him for games not played).

 

[DannyGallivan]

Hold my beer- here's how to do a Hot Take!

Un-nominated players whom I have ahead of Esposito include:
2 Soviet skaters
2 Pre-WWII Stars
2 Goaltenders
2 The Other Islanders

And! I have Esposito ahead of Mikita.

On the top 120 list I handing in to Q, I had the following (beginning at the 17th spot):
17. Phil Esposito
18. Stan Mikita
19. Valeri Kharlamov
20. Ray Bourque
21. Sergei Makarov
22. Nicklas Lidstrom
23. Bobby Clarke
24. Denis Potvin

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm pretty sure the issue with Lafleur isn't what he did outside his peak/prime years, its that he didn't have enough of them. We can probably give him a mulligan for the first few seasons : he had a HARD way to prime icetime due to the team he joined, and to top it off, he was playing in a very conservative environment, but there's no such excuse for 1982-83 onwards (and I'm generous when not including 80-81 and 81-82; he was still on his way to 100+ points seasons, so it's not like he was totally washed up, but he was nowhere near his mid-to-late 70ies standards... and you can't credit him for games not played).

Different era... the fact that Lafleur lasted as long as he did with the copious amounts of cigerettes and booze he ingested was a nod to what an incredible natural athlete he was (I intend to hide those facts from my own young son for as long as possible).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I had Kelly way too low in Round 1, for no good reason.I intend to fix that in Round 2.My biggest regret from Round 1, except not ranking George Boucher way, way higher than I did.Boucher is now a strong candidate as the most underrated player there is.

Nighbor vs. Messier is interesting.Gut feeling tells me Messier was better against top centers, would be nice to explore.I definitely have both over Mikita.

Lafleur > Jagr and Ovechkin

Plante a shoe-in.

Esposito a wild card.

 

[MXD]

Hold my beer- here's how to do a Hot Take!

Un-nominated players whom I have ahead of Esposito include:
2 Soviet skaters
2 Pre-WWII Stars
2 Goaltenders
2 The Other Islanders

And! I have Esposito ahead of Mikita.

You want it?

3 goalies
2 Soviets
3 Pre WWII Stars
1 Islander
1 TV Character
1 Player who didn't use his real name
1 Croat
1 Legendary Smile

 

[The Macho King]

I'm pretty sure the issue with Lafleur isn't what he did outside his peak/prime years, its that he didn't have enough of them. We can probably give him a mulligan for the first few seasons : he had a HARD way to prime icetime due to the team he joined, and to top it off, he was playing in a very conservative environment, but there's no such excuse for 1982-83 onwards (and I'm generous when not including 80-81 and 81-82; he was still on his way to 100+ points seasons, so it's not like he was totally washed up, but he was nowhere near his mid-to-late 70ies standards... and you can't credit him for games not played).

I mean - let's imagine a world where Lafleur ends up somewhere between 10-20 in scoring from 83 until say... 87, and then has a few more seasons as a swan song but doesn't really add anything because at that point he's like 38, 39 years old.

How much does that really help his candidacy here? Would we be saying "his 14th place finish in '87 while leading the Nordiques to a second-round exit at the hands of the Habs in 5 games really makes me want to put him ahead of Jagr."

A lot of the longevity arguments don't really control for *meaningful* longevity. Length-of peak, length-of prime, that's what moves the needle for me. Ovi has a meaningfully long prime but a comparatively short peak. Jagr has a pretty long peak, but as far as the length of his prime, it's a bit more uneven (I mean - he has that spike in NY but other than that which of those seasons moves the needle for you? Scoring 70 points in 08?) It makes sense when we're discussing Howe, Bourque, Lidstrom who have those ridiculously extensive time where they were meaningful, elite players at the top of the game. I don't see the same from Jagr most notably, (Ovi is a bit more fuzzy) so I don't really see why it weighs so much more in his favor when compared to Lafleur.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lafleur peaked at the same time as Potvin and most people considered him better. Why Potvin over Lafleur?

Edit - a longevity advantage for Potvin?

 

[MXD]

I mean - let's imagine a world where Lafleur ends up somewhere between 10-20 in scoring from 83 until say... 87, and then has a few more seasons as a swan song but doesn't really add anything because at that point he's like 38, 39 years old.

How much does that really help his candidacy here? Would we be saying "his 14th place finish in '87 while leading the Nordiques to a second-round exit at the hands of the Habs in 5 games really makes me want to put him ahead of Jagr."

A lot of the longevity arguments don't really control for *meaningful* longevity. Length-of peak, length-of prime, that's what moves the needle for me. Ovi has a meaningfully long prime but a comparatively short peak. Jagr has a pretty long peak, but as far as the length of his prime, it's a bit more uneven (I mean - he has that spike in NY but other than that which of those seasons moves the needle for you? Scoring 70 points in 08?) It makes sense when we're discussing Howe, Bourque, Lidstrom who have those ridiculously extensive time where they were meaningful, elite players at the top of the game. I don't see the same from Jagr most notably, (Ovi is a bit more fuzzy) so I don't really see why it weighs so much more in his favor when compared to Lafleur.

...Somewhere between 10th and 20th in scoring during the 80ies is absolutely meaningful longevity when talking about a forward. I mean... That would squarely put him into "Better than Bill Barber" territory, which is clearly better than "Not Better Than Bill Barber".

 

[ResilientBeast]

Plante and Lidstrom will make my top 4 most likely. Not particular interested in any of the centers tbh of the wingers I think Ovechkin will probably make my top 4 but I'll listen to Lafleur and Jagr arguments

 

[K Fleur]

Phil Esposito’s career is funny in that he sets scoring records and just generally benefits from playing with arguably the greatest player everup until that point, only to see the greatest player and offensive force the sport has seen coming into the league(and breaking all of his records)right as he’s about to retire.

 

[The Macho King]

...Somewhere between 10th and 20th in scoring during the 80ies is absolutely meaningful longevity when talking about a forward. I mean... That would squarely put him into "Better than Bill Barber" territory, which is clearly better than "Not Better Than Bill Barber".

Being good in a season is better than being not good. Yeah. But we're looking at their overall career impact here - how would that have really changed things? How often are we looking at a player's 8th - 10th - 15th best season as a serious contribution to their legacy? What would being 14th in scoring and losing early in the playoffs have done for our discussion today if it had happened? Would it even have come up?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I had the following (beginning at the 17th spot):
17. Phil Esposito
18. Stan Mikita
19. Valeri Kharlamov
20. Ray Bourque
21. Sergei Makarov
22. Nicklas Lidstrom
23. Bobby Clarke
24. Denis Potvin

Well, the one thing you and I have in common is:

we will continue to be targeted-
for recitations from "Ri'Deau-vine Principle."

 

[MXD]

Lafleur peaked at the same time as Potvin and most people considered him better. Why Potvin over Lafleur?

- Potvin is considered, with cause, a more complete player (a bit apples-and-oranges here)
- Potvin is considered, with cause, a better leader
- Potvin has better meaningful longevity

Potvin was still an elite d-men, and the reason why his post-season award sheet doesn't look THAT great was because he tended to miss regular season games.

 

[MXD]

Being good in a season is better than being not good. Yeah. But we're looking at their overall career impact here - how would that have really changed things? How often are we looking at a player's 8th - 10th - 15th best season as a serious contribution to their legacy? What would being 14th in scoring and losing early in the playoffs have done for our discussion today if it had happened? Would it even have come up?

Alexander Ovechkin arguably just had his 8th best season.

 

[The Macho King]

Alexander Ovechkin arguably just had his 8th best season.

Right, and Ovechkin is in that class of players that looks like they have an absurdly long prime. He also has a pretty short and weak peak.

Jagr is not that guy.

 

[solidmotion]

hope to see a deep dive re red kelly, very intriguing player, always seemed a little odd to me how harvey became unanimously regarded as better when kelly's resume is so solid in terms of awards/accomplishments, numbers are pretty similar, kelly the better goal-scorer even on d... i tried to look into it a while ago but couldn't find anything pointing out holes in kelly's game, in fact the opposite, there was even a minority opinion in the early/mid-50s that he was the best player in the game.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Here we have multiple players that were arguably the cornerstone of dynasties: Lafleur, Potvin, Nighbor, Plante.

Then you have Messier and Kelly, who doesn't exactly fit that bill but played a crucial role in a dynasty (two for Kelly) and just have an incredible playoff record.

Then you have Lidstrom, Esposito, all the way down to Jagr or Ovechkin.The drop from top to bottom is pretty steep as far as playoffs are concerned.

Difference between being the cornerstone of a dynasty and not even having a signature playoff run is immense.