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

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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.

Most of my posts this round will be about Kelly. But it will have to wait until I'm in front of a computer.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
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.

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).

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.

I can't believe how easily you're dismissing seasons outside of a player's peak. There's a huge gap between peak and longevity which is called PRIME that you seem to be ignoring completely. How can scoring more goals than any other players in the league in a season be dismissed as a "bullet point".

Here's how I define those categories:

Playoffs - Playoffs.

Peak - Best 1-3 seasons (sometimes more, such as Gretzky, sometimes less, such as Nichols).

Prime - Every year of a player's career where he is close to his best (but slightly off).

Extra longevity - Every other year the player played, which adds to longevity, but where he's clearly not near his best anymore (or yet).

Playoffs count for a lot, but less than season which is bulk of player's career. Maybe 70/30 ratio (more playoffs, like Roy/Beliveau can tilt this, but usually playoffs lack games/series/runs in most players to be worth more). Prime/Peak counts for the bulk of it as a combination. Extra longevity doesn't move the needle much - maybe as a tie breaker all else being equal.

With Bourque/Potvin. Maybe for peak seasons you can argue Potvin #1, but it's kind of close, as Bourque isn't weak on peak. The problem is for Prime - Bourque had like 20 some years to Potvin's....8? 7? maybe 9-10 max depending on how you count? And you need to almost completely ignore/disregard that to get to a Potvin > Bourque rating, or count playoffs more than almost anyone i've seen imply they do so far.

I have no issue with the latter - you can weight playoffs as high as you want so long as you do it consistently, even if i find it much to get to this result - but the former makes no sense. Prime is arguably the greatest part of most player's resumes and absolutely does matter.

Same idea with Lafleur and Jagr (Ovi too, but less so I think).

No issue at all saying peak Lafleur is close to peak Ovi/Jagr (heck i'd have him #2 behind Jagr, and could see a case for #1).

but PRIME - he has almost zero outside his peak. Jagr's prime is really long and he has a lot of strong seasons.

How can you completely disregard prime?

To me this is common sense.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,610
28,847
Your definition of prime is overbroad. Jagr's peak is probably 95-01. It's fairly high (although I don't think it's *very* high because forward competition was crap and he was winning Art Ross trophies not seen since the 06 - his peak is overrated and contemporaries noticed that since he only has 1 Hart to show for it). His prime is probably two years prior to that (maybe? No significant AS attention), and two years in NY (definitely one year in NY, the second... eh no significant AS attention at a shallow position)? So we have a total prime of 8-10 years? Out of a like 24 year career?

Lafleur has a six season peak that is more impressive than Jagr's (AS-1 every season, 3 Pearsons, 2 Harts + a Smythe and of course 4 Cups). Then he has 3 more seasons where he was over a PPG, but clearly a step back or injuries shortening those seasons (call those prime?). Like in 81, he plays 80 games he probably tops 100 points. Not bad. Probably tops 100 points in 82 if he plays a full season too. 83 he would have been right on the fence.

So we have a total prime of 7-9 years out of a 17 year career (counting those three seasons with the Rangers and Nordiques when he was in his high 30s, which seems fair since we are tallying Jagr's traveling road show for his season total), versus 8-10 years of a 24 year career.

Am I missing something that says that Jagr's longevity is so much more impressive than Lafleur's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
This is just a fraction of what's available on Nighbor. Let the hours of digging newspapers commence! :naughty:


Frank Nighbor 1.JPG




Frank Nighbor 2.JPG



Frank Nighbor 3.JPG


Frank Nighbor 4.JPG


Frank Nighbor 5.JPG


Frank Nighbor 6.JPG



Frank Nighbor 7.JPG



Frank Nighbor 8.JPG



Frank Nighbor 9.JPG


Frank Nighbor 10.JPG
 

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,902
3,557
Edmonton
If Nighbor doesn't get voted in this round, I hope Taylor comes up before Nighbor makes it in.

Just because I had them quite close in my initial list ultimately putting Taylor above him and would like to have the ultimate comparison between the two.
 

Iceman

Registered User
Jun 9, 2014
10,640
2,024
If Nighbor doesn't get voted in this round, I hope Taylor comes up before Nighbor makes it in.

Just because I had them quite close in my initial list ultimately putting Taylor above him and would like to have the ultimate comparison between the two.

Holding thumbs for a possibility of having Esposito, Nighbor, Messier, Clarke and Taylor eligible together next round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
You should add Esposito and Lafleur to this breakdown. It would be useful, as all 4 are offense first forwards with great primes/peaks.

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

Esposito 68/69
Esposito 70/71
Esposito 71/72
Esposito 72/73
Espostio 73/74

Jagr 95/96
Jagr 98/99
Jagr 99/00*

LaFleur 76/77
LaFleur 77/78

Ovechkin 07/08
Ovechkin 09/10*


Tier 2 (among the best of their respective eras)

Esposito 74/75
Esposito 67/68
Esposito 69/70

Jagr 94/95
Jagr 97/98
Jagr 96/97*
Jagr 00/01
Jagr 05/06

LaFleur 74/75
LaFleur 75/76
LaFleur 78/79
LaFleur 79/80

Ovechkin 05/06
Ovechkin 08/09
Ovechkin 12/13


Tier 3 (Top 3 -5ish for the season)

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


Tier 4 (Top Tenish for the season)

Esposito 66/67
Jagr 93/94
Jagr 06/07

LaFleur 80/81*
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 13/14
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobholly39

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
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.

You touched on this, but to emphasize - the Norris trophy wasn't awarded until 1954, towards the end of Kelly's peak. Not only was Kelly a first-team all-star in 1951 through 1953, he was a unanimous selection all three of those years (Harvey was the runner-up two of those seasons). I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider Kelly the equivalent of a four-time Norris winner.

For a long time I've considered Potvin the superior defenseman, but I've ranked Kelly higher taking into account his time as a forward. I'll see if I can dig deeper into that later this week.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Your definition of prime is overbroad. Jagr's peak is probably 95-01. It's fairly high (although I don't think it's *very* high because forward competition was crap and he was winning Art Ross trophies not seen since the 06 - his peak is overrated and contemporaries noticed that since he only has 1 Hart to show for it). His prime is probably two years prior to that (maybe? No significant AS attention), and two years in NY (definitely one year in NY, the second... eh no significant AS attention at a shallow position)? So we have a total prime of 8-10 years? Out of a like 24 year career?

How does one go about determining this? When wasn't forward competition crap before Jagr or after?
 

Dr John Carlson

Registered User
Dec 21, 2011
9,727
4,031
Nova Scotia
-Glad Kelly is available now, he would've had a good chance to be in my top-5 last round and is a serious threat to be first or second on my ballot this round.

-Should Plante really be a shoo-in without getting the chance to compare him with the other two 50s/60s goalies on this tier?

-Mikita and Messier are probably still going to be near the bottom for me.

-Those excellent Nighbor posts on the front page... man, I wish I'd had put Georges Boucher on my top 120 in hindsight!
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
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.

I don't think Ovechkin's peak is weak at all in terms of quality (maybe length). He was in the discussion for best player in the League for a while, he won three Ted Lindsay Awards in a row and his 65 goal season is the best goal scoring season of the century.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
-Glad Kelly is available now, he would've had a good chance to be in my top-5 last round and is a serious threat to be first or second on my ballot this round.

-Should Plante really be a shoo-in without getting the chance to compare him with the other two 50s/60s goalies on this tier?

-Mikita and Messier are probably still going to be near the bottom for me.

-Those excellent Nighbor posts on the front page... man, I wish I'd had put Georges Boucher on my top 120 in hindsight!

We'll get rounds with 10 or 11 players, so we won't always have players up against their better comparables...

And frankly, comparing Plante to Hall (and ESPECIALLY to Sawchuk) is probably a waste of time. That point is probably better raised for Frank Nighbor and Guy Lafleur (due to Clarke's absence), or for Alexander Ovechkin (due to Sergei Makarov's absence) than to Plante,

I mean, we probably already knows how it ends : Hall arguably have a slight advantage in RS and Plante completely destroys him in playoffs; Sawchuk arguably has a peak advantage (... when the state of goaltending league-wide was very average... that is, BEFORE Plante and Hall joins for good but after Durnan and Brimsek retires, so is it even an advantage?), but Plante again destroys Sawchuk in playoffs by virtue of not fudding up a Cup streak, and was Sawchuk even league-average out of Detroit?

Comparing Hall to Brodeur and Dryden? Now that's interesting. Comparing Sawchuk to Dryden and Gardiner? I can see it. Comparing both these netminders to Plante? Heh. Waste of time.

EDIT : I'm not saying Glenn Hall's case couldn't be bolstered by the fact he would "hold his own", so to speak, when compared to Jacques Plante.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,610
28,847
I don't think Ovechkin's peak is weak at all in terms of quality (maybe length). He was in the discussion for best player in the League for a while, he won three Ted Lindsay Awards in a row and his 65 goal season is the best goal scoring season of the century.
I counted it weak because it was short, but that's a fair clarification.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
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
Espo was the cornerstone of the Summit Series... perhaps a greater feat than any individual playoffs by the other players?
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Was he really?

If I learn anything from this project it’s that the dynasty Habs of the 50’s had 4 players that were all the most important part, depending on which one is being discussed at the time. Beliveau was their best player, Harvey stirred the drink, Plante was the cornerstone, and The Rocket was the longest serving star player who set the tone for the franchise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sajmae

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,610
28,847
Espo was the cornerstone of the Summit Series... perhaps a greater feat than any individual playoffs by the other players?
Espo is going to need some advocacy for this round, because the "product of Orr" label is too snug than it should be.

He's the forward with the highest peak of any non-Big 4 forward, has solid playoffs and international resume. He wasn't a great two-way player, but outside of Nighbor and to a lesser extent Messier that *cannot* be held against him this round.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
If I learn anything from this project it’s that the dynasty Habs of the 50’s had 4 players that were all the most important part, depending on which one is being discussed at the time. Beliveau was their best player, Harvey stirred the drink, Plante was the cornerstone, and The Rocket was the longest serving star player who set the tone for the franchise.
Well, I concur about Beliveau in this context. I'm not sure what you mean by "stir the drink", but I would say that Harvey was arguably the actual leader of the team. I still don't see your definition of "cornerstone" for Plante. Do you mean the most important player? Perhaps during one of those five seasons, but that Montreal team seemed to have a different player step up every year of the franchise.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
Urrggghhh, there's two unavailable players that would comfortably "start" in my Top-5 for this round :mad:

Hot take on new players :

Red Kelly is an extremely strong candidate at this point whose candidacy deserves to be assessed against the best leftovers from last round. He clearly belongs with them, something I can't quite say for the three others

Frank Nighbor probably shouldn't fare as good as he's faring in this group. I still think there's something criminal to have him available AT LEAST a full round before Bobby Clarke. Him being the first true pre-consolidation/pre NHL star available is par for the course... But I hate the fact that a good chunk of his candidacy at this point relies on the "assists were not reliably recorded in his era, so his record should be stronger than it is" argument, despite playing for a team that generously distributed assists.

I don't really care about Guy Lafleur at this point, and will be stuck ranking him. His playoffs performances make him not a complete afterthought at this point. Probably available one round too early.

I'm not even caring about Phil Esposito at this juncture. At least one round too early.

Totally agree with Esposito ( I had him at #40). Lafleur most likely won't rank for me.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->