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

[quoipourquoi]

Holding thumbs for a possibility of having Esposito, Nighbor, Messier, Clarke and Taylor eligible together next round.

Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

It’s important that we all not get hung up waiting for every positional comparable when cross-positional discussion can be as illuminating. Four separate conversations for Centers, Wingers, Defensemen, and Goaltenders would essentially be a retread of the 2012-2015 position projects followed by arbitrary placement.

 

[MXD]

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

You'll have to rank at least one of them, hahahhaha!

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Are you going to make me look that up?

"Ri'Deau-vine Principle"

Sacred Scriptures of The Knights of NIghbor.

 

[BenchBrawl]

7 players out of 11 to play the same position !?!?!

I wasn't saying that with the technicalities in mind, just that I think they're all close.Obviously they can't all make it without discriminating against other positions.

 

[ted2019]

When I looked at this list of players, I immediately thought, "wow, this looks an awful lot like my #13-23 on my original list" so I took a look at it for the first time since I submitted it, and basically, I forgot I had Morenz ranked in the middle of all these guys, and that I had Potvin 5 spots behind the last of them, and Esposito three more spots behind him.

Off the bat, I think it's fair to say I'm willing to entertain:

- Potvin being higher than I originally ranked (this is almost a sure thing)
- Esposito being higher (he can move up five spots for me without overtaking another center, but I'm pretty sure about those centers)
- Kelly being ahead of Lidstrom (I'd like to see the case for it anyway, as I actually had them six apart)
- Nighbor the highest forward in the round (I didn't have him there myself, but I did immediately regret not having him higher, but how high can he go?)

I'm more sure of:

- Plante being my #1
- Ranking Mikita, Jagr and Lidstrom in my top half
- Ovechkin's one-dimensional resume still not looking great among these other names

Kelly's versatility needs to be taken into consideration. That alone, might put him above Lidstrom for me.

 

[The Macho King]

Can someone give me some Ovechkin advocacy? Because he seems like very much an also-ran in the past two rounds, but people must have ranked him highly to have him discussed right now.

I feel like there's some serious recency bias going on after the Cup last season.

Ugh... I have so many issues with these options.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

Well, you just advocated just fine in your second paragraph. Playing with Orr diminishes him no more or less than Kelly/Lindsay/Howe I would think. He also won two Hart Trophies all on his own, and I brought up the Summit Series because it checks all the boxes of the most epic playoff series of all time (plus they tossed in an extra game!) and with due respect to Paul Henderson, Espo was the best player in the tournament. No Bobby Orr in the Summit Series, boys.

For the longevity club, Espo's final four seasons of "significance" (so, not the last season where he played about 40 games), he had point totals of 80, 81, 78 and 78. That's during the ages of 35, 36, 37 and 38. And he scored 42 goals as a 37 year-old. Also at the age of 37, he helped lead the Rangers to the Stanley Cup finals with 20 points in 18 games... all without Bobby Orr.

Also, in the years before Orr, Espo made the top 10 in scoring twice while a Blackhawk.

He also led the league in assists three times. I'm not evening going to mention the six times he lead the league in goals or the five Art Ross Trophies (okay, I did mention them after all).

 

[MXD]

Can someone give me some Ovechkin advocacy? Because he seems like very much an also-ran in the past two rounds, but people must have ranked him highly to have him discussed right now.

I feel like there's some serious recency bias going on after the Cup last season.

Ugh... I have so many issues with these options.

Long story short : At this point, the difference between him and Bobby Hull would become reasonable.

 

[MXD]

What are you guys doing with the fact Esposito never was a + player (and was close to being such only once) as a Ranger?

 

[The Macho King]

Long story short : At this point, the difference between him and Bobby Hull would become reasonable.

Is it though? I feel like we say that based on trophy counting. 2007-10 Ovechkin? Sure. But 11-18 Ovi has more in common with Brett than Bobby.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Can someone give me some Ovechkin advocacy? Because he seems like very much an also-ran in the past two rounds, but people must have ranked him highly to have him discussed right now.

I feel like there's some serious recency bias going on after the Cup last season.

Ugh... I have so many issues with these options.

Simple. Seven times leading the league in goals. To me, that's massive. He also has 3 (!) Hart Trophies, a Conn Smythe and an Art Ross Trophy. And he did it all battling Crosby as THE face of the NHL. Ovechkin's resume is solid (and I have never been an Ovechkin fan). I originally had him one ahead of Jagr, which I've since switched.

The one thing that Ovechkin has going for me ahead of Kharlamov and Makarov is that he played his career in the best hockey league in the world (Makarov's stint here hurts his rep more than it helps it). You can say all you want about the awards those other two guys won in their league and in their tournaments, but it was never the NHL.

 

[DannyGallivan]

What are you guys doing with the fact Esposito never was a + player (and was close to being such only once) as a Ranger?

Since he was amongst the top 5 in plus/minus five times as a Bruin (including first once) shows you how team-sensitive that highly questionable stat is.

 

[The Macho King]

What are you guys doing with the fact Esposito never was a + player (and was close to being such only once) as a Ranger?

I would say the Rangers were a mediocre to bad team.

'76 - 10th in goals for, 16th in goals against (out of 18).
'77 - 7th in goals for, 17th in goals against (out of 18)
'78 was their best season of these - 6th in goals for, 11th of goals against (total differential -1, but they look more PP dependent of the league as a whole, scoring 78 PP goals against a league average of 54).
'79 - 4th in GF, 13th in GA (again very PP dependent)
'80 - 6th in goals for, 11th in GA (lots of PP here, but considering Espo was kind of declining his numbers might just be a better reflection)
'81 - 12th GF, 12th GA (-5, actually less PP reliant this time but considering Espo is done as a player probably plays into that).

They not shockingly had a bit of a drop off from 75 to 76 defensively, going from 11th to 16th and allowing almost 60 more goals.

But again, Espo was never a great defensive player and I don't think anyone is suggesting he is.

 

[MXD]

... If the Rangers allowed lots of goals when Esposito spent a lot of time on the ice, it's probably reasonable to surmise that Esposito has at least SOME kind of responsability for this fact, no?

 

[Sentinel]

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.

In 21st Century 65 goal scorers grow on trees.

 

[Iceman]

Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

It’s important that we all not get hung up waiting for every positional comparable when cross-positional discussion can be as illuminating. Four separate conversations for Centers, Wingers, Defensemen, and Goaltenders would essentially be a retread of the 2012-2015 position projects followed by arbitrary placement.

Oh for sure, I only mentioned it because of my opinion for the early contenders for this vote, only 1 of which is a center, but I'm willing to open up in favor of one of the other centers too, if it comes down to it.

 

[DannyGallivan]

But again, Espo was never a great defensive player and I don't think anyone is suggesting he is.

As compared to Jagr? Ovechkin? Gretzky?

 

[The Macho King]

... If the Rangers allowed lots of goals when Esposito spent a lot of time on the ice, it's probably reasonable to surmise that Esposito has at least SOME kind of responsability for this fact, no?

I mean, they lost Park, Jean Ratelle was done, and they changed around their goaltending significantly (Ed Giacomin basically finished that year, and Villemure wasn't on the squad anymore). So while I think part of it is probably Espo (once again - never claimed he was a great defensive forward), the Rangers in general was a team in flux and underwent a ton of changes that season.

 

[bobholly39]

Kelly's versatility needs to be taken into consideration. That alone, might put him above Lidstrom for me.

This is no different than saying Potvin > Lidstrom because Potvin was more physical. I don't agree with that anymore then your statement.

You still have to be able to show how Kelly's versatility outdoes Lidstrom's value as a defenseman. Fedorov was more versatile than Ovechkin but he'll still slot behind him.

I'm also open to entertain Lidstrom vs Kelly but as of now I have Lidstrom ahead

 

[DannyGallivan]

I mean, they lost Park, Jean Ratelle was done, and they changed around their goaltending significantly (Ed Giacomin basically finished that year, and Villemure wasn't on the squad anymore). So while I think part of it is probably Espo (once again - never claimed he was a great defensive forward), the Rangers in general was a team in flux and underwent a ton of changes that season.

Espo's biggest pet peeve with his new team was that the players were more interested in making last call than winning hockey games. Now, the Bruins knew how to party but winning was always a priority. The young guys on the Rangers were star-struck living in New York during the decadent 70's and early '80's. I don't even think you could compare what it was like in New York in that era to any city in the NHL today.

 

[The Macho King]

As compared to Jagr? Ovechkin? Gretzky?

I think Gretzky was fairly effective if not good defensively, but I don't see *defensively* what sets any of Jagr, Ovi, or Espo apart (or even Lafleur for that matter). They all suck defensively. If we're holding it against Espo to the extent it seems like we are, I don't get the justification for any of the other one-way forwards here either.

I am almost positive I already said this. I've never advocated for Espo as a two-way player and said nothing to that effect that I recall. I just think pointing it out as a criticism (at any level deeper than like a five second scan saying "well shit, Espo was kind of crap defensively") doesn't really add to a discussion featuring gifable Alex Ovechkin and noted notgiveadamndefensively Jaromir Jagr.

 

[MXD]

I mean, they lost Park, Jean Ratelle was done, and they changed around their goaltending significantly (Ed Giacomin basically finished that year, and Villemure wasn't on the squad anymore). So while I think part of it is probably Espo (once again - never claimed he was a great defensive forward), the Rangers in general was a team in flux and underwent a ton of changes that season.

.... Because they traded them for Espo...

 

[bobholly39]

Is it though? I feel like we say that based on trophy counting. 2007-10 Ovechkin? Sure. But 11-18 Ovi has more in common with Brett than Bobby.

Because scoring more goals than anyone in the league (a league of 31 teams, 600 players) is a bullet point, right?

Sorry - strongly disagree. You should reconsider.

 

[The Macho King]

.... Because they traded them for Espo...

And if we're ranking GMs, I'm perfectly willing to knock whomever was GM of the Rangers down a few pegs for that stupid decision. I don't see how that's remotely relevant to ranking the players, though.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I think Gretzky was fairly effective if not good defensively, but I don't see *defensively* what sets any of Jagr, Ovi, or Espo apart (or even Lafleur for that matter). They all suck defensively. If we're holding it against Espo to the extent it seems like we are, I don't get the justification for any of the other one-way forwards here either.

I am almost positive I already said this. I've never advocated for Espo as a two-way player and said nothing to that effect that I recall. I just think pointing it out as a criticism (at any level deeper than like a five second scan saying "well ****, Espo was kind of crap defensively") doesn't really add to a discussion featuring gifable Alex Ovechkin and noted notgiveadamndefensively Jaromir Jagr.

"suck" is hyperbole. They'd have to be massive liabilities defensively to suck. I can agree that they weren't two-way players (although even Lafleur knew what his side of the blueline looked like... even though Bowman gave him free reign. You couldn't play for Bowman in those years without playing some kind of defensive awareness).

Anyways, we all know that those players were paid to put up points and they did their jobs.