Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 5

[wetcoast]

Mikita finished last in vote 4. IMO he should have made it through in round 3. There are 3 or 4 voters who are quite vocal in their dislike of Mikita and maybe they are having some influence. The only argument I have seen is playoffs which smells like cup counting as his performance has been quite decent. I watched his entire career and Stan is getting a bum rap here.Also the guy did win the AR 4 times.

Stan Mikita Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

It is past time for Mikita and I will have him #1 this round as I did last round.

I tend to agree with this. He might not be first this round if I had a ballot but he would be top 3.

 

[VanIslander]

Conjecture?

The Fetisov's teams had winning records against NHL teams. Just look at the many Red Army tours of the NHL. The team was one of the very best of the era and Fetisov was its captain and a star. Ditto the national team.

There is no need to play 'what if' with Fetisov's career.

 

[MXD]

Just a quick question: why is Cy Denneny seemingly not at all interesting? Looks to me like he has an excellent resume both RS and PO.

These pre-war guys aren't at all my forte so I am just curious.

I'd like to answer this, but that would veer in total offtopic territory.

TL;DR version : I guess he'll appear for voting somewhere around Vote 1X.

 

[MXD]

Conjecture?

The Fetisov's teams had winning records against NHL teams. Just look at the many Red Army tours of the NHL. The team was one of the very best of the era and Fetisov was its captain and a star. Ditto the national team.

There is no need to play 'what if' with Fetisov's career.

Sorry, but there's absolutely conjecture about Fetisov's career; what there's no conjecture about is his somewhat underwhelming longevity for a D-Men of his calibre.

Part of that MIGHT be explained by the fact he had to adapt to NA lifestyle (and that's a pretty good reason, if you're really asking me) but that's a thing each voter would assess on his own.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Conjecture?

The Fetisov's teams had winning records against NHL teams. Just look at the many Red Army tours of the NHL. The team was one of the very best of the era and Fetisov was its captain and a star. Ditto the national team.

There is no need to play 'what if' with Fetisov's career.

to a point there is. When I read that he was the best player of the best team for ten years there sure is. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. That is the issue with ranking players who played in different leagues, or who beat up on weaker competition during their "regular season and playoffs". And as good as he was, I'm not convinced he was the best player on his own team. Might have been. Might not. The "individual awards" voted on by Soviets probably mean less to me than the subjective Hart and Conn Smythe voting in the NHL.

 

[bobholly39]

On paper, Phil Esposito has one of the best resumes of any remaining player - six goal-scoring titles (all consecutive), three assist titles, five Art Ross trophies (in a span of six years), not to mention six straight years as a first-team all-star, two Harts and two Pearsons/Lindays. He led the playoffs in goals and points three times in a span of four years. We forget that, for a brief period, Esposito dominated the single-season scoring records. As of 1975, he had scored 60+ goals four times, which nobody else had even done once. He also had six 125+ point seasons (Orr had two, nobody else had ever done that even once).

He had pretty good longevity as a scorer (he was at least top ten in scoring all but once from ages 22 to 32, and was in the top twenty every year from 22 to 35). I know most of us aren't big on career numbers, but when Esposito retired in 1981, he was 2nd all-time in goals and points in the regular season, and 5th all-time in playoff scoring.

The obvious issue with Esposito is there are lingering questions about the extent to which he was a product of Orr. Many of us have touched on this in the last thread, but I'll try to systematically review the evidence.

For the prosecution - Esposito was largely a product of Orr

1. Visual evidence. Have you ever watched the Orr-era Bruins play? No disrespect to Esposito, but it's plainly obvious that it was Orr, not Esposito, who dominated possession and really drove the play.
Defense responds: that's an unfair standard. Nobody is denying that Orr is the better player. He's already been named the 3rd greatest player ever. Esposito is going to be at least 15-20 spots behind him - isn't that enough?

2. Esposito's sudden decline in 1976. The single most damning argument against Esposito is his significant and immediate decline in production in 1976 (he was traded to New York early in the season). After five straight years of 55+ goals and 125+ points, his production plummeted to 35 goals and 83 points. Yes, he was a year older, but surely that doesn't explain a 44 point drop in production overnight.
Defense responds: True, but Esposito was still pretty productive in New York. In his first five years on Broadway, he was 11th in scoring (the same is true if you use a shorter time frame, like first three years). This was in his mid to late 30s. If you only look at players age 30 and beyond (and even this is tough on Phil as he was 33 to 37 during this stretch), only Ratelle outscores him.
Prosecutor responds: Nobody is blaming Esposito for slowing down as he got older. The fact that it was such a sharp drop, immediately after being separated from Orr, is what's so damaging. Ratelle is actually two years older than Esposito, and failing to keep pace with Ratelle doesn't look great. During this period, Espo barely outpaced Jean Pronovost (all in his 30's).

3. Anecdotal evidence. It's disingenuous to argue that Orr didn't help Esposito, when we see Orr did that with numerous other teammates. The clearest example might be Johnny Bucyk. He had a long, healthy career and never placed in the top five in goals, assists or points. But he placed in the top three in all of those categories in 1971 - not saying he's an outright product of Orr, but nobody denies that #4 certainly helped him boost his stats. Or look at Ken Hodge. He had three seasons as a top five scorer in Boston at ages 24 to 29. After Orr was finished, he had two years where he never placed higher than 40th in scoring, then was out of the NHL by 34. We already have a ton of anecdotal evidence that Orr made his teammates better, but the defense wants to pretend that it doesn't apply to their client.
Defense responds: you're ascribing all of those changes to Orr. Wouldn't Esposito have contributed to some of that, given how much ice time he played with Bucyk and Hodge? If anything, this a positive for him.

4. Esposito achieved little in the playoffs without Orr. We'll ignore 1964, Esposito's rookie season. But in those last three years in Chicago, Esposito scored just 8 points in 25 playoffs games (0.32 PPG), after scoring 169 points in 208 games (0.81 PPG) in the regular season. Esposito was also unimpressive in two of his three playoffs post-Orr.
Defense responds: okay, that doesn't look great, but we all know that the 1960s Blackhawks struggled in the playoffs, and it's not fair to give a young second-line player undue blame. You're also glossing over the 1979 playoffs. At age 36, Esposito led the Rangers in goals (outright) and points (tied), and helped drag them to the Stanley Cup finals. He was third in scoring (behind two Canadiens) and was the third oldest player in the postseason.
Prosecution responds: Esposito was impressive in the 1979 playoffs, granted. But it was his one and only successful playoff run without Orr. And how great was it, really? He scored a lot of points, but was on the ice for more ES goals against than any other forward that spring.

5. Esposito's performance in games that Orr missed. Previous studies have shown that Esposito's production decreased by about 20% in the games that Orr missed.
Defense responds: Orr didn't miss too many games during Esposito's prime, so we're dealing with small sample sizes here, which might make these numbers less reliable. Besides, didn't the source data that supported these numbers get lost when HFBoards upgraded servers? Maybe this was all a scheme from the anti-Esposito lobby to destroy the data...
The Court intervenes: we're not here to debate conspiracy theories!

For the defense - Esposito was an all-time great in his own right
1. Performance in Chicago. Esposito spent his first four seasons in Chicago, and he demonstrated that he was a top offensive talent. From 1965 to 1967 (ages 22 to 24), Espo was 8th in goals and 7th in scoring, while getting second-line minutes and limited PP time. In even-strength scoring, he was 4th (behind only his teammates Mikita and Hull, and Norm Ullman) during this period. It probably wasn't Orr directly that allowed Esposito to flourish, it was getting out of Hull and Mikita's shadow and getting more ice time.
Prosecution responds: Nobody is denying that Esposito was a great offensive talent. But there's a big difference between being a good ES contributor (see Henri Richard), and winning five Art Ross trophies. The prosecution agrees that Esposito, even without Orr, would probably challenge for the league lead in goals or points - but he wouldn't win those titles so consistently, or by such large margins.

2. Performance in 1968 and 1969. Orr missed close to half the season in 1968 and scored only 31 points. That year, Esposito was top five in goals, led the league in assists, and was runner-up only to Mikita in scoring. In 1969, Orr missed a bit of time, and was very good (64 points), but still not the league-wrecking prime Orr that we think of. Esposito again led the league in assists, and won the Art Ross trophy decisively.
Prosecution responds: see above. The prosecution has already acknowledged that Esposito was a top offensive talent in his own right. But in 1968, Esposito was very much with the rest of the pack (he was within a few points of Mikita, Howe and Ratelle), with Orr missing almost half the year. The next year, Orr is much healthier and much better, and Esposito`s offense skyrockets. Even if Orr wasn't quite at his absolute peak at that time, this is entirely consistent with the prosecution's contention that Espo needed Orr to dominate the scoring race.

3. 1972 Summit Series. Everybody here recognizes the significance of the Summit Series. Orr didn't play, and Esposito tied for the tournament lead in goals, and led the tournament in scoring outright. Anybody who watched the series would agree that Espo was the catalyst on his line.
Prosecution responds: True, but it was only a sample of eight games - not large enough to truly demonstrate that Esposito was a gamebreaker on his own. Not that we're comparing him to Orr, but Esposito still got to play with a top offensive defenseman during the series (Brad Park). Furthermore, Esposito didn't play in the 1974 series, and he didn't distinguish himself in the 1976 series (where Orr played).

4. Award voting. Esposito won two Hart trophies, and was a finalist three more times. He also won two Pearson/Lindsay trophies. Surely if the people who watched him play consistently voted him as one of the best players in the league, he wasn't a product of Orr.
Prosecution responds. This isn't as impressive as it appears at first glance. Looking at the eight years they overlapped in Boston, Orr finished ahead of Esposito in Hart voting in 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1975. The only years Esposito finished ahead were two years where Orr was injured (1969 and 1973), and then (inexplicably) 1974. It's more accurate to say that, except in years where Orr was injured, he consistently finished ahead of Espo in Hart voting - which supports the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it's well established that defensemen are at a disadvantage compared to forwards in Hart voting. So the fact that Orr is ahead is that much more damning. And don't even bring up the Pearson - it's too biased against defenseman. In 45 years, a defenseman has only won the award one time.

The Court's decision

On balance, The Court finds the prosecution's evidence more persuasive. The visual evidence (argument #1) is sufficiently damaging to the defense's case, and Esposito's sudden decline without Orr (argument #2) is also convincing. The defense raised some interesting counter-arguments. They've convinced The Court that Esposito would have been a top scorer, even if he had never played with Orr, but there's a big difference between being an Art Ross contender, and someone who re-wrote the records books the way that Esposito did.

To help estimate Orr's impact on Esposito's legacy, The Court removed 20% from Esposito's scoring totals from 1970 to 1975 (doing the same for the other Bruins aside from Orr). In terms of goal-scoring, he would have had 5th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, and 3rd place finishes. Instead of having six goal-scoring crowns, he'd only have three - still an impressive number, but far less than before (and none of which would be by a large margin). Including the sixties, he'd have eight straight years as a top five goal-scorer.

Applying the same analysis to points, Esposito's stretch from 1970 to 1975 results in 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd and T-5th. That means Espo would have had two Art Ross trophies (don't forget the one from 1969), and eight top-five finishes (including 1968 and 1969). This offensive resume is impressive, of course, but far more modest. (Note that The Court has assumed that Orr's production wouldn't have changed, had he not played with the hulking centre). In the Court's view, that pushes him clearly behind the likes of Mikita and even Ovechkin (at least as far as regular season offense is concerned - but it's not like Espo was a great defensive player, and it's been established that he did little of note in the playoffs without Orr).

In summary, The Court acknowledges that Esposito would have been good enough to contend for the Art Ross trophy without Orr. But that doesn't change the fact that his resume would have been far less impressive. Since Esposito's case rests so heavily on his stats and trophy case, it is The Court's judgment that it's too early for the Sault Ste. Marie native.

I just wanted to say this is a fantastic post and i'm very appreciative of you making it. I've been waiting for a while for someone to dig a little deeper in Espo's value vs Orr's greatness.

The one question I have is the bolded (and i realize this isn't the first time i ask this). Isn't voter bias (both for pearson or hart) against defenseman illogical as a reasoning for 1973, and 1974?

Just consider today's NHL. There's definitely a bias against defenders for Hart and Pearson. But what if Karlsson roars back, burns villages, scores 125 points and win the ross, hart and pearson this year? And does so again next year? I'm sure 5-10 years from now, the anti-defenseman bias would likely slowly slip back into voters mind against defensemen, but i can't imagine there would be bias against defensemean in the 1-2 years immediately following Karlsson's 2 harts. If anything - it would go the other way, voters would more than ever recognize the importance and greatness of defenders, and be more likely to give them more weight in voting.

I've yet to hear any convincing argument why Orr got beat by Espo twice in 73 (i get Orr was injured, and out of his peak years it's not his best one) and especially 74.

Does anyone remember in the moment what was the general sense in the hockey world when this happened? Because beating a peak Orr to Hart/Pearson, without any anti-defensemen bias (unless you can counter the above reasoning in a logical way), as a teammate no less, seems like an absolutely insane accomplishment. Voter fatigue doesn't work with one's own teammate - but it could explain why Bobby Clarke beat Orr to a hart.

Also, one other counter to your very first point about the eye test and Orr driving the play could also simply be - does it matter? Esposito scored all those goals, and all those points....maybe he didn't drive the play but without him to finish it the play doesn't happen. If Kurri had outscored Gretzky, even though everyone acknowledged fully Gretzky "drove the play" - wouldn't Kurri get full merits for still outscoring him? Ovechkin doesn't get a ton of credit for driving the play on many all his goals, but he still gets full merits for scoring them.

 

[overg]

Sorry, but there's absolutely conjecture about Fetisov's career; what there's no conjecture about is his somewhat underwhelming longevity for a D-Men of his calibre.

Part of that MIGHT be explained by the fact he had to adapt to NA lifestyle (and that's a pretty good reason, if you're really asking me) but that's a thing each voter would assess on his own.

I don't think it was just the NA lifestyle, but also the NA playstyle. Fetisov was an absolute unit in the 5 man puck support system the Soviet's employed, and I think he struggled in adapting the NA playstyle which was much more free-for-all until at least the very late 90's.

Evidence for this is Detroit's Russian 5. Although he was approximately 37-38 years old when Bowman put them together during the '95-'96 season, Fetisov looked great. The 5 man unit was positively dominant for the Red Wings. And the difference between Fetisov's play with that unit, and his play when the unit was split up, was immense. Fetisov (and Konstantinov) both excelled at integrating with the Russian forwards in playing what was essentially a 5 man weave game of keep away with the puck, where each player took a turn gaining possession before making a short pass off to a supporting player. Despite not playing as a unit for the entire season, the five Russians all placed top 7 in NHL +/-, with Fetisov tying for third overall. While playing in a familiar system, Fetisov still had plenty of gas in the tank.

But when Fetisov was not a part of that unit, he often looked lost, and almost became a turnover machine at some point, with his passes as likely as not to end up on his opponents' sticks. Fetisov seemed to very much feel-the-game as a member of a five man unit, and when that five man unit wasn't there, he struggled pretty mightily to adapt.

The real question for Fetisov is how much he is either rewarded or punished for being a near perfect fit for the system he was trained in and played in for the majority of his peak/prime.

 

[bobholly39]

Lafleur, Espo and Mikita have some crazy similarities.

Peaks:

Lafleur 3 Ross, 6 straight seasons of 119+ points
Mikita 4 Ross, (actual offensive numbers in those peak years a bit more underwhelming than other 2, but still 4 Ross)
Esposito 5 Ross, 6 seasons of 126+ points

Outside of peak:

Lafleur - outside of 6 years, not much
Esposito - outside of 6 years, not much (more than Lafleur though)
Mikita - Outside of (6-8?) years, also not much (though probably better than other 2)

Playoffs:

Lafleur - Fantastic peak. One of the best 5 year playoff stretches ever (certainly for an offensive forward) from 75 to 79
Esposito - Not very far off of Lafleur, though only 3 great runs in his peak, vs 5. couple of decent runs outside peak too. Strong international resume too.
Mikita - This is probably the first very big difference in their resume. Mikita has weaker playoffs (certainly peak playoffs) than other 2.


They don't get full credit:

Lafleur - He played on the best team, ever. That has to influence his numbers/success, right? Put him on a bottom place team and how does he do?
Esposito - Played with the 3rd best player ever (some say first). Orr influenced his numbers/success a ton too. How would he do without him?
Mikita - Played with Hull, arguably the greatest goal-scorer ever.

Neither of the 3 get full credit for what they did for the above 3 reasons (which are certainly warranted, within reason). Espo gets dinged by far the most, and I feel as though Lafleur gets dinged the least.


I think this is the round that merits doing a deeper dive on those 3 players in a direct comparison to see how to rank them, because i'd be shocked if some of them aren't gone by next round. I don't know if I agree with Pappyline that Mikita should go first - but i 100% agree he isn't being talked about enough.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I don't think it was just the NA lifestyle, but also the NA playstyle. Fetisov was an absolute unit in the 5 man puck support system the Soviet's employed, and I think he struggled some in adapting the NA playstyle which was much more free-for-all until at least the very late 90's.

Evidence for this is Detroit's Russian 5. Although he was approximately 37-38 years old when Bowman put them together during the '95-'96 seaosn. The 5 man unit was positively dominant for the Red Wings. And the difference between Fetisov's play with that unit, and his play when the unit was split up, was immense. Fetisov (and Konstantinov) both excelled at integrating with the Russian forwards in playing what was essentially a 5 man weave game of keep away with the puck, where each player took a turn gaining possession before making a short pass off to a supporting player. Despite not playing as a unit for the entire season, the five Russians all placed top 7 in NHL +/-, with Fetisov tying for third overall. While playing in a familiar system, Fetisov still had plenty of gas in the tank.

But when Fetisov was not a part of that unit, he often looked lost, and almost became a turnover machine at some point, with his passes as likely as not to end up on his opponents' sticks. Fetisov seemed to very much feel-the-game as a member of a five man unit, and when that five man unit wasn't there, he struggled pretty mightily to adapt.

The real question for Fetisov is how much he is either rewarded or punished for being a near perfect fit for the system he was trained in and played in for the majority of his peak/prime.

If that is true, then that is a definite shot against Fetisov. That says that he did not have the diversity of talent or adaptability to lead on his own. He was a "borg" that fit in very well to a creation of Soviet hockey architects.

Just as I suspect that he was not as good as his backers suggest, I also feel that this may be too much of an indictment against him. The truth is likely found somewhere in the middle.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Lafleur - He played on the best team, ever. That has to influence his numbers/success, right? Put him on a bottom place team and how does he do?

He was the best player on the best team. That pretty much shows how good he was. And the difference, offense-wise, between him and the other forwards was also significant. And he was a beast in the playoffs. A beast.

Esposito - Played with the 3rd best player ever (some say first). Orr influenced his numbers/success a ton too. How would he do without him?

You could also penalize Kelly for the teammates he played for in Detroit. If Espo put up his numbers in a world without Bobby Orr, he'd likely be in the top ten. As it is, he has enough individual accomplishments to warrant top four in this round (for my money, he should have been top four in the last round).

Mikita - Played with Hull, arguably the greatest goal-scorer ever.

Didn't play with Hull that much. They were on different lines most of the time. He does not get enough credit for how he also dominated the air-tight 1960's.

Funny, but I have all three of these players as my early candidates to be in the top four. I had Lafleur and Espo going in the previous round (an opinion that frustratingly was not shared by enough other voters).

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't think it was just the NA lifestyle, but also the NA playstyle. Fetisov was an absolute unit in the 5 man puck support system the Soviet's employed, and I think he struggled in adapting the NA playstyle which was much more free-for-all until at least the very late 90's.

Evidence for this is Detroit's Russian 5. Although he was approximately 37-38 years old when Bowman put them together during the '95-'96 season, Fetisov looked great. The 5 man unit was positively dominant for the Red Wings. And the difference between Fetisov's play with that unit, and his play when the unit was split up, was immense. Fetisov (and Konstantinov) both excelled at integrating with the Russian forwards in playing what was essentially a 5 man weave game of keep away with the puck, where each player took a turn gaining possession before making a short pass off to a supporting player. Despite not playing as a unit for the entire season, the five Russians all placed top 7 in NHL +/-, with Fetisov tying for third overall. While playing in a familiar system, Fetisov still had plenty of gas in the tank.

But when Fetisov was not a part of that unit, he often looked lost, and almost became a turnover machine at some point, with his passes as likely as not to end up on his opponents' sticks. Fetisov seemed to very much feel-the-game as a member of a five man unit, and when that five man unit wasn't there, he struggled pretty mightily to adapt.

The real question for Fetisov is how much he is either rewarded or punished for being a near perfect fit for the system he was trained in and played in for the majority of his peak/prime.

The genius of Bowman. Kept the Russian 5 together and apart from the rest of the team.

Forced the opposition to confront two styles while enjoying harmony on his team.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sorry, but there's absolutely conjecture about Fetisov's career; what there's no conjecture about is his somewhat underwhelming longevity for a D-Men of his calibre.

Part of that MIGHT be explained by the fact he had to adapt to NA lifestyle (and that's a pretty good reason, if you're really asking me) but that's a thing each voter would assess on his own.

I agree. I like Fetisov, and I think he was my next highest-ranked defenseman, but I think he's closer to Robinson/Chelios/etc, rather than Lidstrom/Kelly/Potvin. He was outstanding in the 1980s - and TDMM did a great job highlighting those accomplishments - but his NHL career is underwhelming.

The age argument isn't convincing. Yes, he played in the NHL from ages 31-39, but he was still vastly outplayed by Bourque and Lidstrom, not to mention "lesser" defenseman like Chelios, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, etc., when they were the same age.

The two arguments that mitigate this are 1) the Soviets trained extremely hard, which often resulted in them burning out past age 30, which we've seen with many of their greats and 2) there are challenges in adapting to life in North America.

Both of those arguments are valid, but I think there are enough issues/questions that would push Fetisov fairly low on this ballot. (I'm open to arguments to the contrary).

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Preliminary thoughts:

• After years of arguing that Brodeur is basically Glenn Hall with better playoffs, I actually ranked Hall a bit ahead of Brodeur on my original list. The more I read about Hall, the more impressed I am with him...
• Glad to see Fetisov as an option - Fetisov is last remaining defenseman to be in the conversation for the best player in the world in his prime (or more specifically, the best non-Gretzky defenseman in the world...
• I do have Fetisov over the unavailable Makarov for best non-NHL of all-time, but not by much - hopefully Makarov will be available next round.
• Nighbor seems poised to make the list soon, but should he really go over Messier and Mikita? He was behind Clarke on the HOH Top Centers list too, and while that argument was made during Vote 4, I'm still not so sure he should go over Messier or Mikita...
• It's time for Alexander Ovechkin to be added to the list, period. Warts and all. Joining him in my top 5 among forwards will likely be Messier and Lafleur.

This round, I plan to post mostly about Fetisov and Hall.

May the Hockey Gods bless you for the gospel you bring here.

New nominees fall into three categories, for me-
Overdue: Fetisov & Hall
Arrived on-time: Brodeur
Premature: Sawchuk & Clarke.

So now I got two people whom I can safely rank behind Mikita.
[Strange that 'pappyline' and me- who agree on so much, differ so widely on Mikita. We might have more combined eye-testing of him than any two other participants. I have a hypothesis about that- and my hypothesis actually defers somewhat to what I suspect is "pappyline's" greater experience. More to come later.]

Even though he would have fit in somewhat here, I'm actually relieved that we didn't nominate Larry Robinson- as we may have been at risk to vanilla-waive him through like we did Potvin.

My conundrum- we are now getting to the point where Esposito isn't too out-of-place in the discussion. I'm used to embracing the "Esposito's better than these guys" proposition at the Sakic/Trottier level-- not the Messier/Nighbor level. I could train some more guns on Esposito... but if that causes people to turn to Mikita, or [Hockey Gods forbid] Clarke... well then I will have f***ed up.

Fifth place is looking like a really tough call right now.

 

[overg]

Lafleur - He played on the best team, ever. That has to influence his numbers/success, right? Put him on a bottom place team and how does he do?

As far as individual stats go, it's quite possible that he looks even better. It's entirely possible that on a lesser team he's asked to drive the bus even more (more ice time, even more emphasis on scoring). At the very least, I've never been persuaded star players' stats are necessarily correlated with the strength of their teams.

Of course, Lafleur's ability to contribute to team accomplishments would have been diminished on a lesser team. But I can't really see how you could possibly hold that against him. Lafleur may have had the luck to be a part of the greatest team of all time, but he certainly maximized his personal results based upon that luck. Every player in history has had unique circumstances to play under . . . what matters is what they did with those circumstances. Lafleur clearly capitalized on his. Which leads me to . . .

If that is true, then that is a definite shot against Fetisov. That says that he did not have the diversity of talent or adaptability to lead on his own. He was a "borg" that fit in very well to a creation of Soviet hockey architects.

I don't think it's nearly that clear cut. Fetisov excelled at the system his team and country played. And Fetisov developed at a time when it was almost unthinkable that he'd ever even need to consider playing a North American style of hockey.

There probably aren't very many examples of the reverse situation to prove this point. The best I can think of were experiments with "Doug Brownov", where Brown was asked to fill in for a missing Russian on the Wings 5 man unit. He did okay, but his ability to integrate into the weave and control puck possession was clearly behind not just the Russian forwards, but also the Russian defensemen. Now, Doug Brown was a great utility player, but he was hardly a star. So his inability to jump right in may very well have been caused at least as much by his talent ceiling as the system.

While we haven't seen many NHL's try to play the Russian system, we have seen periods in NHL history where there were some pretty massive rule changes. Perhaps such periods might be a better comparison to what Fetisov went through, and might offer other players of his caliber (as opposed to Doug Brown) to establish some realistic expectations.

 

[wetcoast]

If that is true, then that is a definite shot against Fetisov. That says that he did not have the diversity of talent or adaptability to lead on his own. He was a "borg" that fit in very well to a creation of Soviet hockey architects.

Just as I suspect that he was not as good as his backers suggest, I also feel that this may be too much of an indictment against him. The truth is likely found somewhere in the middle.

I think Borg is a strong term but it's a fair point.

Outside of his peak and prime is there anyone with worse non prime years?

For me he isn't even the best Russian that isn't listed here or the best Dman not listed, which probably helps him.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Preliminary thoughts:

• Sawchuk is an easy last place for me. Fantastic 5 year peak, but was mostly a below average goalie afterwards. How below average? Well, for starters, his career playoff GVT is actually negative, despite some dominant performances in the dynasty years! He doesn't fair much better in the regular season after the dynasty, either. Basically, I have Sawchuk closer to Dryden than I do to Brodeur or Hall

Agreed. I'll see if I can dig up one of my old posts (I'm thinking of one that I wrote 10+ years ago - have I really been on HFBoards that long?) Sawchuk has a fantastic five year peak (when he was on the Red Wings dynasty), but was basically a league average goalie for the rest of his career.

Of course, it's clear that Sawchuk was a key contributor to that dynasty (probably their 3rd best player after Howe and Kelly - who are already on our list). There's also value in being league average for a long period of time (if nothing else, it prevents the coach from having to play a goalie who's below league average). But those two concerns are enough to push Sawchuk low down on the list.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Of course, it's clear that Sawchuk was a key contributor to that dynasty (probably their 3rd best player after Howe and Kelly - who are already on our list).

Why wouldn't you say that it was Sawchuk who was better than Kelly? Where would you put Lindsay among Detroit's top four? I'm asking because during his peak, an argument could be made that he was Detroit's most important (or second most important) player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Were the coach polls always done in March? Or was it after the playoffs?

Varied, usually February or March. So towards the end of the season, but still during the season.

Mikita finished last in vote 4. IMO he should have made it through in round 3. There are 3 or 4 voters who are quite vocal in their dislike of Mikita and maybe they are having some influence. The only argument I have seen is playoffs which smells like cup counting as his performance has been quite decent. I watched his entire career and Stan is getting a bum rap here.Also the guy did win the AR 4 times.

Stan Mikita Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

It is past time for Mikita and I will have him #1 this round as I did last round.

I'm probably one of the "vocal" anti-Mikita posters you are talking about, and I was surprised to see him finish so low last round, especially when Mikita's case is fairly similar to Jagr's, who finished so high last round.

I mean, Mikita under Esposito would be flat out wrong.

Lafleur, Esposito and Mikita are likely candidates for my top four. Messier, Clarke, Nighbor and Ovechkin will fight it out to join them. Fetisov may rise the most for me if we can move past the conjecture. If only he played in the NHL during his prime.

Read the end of my long post - many, many North American sources were talking about Fetisov as the best defenseman in the world and one of the best players in the world in the early 1980s.

I agree. I like Fetisov, and I think he was my next highest-ranked defenseman, but I think he's closer to Robinson/Chelios/etc, rather than Lidstrom/Kelly/Potvin. He was outstanding in the 1980s - and TDMM did a great job highlighting those accomplishments - but his NHL career is underwhelming.

The age argument isn't convincing. Yes, he played in the NHL from ages 31-39, but he was still vastly outplayed by Bourque and Lidstrom, not to mention "lesser" defenseman like Chelios, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, etc., when they were the same age.

The two arguments that mitigate this are 1) the Soviets trained extremely hard, which often resulted in them burning out past age 30, which we've seen with many of their greats and 2) there are challenges in adapting to life in North America.

Both of those arguments are valid, but I think there are enough issues/questions that would push Fetisov fairly low on this ballot. (I'm open to arguments to the contrary).

Effectively, Fetisov was probably as good as Kelly and Potvin, but there are questions about him, and that's why he falls below them. But how much below? Or to put it another way, was Fetisov basically Kelly in his prime but with a significantly worse second half of us career?

As to Fetisov's decline, there is this (Providence Journal, Feb 14, 1987):

There is a feeling among long-time international observers that the Soviet program is in a state of transition, both in style and personnel. Although the Soviets have been playing hockey for 40 years, their game may be experiencing its first growing pains.

In one move interpreted as desperation, 31-year-old Zinetula Bilyaletdinov was added to the touring squad shortly before the Soviets left for Quebec, although he hadn't qualfied for the national squad in years. (For the Soviets, 30 is nearly ancient in hockey terms. Once past that "golden" age, players are routinely farmed out or given coaching duties.)

The pool of young talent has evidently dried up. The Soviets went victoryless in the recent fight-filled junior championships. [Alan Eagleson] said he couldn't recall seeing a worse collection of Soviet juniors.

Why wouldn't you say that it was Sawchuk who was better than Kelly? Where would you put Lindsay among Detroit's top four? I'm asking because during his peak, an argument could be made that he was Detroit's most important (or second most important) player.

Top 5 Hart finishes Red Wings in the 1950s:

Gordie Howe: 1st (1952), 1st (1953), 1st (1957), 1st (1958), 2nd (1959), 3rd (1951), 4th (1954),
Red Kelly: 2nd (1954), 3rd (1951), 3rd (1953), 4th (1956)
Terry Sawchuk: 4th (1952), 4th (1959), 4th (1957 with Boston)
Ted Lindsay: none (but 4th in 1949)

 

[Captain Bowie]

Is there a reason you are using different lengths of time for different players. Of course, 6 years of Esposito looks better than 3 years of Ovechkin or Lafleur, right?

Initially I was trying to find the players absolute peak, without any deviation from their absolute best results. For Lafleur, that was the 3 straight year I chose. The 3 surrounded years that make up his 6-year peak did not feature any hardware outside of the AS-1 selection. No Hart, Art Ross, or Pearson like he had at least 2 of in each of the 3 seasons selected.

I haven't had a chance to read much of the thread since I last posted, but at quick glance we are off to a booming start data-wise.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Top 5 Hart finishes Red Wings in the 1950s:

Gordie Howe: 1st (1952), 1st (1953), 1st (1957), 1st (1958), 2nd (1959), 3rd (1951), 4th (1954),
Red Kelly: 2nd (1954), 3rd (1951), 3rd (1953), 4th (1956)
Terry Sawchuk: 4th (1952), 4th (1959), 4th (1957 with Boston)
Ted Lindsay: none (but 4th in 1949)

I should have clarified that I was speaking mainly of playoffs during Detroit's reign.
And Hart trophies have never been kind to goalies.

 

[MXD]

Playoffs?
And Hart trophies have never been kind to goalies.

Two goalies won the Hart between the first Red Wings Cup and the last Red Wings Cup, and that's only a 6 years stretch.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Playoffs?
And Hart trophies have never been kind to goalies.

In the O6 era, Hart voters tended to be much kinder to goalies than to defensemen, as literally no defenseman but Kelly or Harvey ever finished top 5, while numerous goaltenders did.

Sawchuk in the playoffs is a study of highs and lows - 2 of the best runs ever in 1952 and 1954, while completely blowing it for his team in 1953 and seemingly carried to the Cup by his team in 1955.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lafleur was virtually the consensus best player of his generation too, right? That is, if you consider his generation as the one between Orr and Gretzky.

We just voted Potvin in ahead of Lafleur. I think that right there kills the notion that he was a consensus best of his generation.

Let's call "generation" the playing career of the player in question. Lafleur and Potvin's careers overlapped almost entirely.

That's not true. How was Lafleur not the most dominant player during the last half of the 70's? I guess it's what your definition is of a generation. The goalies will be the most interesting, since I have them all at the bottom of my list right now. You have the amazing peak of Sawchuk (and late career comeback with Toronto), you have the career numbers of Brodeur, you have the overall excellence of Hall.

If we boil down the meaning of "generation" to just a few years, you can start arguing it for a lot of players. I think it would be more appropriate to categorize Lafleur as a player who could claim to be the best in the world at one point in time, but not the best of his generation.

Fair enough, but it might speak more about the generation than the player.

That being said the new group isn't a wow group either.

Question is, how much does the generation get punished for perceived weakness? Do we treat the early 20's in the same manner as the war-weakened back half of the 1940's?

At this point, every generation from post-consolidation (Morenz) to the present day (Crosby) has had their standard-bearer listed. So essentially, we have already sent the pre-consolidation era to the back of the bus. Fair enough, somebody's generation has to come in "last place" if you will. But if Nighbor isn't among the top two or three names listed in this round, I feel as though we're now telling them to get out and walk.

 

[MXD]

In the O6 era, Hart voters tended to be much kinder to goalies than to defensemen, as literally no defenseman but Kelly or Harvey ever finished top 5, while numerous goaltenders did.

Sawchuk in the playoffs is a study of highs and lows - 2 of the best runs ever in 1952 and 1954, while completely blowing it for his team in 1953 and seemingly carried to the Cup by his team in 1955.

... And there's the concern with Sawchuk. He had enough underwhelming and/or awful performances, and this, coupled with the fact that didn't achieve much outside of Detroit (and wasn't even the best goalie on his team for his best non-Detroit stretch!), raises serious doubts abouts his performances with Detroit during the dynasty, including during his so-called monster seasons.

I won't make the case that Terry Sawchuk shouldn't be on this list at all (and, according to contemporary accounts, he was actually very good, and totally worthy of the attention he... really... should've gotten a wee bit later in the project, and that's the word of the guy who might just be the highest on netminders in this whole thing!) ... But I'd like to actually hear such a case

 

[Theokritos]

The "individual awards" voted on by Soviets probably mean less to me than the subjective Hart and Conn Smythe voting in the NHL.

Why?