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

[MXD]

I'll hold off voting until the last minute just so I could screw up the table at 7:58 PM, EST.

No issue about the bottom-6, I'm just stuck figuring out the order for first five players.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Ok, so if shots were undercounted in NJ for years what the heck are we doing trying to paint Luongo a better goalie in 06-07?

All that does is make Marty's case stronger. Right?

Is it Brodeur's fault the Devil's took less penalties?

Was Luongo giving up more rebounds?

Did Luongo face more rubber, especially factoring in the undercounting of shots?

As I've said repeatedly. The biggest knock on Brodeur is his peak is generally considered lower than the goalies off the board and up for vote, along with Dryden and maybe a few more. There's some truth to that, at least in regards to some of the other top goalies. Or that he just benefitted from the trap system, which is horseshit.

But straight out of HO's study we see that his peak save percentage is exactly that if Hall's. Barely behind Plante. Other metrics he's right there as well.

Brodeur influenced the game by the fact the league literally changed rules to hinder goalies and defenses more.

Batis clearly showed how dominant Brodeur was in knockout games for Canada.

We know how he fared in winning 3 Cups.

 

[sr edler]

To be honest, I think he was referring to team success. TDMM, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, sure, but we're supposed to rank players in this project and not teams. I know players and teams are more synonymous to some posters than they are to others though, no disrespect.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yeah, sure, but we're supposed to rank players in this project and not teams. I know players and teams are more synonymous to some posters than they are to others though, no disrespect.

Nice to know that participants are doing things wrong
One of the key qualities of any player is the ability to integrate a team ,strategy and perform accordingly. This facet of hockey goes back to the first recognized games in 1875.

 

[sr edler]

Nice to know that participants are doing things wrong
One of the key qualities of any player is the ability to integrate a team ,strategy and perform accordingly. This facet of hockey goes back to the first recognized games in 1875.

Have I said I don't consider team success at all when I evaluate a player? Perhaps you are doing things wrong? Ever thought of that? Things aren't black and white, y'know. 1 player is still only 1 player, and a team consists of 20 players a game. A top level/tier forward of today plays around 20 minutes (1/3) a game at best.

But yeah, I totally get it. Henri Richard would have won 11 Cups with the Florida Panthers, already.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Is it Brodeur's fault the Devil's took less penalties?

I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of assigning fault, but it is something to consider alongside both his save percentage and shutout numbers.

If you’re consistently facing a greater number of powerplays from game-to-game, the act of recording a shutout becomes a more difficult accomplishment. It’s adding a strong breeze when you’re already walking a tightrope.

Having said that, there’s definitely a case for Brodeur to go high. He’s among the strongest in terms of longevity for available players, and I think his top-level gets overlooked. Between the regular season and the playoffs, he might have been the best player in all of 1996-97.

I do think his award support is at least partially overstated because of the idea that he was due, and I think he caught a lot of breaks in voting from 2001-2004 to make up for getting shut out of the Hart/Vezina/All-Star races in his early years (when the media is asking the GAA and save percentage leader why some other goaltender has never won the Vezina before, it’s not great). On the flip side, he caught bad breaks in other areas - maybe the 2nd or 3rd best individual playoff run from a Finalist between 2002-2008 but all three happened in the same year, so no Conn Smythe.

An interesting comparison in the bottom-half of the ballot would be Brodeur vs. Fetisov (two stars on two great teams), where there might be a split on which was better at his best, which was better long-term, and how much sympathy to apply to the cultural adjustment.

 

[pappyline]

@pappyline

International record doesn't help Broduer?

Sir, please read this.

Well, you and Batis are throwing out statistics whereas I am going by what I saw. Also I am focusing on the Big Show--The Olympics.

In 2010, Brodeur was terrible and was benched after a bad game against the USA in the preliminaries. He didn't even get to play a knock out game. In 2002, he was very shaky in the gold medal game and let in an early goal even though the Canadian skaters were dominant. That game was in doubt until the 3rd period and it was because of Brodeur.

 

[wetcoast]

Try reading the link you posted, how Fetisov and Larionov were the foundation of the Russian 5.

I did read it and yes they were the 2 oldest guys on the unit.

Once again your claim that he was better than top 8 doesn't wash, which players were better than him , where does he rank on that team?

Plainly it's not higher than 8 and more likely lower than 10th, hardly worth even a mention at this point of the project and looks alot like SC counting without some factual backing.

 

[wetcoast]

To be honest, I think he was referring to team success. TDMM, correct me if I'm wrong.

That's confusing because he wasn't integral to that team success and this project is about players as well.

 

[wetcoast]

Nice to know that participants are doing things wrong
One of the key qualities of any player is the ability to integrate a team ,strategy and perform accordingly. This facet of hockey goes back to the first recognized games in 1875.

Yeah, sure, but we're supposed to rank players in this project and not teams. I know players and teams are more synonymous to some posters than they are to others though, no disrespect.

The problem here is that it's really easy to prove that 2 players of the Russian five unit were driving the bus in San Jose's playoff success but it's almost impossible to back the claim that Fetisov was anything more than a replaceable part in the late 90's 3 year SC finalist run.

Please feel free to name the placing, even in general terms, of Fetisov in importance in those Red Wings teams, your claim really needs to be backed or else it's just words being thrown out.

For example the center on the unit has some extremely strong statistical evidence in the San Jose case which is extremely lacking for Fetisov plain and simple.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I did read it and yes they were the 2 oldest guys on the unit.

Once again your claim that he was better than top 8 doesn't wash, which players were better than him , where does he rank on that team?

Plainly it's not higher than 8 and more likely lower than 10th, hardly worth even a mention at this point of the project and looks alot like SC counting without some factual backing.

Similar impact on the Russian 5 during the 3 seasons as Doug Harvey on the Canadiens in the 1960 playoffs. Similar scoring contribution but Harvey driving the bus, Fetisov drove the Russsian 5. Non-Russian would not have worked

 

[Canadiens1958]

The problem here is that it's really easy to prove that 2 players of the Russian five unit were driving the bus in San Jose's playoff success but it's almost impossible to back the claim that Fetisov was anything more than a replaceable part in the late 90's 3 year SC finalist run.

Please feel free to name the placing, even in general terms, of Fetisov in importance in those Red Wings teams, your claim really needs to be backed or else it's just words being thrown out.

For example the center on the unit has some extremely strong statistical evidence in the San Jose case which is extremely lacking for Fetisov plain and simple.

Then step-up with the name of a Russian interchangeable part defenceman who was available.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Doug Brownov

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Fetisov had a better individual NHL career than Makarov. How is this even debatable?

I'm not saying its super relavent to the project but it was brought up.

And yes, Makarov transitioned better... Then retired.

 

[MXD]

Fetisov had a better individual NHL career than Makarov. How is this even debatable?

I'm not saying its super relavent to the project but it was brought up.

And yes, Makarov transitioned better... Then retired.

Actually...

If we consider rational expectations for a forward born in 1958 vs. rational expectations for a d-men born in 1958, I'd say that Makarov actually did a tad better.

It's a huge caveat, I know, but it's probably an important one in a global project (as opposed to a positionnal project).
Forwards expected to peak earlier (and a tad higher), d-men peak later (and a tad lower), but expected to keep their eliteness for longer.

Makarov was MUCH better compared to his peers than Fetisov was. And both had to adapt (though I wouldn't oppose anyone claiming that the skilled winger has an easier "road" to adapt to new systems & tactics than the D-Men).

But we're getting off-topic, since the whole thing began when TDMM claimed that one of the reasons why Fetisov was elected to the HHOF before than Makarov. At which point I raised that Fetisov had more team success. Which absolutely matters when it comes to getting voted to the HHOF.

EDIT : Makarov. Not Markov, calvère.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually...

If we consider rational expectations for a forward born in 1958 vs. rational expectations for a d-men born in 1958, I'd say that Makarov actually did a tad better.

It's a huge caveat, I know, but it's probably an important one in a global project (as opposed to a positionnal project).
Forwards expected to peak earlier (and a tad higher), d-men peak later (and a tad lower), but expected to keep their eliteness for longer.

Markov was MUCH better compared to his peers than Fetisov was. And both had to adapt (though I wouldn't oppose anyone claiming that the skilled winger has an easier "road" to adapt to new systems & tactics than the D-Men).

For the purposes of this project (showing the transition from a player's prime as proof as how good they were in their primes), yes, Makarov transitioned better than the rest of the Green Unit.

Overall NHL careers.... There's a reason Makarov's exclusion from the HHOF for so long was given as proof that it was really the "NHL HOF."

I have a feeling we mostly agree with each other and we're probably arguing over nothing.

 

[MXD]

I have a feeling we mostly agree with each other and we're probably arguing over nothing.

We absolutely are.
But... Well, it's not like I can prove this, but I'm quite convinced that Fetisov's team success sped up the process.

 

[wetcoast]

Similar impact on the Russian 5 during the 3 seasons as Doug Harvey on the Canadiens in the 1960 playoffs. Similar scoring contribution but Harvey driving the bus, Fetisov drove the Russsian 5. Non-Russian would not have worked

I really wonder if anyone voting in this project shares those feelings?

All of the players in the russian five had success before and independant of Fetisov so it's a real stretch to put it mildly

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I really wonder if anyone voting in this project shares those feelings?

All of the players in the russian five had success before and independant of Fetisov so it's a real stretch to put it mildly

Yes, I think that Fetisov's role was similar to Harvey's. Not like Harvey didn't have superstar forwards up front.

 

[wetcoast]

Then step-up with the name of a Russian interchangeable part defenceman who was available.

Coffey, Lidstrom, Murphy?

Now place Fetisov in terms of level of importance for those 3 SC finals runs (I think it's the 3rd time this has been asked or maybe avoidance is the way to go as it doesn't stand up).

 

[seventieslord]

No, goalie giving up the fewest rebounds faces the fewest rebound SOGs. If per game Brodeur gives up X fewer rebounds and the alleged undercount is X shots, you have a wash.

Except the undercounting of shots is something that is demonstrated by looking at the total shots counted in devils home games compared to away games.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coffey, Lidstrom, Murphy?

Now place Fetisov in terms of level of importance for those 3 SC finals runs (I think it's the 3rd time this has been asked or maybe avoidance is the way to go as it doesn't stand up).

Three listed were not Russian. Bowman's Russian 5 required Russians.

 

[sr edler]

Overall NHL careers.... There's a reason Makarov's exclusion from the HHOF for so long was given as proof that it was really the "NHL HOF."

I feel that wasn't only about their playing careers though, but also politics/off ice mannerism/positions. Makarov had a bit more reserved personality and returned to Europe after a while whereas Fetisov was more of a captain/coach type and just stayed longer in NA.

 

[The Macho King]

Except the undercounting of shots is something that is demonstrated by looking at the total shots counted in devils home games compared to away games.

What are the numbers there? Is it statistically significant (like 1+ shot a game), or de minimis?

And what affect would that have over save %? Does it move the needle in a meaningful way, or would it be like a slight move at the thousandth place?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Fetisov had a better individual NHL career than Makarov. How is this even debatable?

I'm not saying its super relevant to the project but it was brought up.

And yes, Makarov transitioned better... Then retired.

And... I should imagine that a participant with a user-name like 'TheDevilMadeMe' would have a reasonably well-memorialized packet of information about how 'welcoming' the environment was for Fetisov in New Jersey- and also the quality of his teammates at that time- as opposed to the teammates that the un-nominated player had in Calgary.

But yeah- I think we've gone down this rabbit-hole far enough. Fetisov had a 13 year career with CSKA Moscow before he even came over... then added eight plus more years as an NHLer. [Treating 1994-1995 as a partial year.] Even if he was a nothing in the NHL (which, clearly he wasn't), the strength of those 13 earlier years are enough to distinguish him as highly worthy at this stage of the discussion.