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

[Canadiens1958]

Teams take penalties when they are stuck in their own zone. Brodeur's puck handling absolutely contributed to fewer team penalties.

That doesn't mean it was the only or even most important reason in why the Devils took far fewer penalties than other teams of the era, but it definitely was a factor.

Also interferring with fast wingers on shoot-ins, dump and chase situations. Brodeur's puck handling mitigated such penalties, making them unnecessary.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Voted, read through everything, had a hard time ranking a couple of players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The issue with his is, of course, that there's no way to prove that Brodeur (or any other goalie) has given rebounds that directly led to two more shots a game. There's also no way to prove that each rebound not given by Brodeur (or any other goalie) didn't result in his team losing the ensuing faceoff and allowing the opposite team one or more shots.

Midget AAA teams keep such stats.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

We better not be seriously on the verge of ranking Phil ****ing Esposito above either Stan Mikita or Bobby Clarke.

I'm just hoping that we don't sleep on Messier. I'm sure that I haven't helped a lot- but had to spend some time addressing the counter-missionary work on Glenn Hall and Viacheslav Fetisov.

There are reasons why the Centers project five years back put Messier ahead of Nighbor, Esposito, AND Clarke.

 

[MXD]

Midget AAA teams keep such stats.

We are assessing pro players. Do you have these numbers for Hall, Sawchuk and Brodeur?

 

[The Macho King]

I'm just hoping that we don't sleep on Messier. I'm sure that I haven't helped a lot- but had to spend some time addressing the counter-missionary work on Glenn Hall and Viacheslav Fetisov.

There are reasons why the Centers project five years back put Messier ahead of Nighbor, Esposito, AND Clarke.

This logic annoys me. I dont care what past projects did.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, I've now turned my attention to Esposito vs Mikita. I had Mikita waaayyyy higher than Espo on my initial list...but have soured on him in the last couple votes...off to the tape...

In the meantime, I'd like to hear how we feel like Mikita stacks up here...

I don't know if you wanted argumentation, but...
I'm voting him in this round, and I'll rank him anwhere between 3 and 5.

 

[Theokritos]

Fetisov was raised in a system that played systematic hockey at its core, the NHL was much more about individual play still even in the early 90's when Fetisov came over, the switch to the NHL would in theory be easier than the one you are proposing for Potvin or Bourque.

Why should it be easier to switch to an individual game from a highly systematic way you have been living and breathing for 15 years? Even after several years in the NHL a now clearly past-his-prime Fetisov seemlessly switched back to the systematic game with the Russian Five and turned into a vital part of one of the best units in NHL history.

 

[seventieslord]

Heard about it but not a believer in such theories. Giving up two fewer rebounds per game would have the same effect over a season.

.... Per home game?

 

[seventieslord]

I'm just hoping that we don't sleep on Messier. I'm sure that I haven't helped a lot- but had to spend some time addressing the counter-missionary work on Glenn Hall and Viacheslav Fetisov.

There are reasons why the Centers project five years back put Messier ahead of Nighbor, Esposito, AND Clarke.

Messier is making it.

 

[Killion]

The issue with his is, of course, that there's no way to prove that Brodeur (or any other goalie) has given rebounds that directly led to two more shots a game. There's also no way to prove that each rebound not given by Brodeur (or any other goalie) didn't result in his team losing the ensuing faceoff and allowing the opposite team one or more shots.

Your sort of assuming that all Goalies when employing critical thought & controlling rebounds will in most cases smother the puck & await the Refs whistle for a Face-Off. Brodeur was far more elite, confident & pro-active than that and he'd re-direct shots with an effortless twist of whatever piece of equipment he was handling the shot with or drop the puck if caught, direct the puck straight down off his blocker or body and play it himself. Pass it to to a Winger or Center, a Defenceman. Keep the puck in controlled motion & go from Defence to Offence literally from the Crease out.

That takes guts, confidence, skill, vision & is very difficult for an opponent to deal with as they find themselves caught in deep, the Devils flying out of their own end with only a couple of guys back & they flat footed. He'd only smother the puck if absolutely no other option whereas even at the NHL level a great many Goaltenders in lacking the aforementioned qualities will rely on their first (and suckiest) instinct & simply sit on or hold the puck. Used to be back in the single Ref day those Goalies get nailed; 2 Minutes for Delay of Game. Brodeurs transitional game from facing a shot to rebound to instantaneous offence with the Devils who were expecting it & played to that strength was a thing of beauty, disciplined, smart hockey. Just pathetic, another Wrong Turn by the NHL in nullifying, essentially neutering Goaltenders who have that kind of ability, audacity.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hmmm...I'm conflicted once again....

Mikita is a big riser for me from last ballot (as is not atypical from one vote to the next)...yet Nighbor dropped for me from my last ballot...I feel a certain kind of way about it, uneasy...because I do like Nighbor a lot, but we added so many players that I like more than him - even though it's not by a lot...

Eh, whatever, it is what it is...I don't think I'm going to have much of an effect in that regard anyhow...it might look a little weird when we all drop our kimonos at the end...

 

[seventieslord]

The consensus seems to be that Brodeur is better than most at controlling rebounds and preventing rebound shots. That's good, but that doesn't mean that it was bad for his save percentage. If you give your opponents a second, or third opportunity, there's a much better than a one in ten chance they're converting on the second, and same with the third. You may pump up your shots against totals by giving up juicy rebounds, but it's common sense that you do not pump up your save percentage this way.

Rebound control is like any isolated goaltender skill - being better at it means your personal numbers are more likely to look better.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Didn't have a lot of time to post since earlier in the week, but this was a good read.

-My thoughts on Nighbor and Messier haven't changed since the last round. They are my top two. I think Nighbor's overall defensive game gives him the edge. Strong evidence has been presented that Messier was the best non-Gretzky/Lemieux forward in the NHL for a significant length of time. He was not a "great" defensive player though. More like adequate, with an offensive game that gets underrated by stats/leaderboards, and a physical imposing presence that did have a cost (penalties), but the ends justified the means most of the time.

-I believe it's time for Mikita. Good debate between him, Esposito, Lafleur, but he was clearly a more well-rounded player. Playoffs aren't a great look for him, but no evidence has been presented to show he was outright bad besides a couple isolated incidences. And he balances those with a couple exceptional performances as well.

-I'm sold that this was the right time for Fetisov's appearance, and I expect he'll be inside my top 5. I think his longevity argument is similar to Mikita's. Played for a long time past his prime, but those are still positive contributions. In other words, longevity is not a knock for this player; it's just not a positive to the same extent as it is for a Bourque or a Beliveau.

-Good debates between Hall and Brodeur. My opinion of them both has risen this week. I believe I will have them back-to-back on my ballot. Sawchuk's sporadic hot and cold play hurts him in comparison to them. Though I do believe his peak at least gets him in the conversation against a Lafleur or Ovechkin, who similarly have question marks about their off-peak effectiveness.

-Speaking of...Lafleur, for all his faults, was enough of a driving force on a dynasty that I will consider him for my top 5 in this ballot. Phil Esposito is in a similar position. I think what hurts Phil for me is the fact that he just wasn't a great playoff performer outside of 1970 and 1972 (and the Summit series as well).

-Ovechkin belongs in this discussion, but he still suffers in how one-dimensional his play was for much of his career. Citing goal scoring finishes just doesn't do it for me against players like Mikita or Messier, who could certainly score themselves while contributing so much more in other areas. The book isn't finished yet; Ovechkin could yet rise in my eyes with more great playoff runs like last year.

-Good discussion of Clarke. Some give and take. Right time for his name to enter the debate, but I think it's a little early for him to be voted onto the list. The modest scoring stats in the playoffs have been sufficiently explained. How much credit he deserves for 74 and 75 in relation to Parent is still an open question.

 

[seventieslord]

Playoffs aren't a great look for him, but no evidence has been presented to show he was outright bad besides a couple isolated incidences.

Exactly.

Citing goal scoring finishes just doesn't do it for me against players like Mikita or Messier

Exactly.

 

[wetcoast]

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

I'm a bit unclear on the reference to Harvey here, as he was clearly the top defender on that Habs teams, in the 3-4 years we are discussing about the Red Wings there was always 2 vastly superior Dmen and even a 3rd guy with that was as much or more relevant than Fetisov was.

Harvey won the Norris trophy in 60 and 2 Wings Dmen were 2nd and 6th in Norris voting in 97 when they won the SC and a 3rd guy Murphy joined them for the playoffs. Fetisov didn't factor in the Norris voting at all that year with 19 players receiving votes.

He also wasn't listed among the 24 defesnmen to recived all star votes.

The year before 95-96 3 Wings Dmen went 4,5 and 6 in Norris voting but Fetisov wasn't among them (16 guys overall).

Really an apples to bananas comparison.

 

[wetcoast]

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

My bad for responding to a trick question I guess but it's really trivial as the Red wings only had 5 Russian players period.

Now perhaps for the 4th time you can answer my question on how much higher relevance was Fetisov to those Wings teams if my 8th assertion was too low?

Your non answer is fine as well, as others can determine as to why that is the case.

I mean Tony Hand was the best British produced hockey player drafted in the NHL but it's about as relevant as the fact that no Russian player could have been on the Red wings Russian five since they only had 5 Russian players in total, right?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I watched some clips from the 1962 Stanley Cup Final earlier today...Mikita looked pretty damn good, was playing some good two-way hockey...most common wing was Ab McDonald, wasn't playing with Hull as we know...played the right point on the power play and had no real issue back skating and defending shorthanded chances...

The Hawks as a group are not very good organized defensively though...

Came away impressed with Moose Vasko...hadn't seen a lot of him before, very strong defensive player...consistent and reliable...like a lesser Leo Boivin, not quite as good with the puck as Boivin in my view...

Speaking of underrated players: Bob Pulford and George Armstrong can play for me any day of the week...they don't get enough chatter in this forum (not that they belong in this thread, but I don't know when I'm ever going to get to say this again)...

Don Simmons cannot...I'll pass on him. Wasted opportunity for Chicago to win another Cup in 1962 against a fringe goalie...as Simmons replaced an injured Bower mid series...big missed chance there.

 

[wetcoast]

Why should it be easier to switch to an individual game from a highly systematic way you have been living and breathing for 15 years? Even after several years in the NHL a now clearly past-his-prime Fetisov seemlessly switched back to the systematic game with the Russian Five and turned into a vital part of one of the best units in NHL history.

Like I said in the earlier post this is all hypothetical because it didn't happen but we see it all the time in the NHL when a new coach comes in and a system is adapted, teams can play over their heads for a while but it doesn't change the actual individual talent level of any players.

We actually saw the result of Potvin's talent as he came into a poor team situation right away and made it better because of his talent, not because of any system.

2 points on the part in bold.

1) exactly how many 5 man player units are there in NHL history?

2) The Russian 5 didn't actually happen until Larinov arrived, it's a neat trivial factor but no one talked about the Russian 4 or anything like that before Igor arrived.

But like I said it's a hypothetical so it's a matter of opinion and we can't judge what didn't happen.

I think it's more important to focus on what did happen, 2 forwards of the Russian five had much greater individual success than Fetisov did, despite the general trend of elite Dmen aging better than elite forwards.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Potvin was very much aided by Al Arbour's coaching...the Isles were probably the best coached teams in that era, they were as predictable and cohesive as anyone in that time...proper support triangles and spacing were rare in that loose goose era...the Isles had it down pat. Potvin not having to make long stretch passes like Paul Coffey or headlong carries like Reed Larson helped him to be effective in all three zones...

Potvin, imo, is the engine that made it all run as smoothly as it did...but the way that that post is worded is a misrepresentation of the game in my eyes...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Messier is making it.

Polarizing players usually take a bit of a tumble from their near-miss positioning, because while others move up each round, they tend to retain their series of 9th, 10th, and unranked ballots. Limitation of the voting system we use.

Out of curiosity, does anyone still have either Messier or Ovechkin unranked?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Certainly not.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Polarizing players usually take a bit of a tumble from their near-miss positioning, because while others move up each round, they tend to retain their series of 9th, 10th, and unranked ballots. Limitation of the voting system we use.

Out of curiosity, does anyone still have either Messier or Ovechkin unranked?

Not quite, but Ovechkin was towards the end for me. When constructing my ballot I ended up with a lead group of 4, a middle group of 4, and a rear group of 3. Ovechkin was in the rear group, but didn't end up unranked.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

BTW - how ****ing lucky is Lidstrom to be able to have guys like Fetisov, Murphy, and Coffey to learn from in his formative years in the league?

Well Lidstrom had 3 pretty good years before playing with any of them.

I think that in all 3 cases there is a very strong argument that they had the good fortune of playing with a guy like Lidstrom.

the real way to say this is lidstrom was darn lucky to play his formative years with brad mccrimmon, mark howe, and eventually coffey, who ftr joined detroit midway through lidstrom’s second season.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Out of curiosity, does anyone still have either Messier or Ovechkin unranked?

They're two-thirds of my podium.

Ovechkin's really taken it during this process. I went back and looked at the vote-results... to see who was "leading" in vote-over-vote negative delta. They are-

1) Alexander Ovechkin
2) Dominik Hašek
3) (tie) Jaromir Jágr, Jean Béliveau, Doug Harvey

Pretty interesting, I think.