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

[DannyGallivan]

For what it is worth I rank Fetisov as the second greatest Soviet hockey player of all time (just behind Makarov) and I think that the question of what it means to be the greatest Soviet defenceman of all time is worth is a valid one. But the thing is that the incredible amount of praise that Fetisov recieved from observers on both sides of the Atlantic does suggest that he belongs among the very greatest Soviet players of all time and perhaps even as the greatest (even if I would say that it is Makarov).

I had Makarov as my number one "Soviet" player as well. And I agree that Fetisov needs to be in the conversation. I'm just not convinced that he gets voted in during this round.

 

[sr edler]

I always found New Jersey to be a boring team to watch

Brodeur was their most exciting skater.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My thoughts on the new candidates...

I think it's a touch early for these goaltenders to make the list. Sawchuk has the early 50's peak, but not a lot of meat anywhere else. His playoff performance was very up-and-down. Hall and Brodeur were much more consistent. If somebody wants to make the case for any of them though, I'm all ears. Ideally, I hope we can avoid a situation like last round with Plante, where there is seemingly not a lot of advocacy for them at the very top, then all of a sudden they have 5 first place votes.

I think Fetisov holds his own in this group. I'm not certain if he cracks my top 5, but I can definitely see him pushing past the more one-dimensional players here, Ovechkin for example.

I see Bobby Clarke as a guy with one big positive in his favour, but also a couple of negatives.

Positive: He had way less help from his supporting cast, yet still won two Stanley Cups. I rated Bourque highly in the earlier rounds for his ability to lift an average Bruins team beyond what you'd expect from them in the late 80s and early 90s. Clarke gets a similar boost. Philadelphia took both non-Habs Cups from 1973-1978, Clarke's best years. Bernie Parent and Bill Barber are the only other Hall of Famers on that roster, and Barber is seen as a pretty low-end one at that. The Orr/Esposito Bruins, Ratelle/Park Rangers, and Trottier/Potvin Islanders didn't win any. "They should have won more" is a valid criticism of Esposito, Mikita, Ovechkin, and Hall in this round. Arguably Sawchuk. Not so for Clarke.

Clarke's Flyers never suffered a serious playoff upset during his peak seasons. They lost to Montreal in 1973 and 1976 (both times Montreal had 120+ points). They lost to Boston in 1977 and 1978 (106, 113 points for the Bruins). They upset a great Bruins team in 1974 to win the Cup, and beat them again in the semi-final in 1976. They beat strong Rangers (1974) and Sabres teams (1975, 1978) as well.

In fact, if we look at Clarke's entire career, the Flyers never once lost to a team with a losing record in the playoffs. The .500 Rangers defeated them in the opening round in 1983. That was the only time EVER that the Flyers lost a playoff series to a team with less than 91 points. That's actually quite incredible to me. Remember, in the era before the ridiculous loser points invaded the standings, 91 points was considered a strong season, and would typically place you around 5th overall in the 70s, perhaps 7th overall in the 21-team league from 1980-onwards. The Cup-winning Islanders had 91 points in 1980.

Negative: Like Guy Lafleur, he's somewhat lacking outside of his peak stretch. Still some nice seasons as a supremely good defensive center, but surprisingly weak offensively during he highest scoring seasons in modern history. Would it be fair to say that Clarke basically became Patrice Bergeron from age 29 onwards?

That leads into the other potential negative, and that would be: is Clarke too one-dimensional to avoid the same concerns we have in regards to Esposito, Lafleur, and Ovechkin? Which player best made up for their shortcomings in other areas? Clarke did show the ability to be a superb offensive producer in a couple of seasons, without sacrificing in other areas. To the best of my knowledge, those other three never displayed the ability to be strong defensively. Are those two seasons enough though? Clarke was a 65-point player much more often than a 100-point player, afterall.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Clarke always underwhelmed me as far as a postseason player goes. I'm open to hearing the counter to that.

 

[MXD]

(...)

Negative: Like Guy Lafleur, he's somewhat lacking outside of his peak stretch. Still some nice seasons as a supremely good defensive center, but surprisingly weak offensively during he highest scoring seasons in modern history. Would it be fair to say that Clarke basically became Patrice Bergeron from age 29 onwards?

That leads into the other potential negative, and that would be: is Clarke too one-dimensional to avoid the same concerns we have in regards to Esposito, Lafleur, and Ovechkin? Which player best made up for their shortcomings in other areas? Clarke did show the ability to be a superb offensive producer in a couple of seasons, without sacrificing in other areas. To the best of my knowledge, those other three never displayed the ability to be strong defensively. Are those two seasons enough though? Clarke was a 65-point player much more often than a 100-point player, afterall.

I'd add : Not only is he possibly too one-dimensional at this stage, but his offence - that is, the weak dimension - is possibly too one-dimensional for this stage as well. I mean... Bobby Clarke cracked the 20 goals mark ONCE after turning 29. And that was in 82-83, when scoring levels were soaring. That was worth some Hart award support, though it's interesting to note that he was 3rd on his team for voting support (well below Mr. Lightbulb Pete Peeters and Mark Howe). No Top-10 finishes in goal.s

 

[DannyGallivan]

My thoughts on the new candidates...

I think it's a touch early for these goaltenders to make the list. Sawchuk has the early 50's peak, but not a lot of meat anywhere else. His playoff performance was very up-and-down. Hall and Brodeur were much more consistent. If somebody wants to make the case for any of them though, I'm all ears. Ideally, I hope we can avoid a situation like last round with Plante, where there is seemingly not a lot of advocacy for them at the very top, then all of a sudden they have 5 first place votes.

I think Fetisov holds his own in this group. I'm not certain if he cracks my top 5, but I can definitely see him pushing past the more one-dimensional players here, Ovechkin for example.

I see Bobby Clarke as a guy with one big positive in his favour, but also a couple of negatives.

Positive: He had way less help from his supporting cast, yet still won two Stanley Cups. I rated Bourque highly in the earlier rounds for his ability to lift an average Bruins team beyond what you'd expect from them in the late 80s and early 90s. Clarke gets a similar boost. Philadelphia took both non-Habs Cups from 1973-1978, Clarke's best years. Bernie Parent and Bill Barber are the only other Hall of Famers on that roster, and Barber is seen as a pretty low-end one at that. The Orr/Esposito Bruins, Ratelle/Park Rangers, and Trottier/Potvin Islanders didn't win any. "They should have won more" is a valid criticism of Esposito, Mikita, Ovechkin, and Hall in this round. Arguably Sawchuk. Not so for Clarke.

Clarke's Flyers never suffered a serious playoff upset during his peak seasons. They lost to Montreal in 1973 and 1976 (both times Montreal had 120+ points). They lost to Boston in 1977 and 1978 (106, 113 points for the Bruins). They upset a great Bruins team in 1974 to win the Cup, and beat them again in the semi-final in 1976. They beat strong Rangers (1974) and Sabres teams (1975, 1978) as well.

In fact, if we look at Clarke's entire career, the Flyers never once lost to a team with a losing record in the playoffs. The .500 Rangers defeated them in the opening round in 1983. That was the only time EVER that the Flyers lost a playoff series to a team with less than 91 points. That's actually quite incredible to me. Remember, in the era before the ridiculous loser points invaded the standings, 91 points was considered a strong season, and would typically place you around 5th overall in the 70s, perhaps 7th overall in the 21-team league from 1980-onwards. The Cup-winning Islanders had 91 points in 1980.

Negative: Like Guy Lafleur, he's somewhat lacking outside of his peak stretch. Still some nice seasons as a supremely good defensive center, but surprisingly weak offensively during he highest scoring seasons in modern history. Would it be fair to say that Clarke basically became Patrice Bergeron from age 29 onwards?

That leads into the other potential negative, and that would be: is Clarke too one-dimensional to avoid the same concerns we have in regards to Esposito, Lafleur, and Ovechkin? Which player best made up for their shortcomings in other areas? Clarke did show the ability to be a superb offensive producer in a couple of seasons, without sacrificing in other areas. To the best of my knowledge, those other three never displayed the ability to be strong defensively. Are those two seasons enough though? Clarke was a 65-point player much more often than a 100-point player, afterall.

Bobby Clarke was an elite playmaking/defensive centre. He was the heart and soul of a Flyer team that won two Stanley Cups thanks primarily him and Bernie Parent. Other than a couple of guys with good hands (Macliesh, Barber and later Leach) they were not as talented as you'd expect a Stanley Cup winner to be. Yet, Clarke led them to two straight Cup wins (including one over the power house Boston Bruins, who they had previously a terrible record against) and a third-straight final appearance against Montreal. Clarke was also on the team that met the Islanders in the '80 finals.

He won three Harts and came in second once despite never winning an Art Ross trophy (although he made the top 10 seven times including two second place finishes) and led the league in assists twice. He beat the likes of Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito and Guy Lafleur for his Hart Trophies, so you certainly can't say that there wasn't any competition.

As far as the playoffs are concerned, he had 119 points in 136 career games, which is reflective of an elite two-way centre.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My thoughts as of now:

1. Mark Messier - unique mix of longevity as a top player, all-round play, and probably the best playoff resume by anyone not named Gretzky who didn't play for the Canadiens.

2. Alexander Ovechkin - I dropped him a little bit from where I had him originally, but I think he's fallen far enough - his peak 5 years was outstanding, and he's been a very good player outside that stretch. I realize play in elimination games on the international stage is a negative, but we are talking about a sample size of 8 games. Clear cut 2nd best player of his generation.

3. Guy Lafleur - best player of the late 70s, period. I know Potvin got ranked higher by this group, but that's because Potvin also had significant value in the early 1980s.

Competing for my other two spots (in alphabetical order):

Martin Brodeur - probably the 2nd most consistently great goalie of all time (after Glenn Hall), with a better playoff record than Hall

Slava Fetisov - I like him a little better than the ineligible Makarov as the best non-NHL European of all-time. First half of his career was probably Kelly/Potvin in quality, though he fell off fast.

Glenn Hall - arguably the best regular season goalie of all-time - probably didn't peak quite as high as Hasek, but he consistently maintained his excellent standard of play, playing behind a fairly offensive-minded Chicago time for a very long time. Playoffs are the only reason he hasn't already been added to the list.

Stan Mikita - I'm happy to be able to compare him to teammate Glenn Hall. The case for Mikita is very similar to the case for Jagr - put up boatloads of points in the regular season. Like Jagr, he tended to be overshadowed by a teammate.

Frank Nighbor - he's become quite the forum favorite - I like him a little better than Bobby Clarke. But is that enough for him to make my top 5?

A little too early:

Bobby Clarke - I like Nighbor a little better. I also think something has to be said for the fact that Esposito was usually the 1st Team All-Star over prime Clarke, even when Clarke was getting more Hart recognition. Clarke probably deserves being discussed now, but lets not forget that he's probably going to be the weakest goal scoring forward to be added in our top 100. I'm really not sure what makes him better than Sakic.

Phil Esposito - Has to be under Mikita, who isn't even a lock for my top 5.

Terry Sawchuk - Has to be under Brodeur and Hall, who aren't even locks for my top 5

 

[bobholly39]

It would seem that Nighbor is considered the preeminent pre-consolidation player by our panel. I say this because he clearly finished a good margin ahead of Taylor and Lalonde, or any other player from this era you care to name, in the aggregate vote. So my question to the panel would be, if he is decisively the best player of a 30-40 year time span, how far down the final list can he credibly rank? Having him outside the top 20 seems hard to justify if we agree he retired as the greatest player of all time.

I really hate this line of reasoning. The only thing that should ever matter in a voting round should be how one player compares to the other 9-10 eligible players, and vote accordingly. Anything else and you're just trying to "fix" the results.

Voting Nighbor because the best of pre-consolidation deserves to be top 20 is wrong
just like voting Hasek bc Roy already went, and how far behind can Hasek be, is wrong
just like voting Lidstrom because Bourque already went and how far behind can he be is wrong
just like *not* voting Roy in on purpose because you want to wait till Hasek is available to compare him to is wrong
etc.

The process we agreed upon was taking the 120 list of all voters and using that to come up with new candidates each round. It's probably possible to make a few tweaks to that to improve in a future project if people really want to - but since that's what was agreed upon i really think the only valid reasoning within a round is comparing players to each other, and ignoring everyone not in the round.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'd add : Not only is he possibly too one-dimensional at this stage, but his offence - that is, the weak dimension - is possibly too one-dimensional for this stage as well. I mean... Bobby Clarke cracked the 20 goals mark ONCE after turning 29. And that was in 82-83, when scoring levels were soaring. That was worth some Hart award support, though it's interesting to note that he was 3rd on his team for voting support (well below Mr. Lightbulb Pete Peeters and Mark Howe). No Top-10 finishes in goal.s

But seven top 10 finishes in points and twice led the league with 89 assists. He also had 8 consecutive seasons of more than 20 goals, including four plus 30 seasons. And after 29 years of age for players in the 70's and 80's players tend to go into decline offensively. At least he had his defensive play to fall back on.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Perhaps if you're limiting your consensus to the voters in these threads, then maybe Nighbor is number one of his "generation"(I don't know, did anybody have Cyclone Taylor ahead of him?). However, there wasn't a consensus for anybody else - everybody in the last round had at least one number one vote. There was no consensus for best player overall. Same for best goalie overall. Same for best sandwich overall (I prefer grilled cheese with onions).

I'm sure some people did have Cyclone Taylor ahead of him, but based on available evidence, that would be a minority position. Nighbor could be no worse than #25 on the aggregate list based on his availability last round, and he was middle of the pack in the vote, so I'll speculate that he probably didn't just scrape in at #25...probably more like #22 or so. Taylor was at best #31 on the aggregate based on his absence thus far.

I know there wasn't a consensus for anyone in the last vote...that's sort of my point against Lafleur. It was suggested that he was perhaps the consensus best player of his generation. Obviously he wasn't; our panel as a whole rated Potvin higher.

As it stands right now, our panel seems to have declared Nighbor #1 of his era. The same cannot be said of Lafleur. I'm not saying that this in and of itself disqualifies Lafleur from being ranked over Nighbor. It doesn't. But I am saying that if Nighbor slips much lower, we are venturing into the territory of condemning an entire era of hockey. Not having a single pre-Morenz player in our top 24 would be credibility damaging in my opinion.

 

[MXD]

Question for people who keep VsX Goalscoring tables in their back pockets : Is Bobby Clarke even a better goalscorer than Doug Gilmour?

 

[bobholly39]

My thoughts as of now:

1. Mark Messier - unique mix of longevity as a top player, all-round play, and probably the best playoff resume by anyone not named Gretzky who didn't play for the Canadiens.

2. Alexander Ovechkin - I dropped him a little bit from where I had him originally, but I think he's fallen far enough - his peak 5 years was outstanding, and he's been a very good player outside that stretch. I realize play in elimination games on the international stage is a negative, but we are talking about a sample size of 8 games. Clear cut 2nd best player of his generation.

3. Guy Lafleur - best player of the late 70s, period. I know Potvin got ranked higher by this group, but that's because Potvin also had significant value in the early 1980s.

Competing for my other two spots (in alphabetical order):

Martin Brodeur - probably the 2nd most consistently great goalie of all time (after Glenn Hall), with a better playoff record than Hall

Slava Fetisov - I like him a little better than the ineligible Makarov as the best non-NHL European of all-time. First half of his career was probably Kelly/Potvin in quality, though he fell off fast.

Glenn Hall - arguably the best regular season goalie of all-time - probably didn't peak quite as high as Hasek, but he consistently maintained his excellent standard of play, playing behind a fairly offensive-minded Chicago time for a very long time. Playoffs are the only reason he hasn't already been added to the list.

Stan Mikita - I'm happy to be able to compare him to teammate Glenn Hall. The case for Mikita is very similar to the case for Jagr - put up boatloads of points in the regular season. Like Jagr, he tended to be overshadowed by a teammate.

Frank Nighbor - he's become quite the forum favorite - I like him a little better than Bobby Clarke. But is that enough for him to make my top 5?

A little too early:

Bobby Clarke - I like Nighbor a little better. I also think something has to be said for the fact that Esposito was usually the 1st Team All-Star over prime Clarke, even when Clarke was getting more Hart recognition. Clarke probably deserves being discussed now, but lets not forget that he's probably going to be the weakest goal scoring forward to be added in our top 100. I'm really not sure what makes him better than Sakic.

Phil Esposito - Has to be under Mikita, who isn't even a lock for my top 5.

Terry Sawchuk - Has to be under Brodeur and Hall, who aren't even locks for my top 5

Can you explain your reasoning for having Esposito and Lafleur so far apart? I like the rest of your post, but to me those 2 are both offensive first forwards, with outstanding peaks (both regular season and playoffs) who are extremely similar in their resumes.

Shouldn't they be closer? Is it just the Orr effect for you penalizing Esposito more than most, or something else?

 

[MXD]

But seven top 10 finishes in points and twice led the league with 89 assists. He also had 8 consecutive seasons of more than 20 goals, including four plus 30 seasons. And after 29 years of age for players in the 70's and 80's players tend to go into decline offensively. At least he had his defensive play to fall back on.

...This doesn't address at all the claim that Clarke's weak dimension is probably too one-dimensional. In fact, it probably reinforces it.

And frankly, the timing of his great defensive season with Pete Peeters' great season is.... well... Let's just say convenient. It's not something I really witnessed, being a bit too young and all.

EDIT : I sorta like Clarke at this point, and I see him as something of a mid-table guy. It's just that I want to make sure my appreciation isn't due to some blind spot.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Can you explain your reasoning for having Esposito and Lafleur so far apart? I like the rest of your post, but to me those 2 are both offensive first forwards, with outstanding peaks (both regular season and playoffs) who are extremely similar in their resumes.

Shouldn't they be closer? Is it just the Orr effect for you penalizing Esposito more than most, or something else?

Guy Lafleur didn't have Bobby Orr. Among other factors.

Stats are not the only way to judge players. Nor should they be.

 

[DannyGallivan]

...This doesn't address at all the claim that Clarke's weak dimension is probably too one-dimensional. In fact, it probably reinforces it.

Nighbor - known for his assists and his two-way play.
Clarke - known for his assists and his two-way play.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Good feedback on Clarke so far, thanks guys.

He might be my biggest wild card in this round. I can conceive of a scenario where I put him ahead of any or all of Esposito, Mikita, and Lafleur. I can also see him fighting for scraps at the very end with Sawchuk.

 

[sr edler]

Clarke always underwhelmed me as far as a postseason player goes.

How?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Nighbor - known for his assists and his two-way play.
Clarke - known for his assists and his two-way play.

Nighbor is an elite playoff performer. Clarke isn't. That's where the gap is between the two IMO.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Nighbor is an elite playoff performer. Clarke isn't. That's where the gap is between the two IMO.

Clarke was the second best Flyer in the playoffs the two years that they won the Stanley Cup (and the best Flyer not wearing goalie pads). He was virtually a point a game most playoffs, and continued his playmaking mastery. While he was overshadowed for the Conn Smythe by Parent, he was still crucial to the Flyers' victories.

 

[ImporterExporter]

How?

During the Flyers peak he was never their best player in the postseason. Some cases not even 2nd IMO.

He's not bad, I just feel like he wasn't that good.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Phil Esposito - Has to be under Mikita, who isn't even a lock for my top 5.

Because...? Again, is this the "he played with Orr" thing?

 

[sr edler]

During the Flyers peak he was never their best player in the postseason. Some cases not even 2nd IMO.

He's not bad, I just feel like he wasn't that good.

Perhaps he did all those unsexy little things that doesn’t always show up on a scoresheet?

Because:

Stats are not the only way to judge players. Nor should they be.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Clarke was the second best Flyer in the playoffs the two years that they won the Stanley Cup (and the best Flyer not wearing goalie pads). He was virtually a point a game most playoffs, and continued his playmaking mastery. While he was overshadowed for the Conn Smythe by Parent, he was still crucial to the Flyers' victories.

Near point per game player which is a steep decline from his regular season production.

Was he really that much better than Macleish is 74? Big scoring gap, MacLeish with half the PIMs and twice the game winning goals.

Same thing next year.

76 was Reggie Leach. No other way to put it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Perhaps he did all those unsexy little things that doesn’t always show up on a scoresheet?

Because:

Very aware. I just wonder why his production dropped considerably.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Good feedback on Clarke so far, thanks guys.

He might be my biggest wild card in this round. I can conceive of a scenario where I put him ahead of any or all of Esposito, Mikita, and Lafleur. I can also see him fighting for scraps at the very end with Sawchuk.

With Clarke, you need to look at the fact that they took the "Most Valuable" part of the Hart Trophy very literally when he won (as opposed to the "Most Outstanding" that the trophy is often awarded for). He was clearly the heart and soul of the first expansion team to win the Stanley Cup. And he was exceptionally skilled, despite not being particularly fleet of foot or not having a very hard shot.

So, either he gets extra special props for beating legends like Orr, Esposito and Lafleur for three Hart Trophies, or Orr, Espo and Lafleur should get credit for the Harts they were robbed (which should improve Guy and Phil's standing this round).