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

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
They are similar, but I think a key difference between the two is their ability as goal-scorers.

In spite of being noted more for playmaking and defensive play, Nighbor was still one of the better goal scorers in the game for the bulk of his career.

His goal scoring finishes in the NHA/PCHA/NHL are: T-1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th.

Obviously we're going to discount those to a point since talent was split between the East and West in these years. But even if we cut those finishes right in half, he still dwarfs Clarke, who's 12th, 13th, and 16th place finishes are the only ones of any note. (Those came with some WHA dilution and a few European stars not in the league, so they should probably have a slight discount as well, but not to the extent of Nighbor's).

A second advantage I see for Nighbor, though not a huge one, is longevity. Nighbor was an elite player right from the beginning, finishing 4th in the NHA in goal scoring as a 20-year-old in 1912-13, his first major professional season. With a couple of down/injury years sprinkled in there, he was still elite as late as 1925-26, when he led the NHL in assists and finished 3rd place in Hart Trophy balloting. Even two years after that at age 35, despite scoring just 13 points on the season, Hart winner Howie Morenz stated that Nighbor was the true MVP. Probably some hyperbole there, but still. Clarke was retired by that age.

Clarke took a little longer to get going. I think we'd probably agree that his 22-year old season, 1971-72, was his first elite season. He stayed quite consistent, never missing significant time to injury or having any visibly down years through 1977-78. But at that point he was pretty much done as a high end point scorer, putting up mostly 60-70 point seasons the rest of the way while remaining great defensively. Nice Renaisance year in 1982-83, winning the Selke and finishing 5th in the league in assists.

I think these two probably cross the line with a similar amount of great peak seasons, but Nighbor's off-peak years give him an edge. His offensive decline seems less drastic to my eye than Clarke's was.

I think this might be Nighbor's strongest argument as the league was getting better as the NHL was formulating and Clarke was playing in a more offensive league in the late 70's, early 80's
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
Much too early?

Yes, I know that in one of the earlier threads that you are a huge peak guy (going off memory here) but I like to look at everything and see what separates players from each other in these rounds.

I also think that Esposito has too many valleys or negative or at best neutral part in his resume, in his playoffs with the Hawks, benefiting from playing with Orr and a really lousy defensive game.

At some point different negative parts (in relation to the high level of competition here), which on their own might not be conclusive, really start to form a pattern and are more suggestive.

I think this is a potential problem for Fetisov this round as well.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
They are similar, but I think a key difference between the two is their ability as goal-scorers.

In spite of being noted more for playmaking and defensive play, Nighbor was still one of the better goal scorers in the game for the bulk of his career.

His goal scoring finishes in the NHA/PCHA/NHL are: T-1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th.

Obviously we're going to discount those to a point since talent was split between the East and West in these years. But even if we cut those finishes right in half, he still dwarfs Clarke, who's 12th, 13th, and 16th place finishes are the only ones of any note. (Those came with some WHA dilution and a few European stars not in the league, so they should probably have a slight discount as well, but not to the extent of Nighbor's).

A second advantage I see for Nighbor, though not a huge one, is longevity. Nighbor was an elite player right from the beginning, finishing 4th in the NHA in goal scoring as a 20-year-old in 1912-13, his first major professional season. With a couple of down/injury years sprinkled in there, he was still elite as late as 1925-26, when he led the NHL in assists and finished 3rd place in Hart Trophy balloting. Even two years after that at age 35, despite scoring just 13 points on the season, Hart winner Howie Morenz stated that Nighbor was the true MVP. Probably some hyperbole there, but still. Clarke was retired by that age.

Clarke took a little longer to get going. I think we'd probably agree that his 22-year old season, 1971-72, was his first elite season. He stayed quite consistent, never missing significant time to injury or having any visibly down years through 1977-78. But at that point he was pretty much done as a high end point scorer, putting up mostly 60-70 point seasons the rest of the way while remaining great defensively. Nice Renaisance year in 1982-83, winning the Selke and finishing 5th in the league in assists.

I think these two probably cross the line with a similar amount of great peak seasons, but Nighbor's off-peak years give him an edge. His offensive decline seems less drastic to my eye than Clarke's was.

All this is true.

But there is one significant advantage for Clarke - in his prime, he was generally the clear best offensive player on his team in a way that Nighbor often was not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,613
10,391
Prime Fetisov had no negatives to his game -offense, defense, skating, physicality.

His weakness is that he fell off so fast, though such falls were somewhat common for USSR players.

It would probably have made his case better had he retired maybe.

2 other guys in that unit, one up next round maybe, had really good success for their ages in the transition.

A bit of a mixed bag.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,796
29,329
Prime Fetisov had no negatives to his game -offense, defense, skating, physicality.

His weakness is that he fell off so fast, though such falls were somewhat common for USSR players.
How seriously did players take the touring games against the Soviets? Canada Cup - I assume everyone is bringing their A games, but the touring games seems like the type of thing that a team may not play 100%.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
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

As a Clarke fan, I agree that it's too early for him. He will be ahead of Sawchuk and that's probably it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
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

Does anyone around here think that the reason for Fetisov's "slide" was due to the fact that he was simply burnt out from hockey? With all the training that the Soviet's did and the political climate in Russia during that time, might have also played a part in his decline?
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
Nighbor is an elite playoff performer. Clarke isn't. That's where the gap is between the two IMO.

It wasn't Clarke's job to score in the playoffs. Hell, they had Barber, MacLeish, Lonsberry, Leach, Dornhoffer during the cup years. They won by playing very physical and by playing defense. Clarke was the defensive cog in the machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,868
7,904
Oblivion Express
It wasn't Clarke's job to score in the playoffs. Hell, they had Barber, MacLeish, Lonsberry, Leach, Dornhoffer during the cup years. They won by playing very physical and by playing defense. Clarke was the defensive cog in the machine.

OK, so the Flyers (Shero) deployed Clarke in a manner that dropped his offensive production by quite a bit from the regular seasons from 74-76, specifically?

Clarke was obviously a great defensive C and world class pest. I haven't studied the BSB's in depth so just wondering given the project. His offensive drop always seemed like a bit much to write off as him being used in a much more defensive manner but again, I wasn't alive in the mid 70's. :naughty:
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
I looked at Clarke more in depth to see if anything stood out in the playoffs, good or bad.

Offense:

Clarke was a very consistent scorer. He showed up and got his points regardless of the quality of opposition. Incredibly, he only played 12 career playoff games against teams with a losing record. I would have expected that total to be quite a bit higher given Philadelphia's strong regular seasons coupled with a high percentage of teams qualifying for the playoffs from 1975 onwards. The only punching bags Clarke ever saw were in brief preliminary round series against the late 70's Rockies, Canucks, and first-year Oilers. Overall, Clarke played 110 playoff games from 1973-1980, what we would probably consider his prime. 53 of those games came against what I would consider elite Cup-contender opposition.

Broken down by individual series, it's almost uncanny how consistent his production was. In 19 best-of-seven series, he produced between four and seven points on 15 occasions. The closest thing we ever saw to an offensive outburst from Clarke was 8 points in 5 games against the 1980 North Stars. The only dud series was a disastrous 0-point, minus-11 series against the Rangers in 1979 (which is so bad compared to every other series he ever played that I have to suspect he was injured).

Bottom line is, Clarke was never going to steal you a series on the basis of his offense, but he showed up and gave his teams a chance in that regard almost every time. He could be contained offensively, but very rarely shut down.

Defense:

I decided to take a look at what the opposition's #1 center did against the Flyers during Clarke's prime years. This is an inexact science; I don't know how often Clarke was directly matched against the players below, others may be able to chime in here. But whether he was directly matched or not, I think it is fair to say that the job of the #1 center is usually to outplay the opposition's #1 center in a playoff series.

1973

Flyers lost a reasonably close 5-game series to the 120-point eventual champion Canadiens. I'm not sure who of Lemaire, Richard, or Mahovlich he'd have seen the bulk of his ice time against. Clarke scored 3 ES points, but was a -2. Henri Richard had a strong series and may have gotten the better of him. Lemaire's stat line is non-descript, and Mahovlich was bad at -4 with no ES points.

1974

Clarke looks pretty ordinary against the Rangers in the semi final, (4 points, -1), but absolutely buried Jean Ratelle, who went -6 without any ES points. Clear win for Clarke here.

Phil Esposito fares little better in the famous upset in the SC Final. His -3 is directly opposite to Clarke's +3, and Espo only had two ES points in the series, which is one of the worst in his career.

1975

The Flyers washed Toronto in the quarter-final, Darryl Sittler with 0 ES points, -4.

Not sure about the semi-final. Clarke and Denis Potvin both had a good series. The Islanders didn't have any elite centers on their roster at this time.

Neither Clarke nor Perreault gave up much at ES. Clarke did his scoring on the PP, Perreault did little at either ES or PP, but did finish +1 despite the lack of scoring. Both players were better at home than on the road in this series.

1976

Sittler gets his points (5 at ES), but it seems they must have come at somebody else's expense. Clarke scored well too, and was a +6, while Sittler had an ugly -5.

Clarke seems to have dominated Jean Ratelle again, now a Boston Bruin. Just two ES points and a -3 for Ratelle as Philly beat the Bruins easily.

The Final against Montreal (127 point season) might be Clarke's first match-up loss since those same Habs in 1973. Clarke and Lemaire were both -1, while Peter Mahovlich ended up +4 with 3 ES points. Depending who mainly went against Clarke, it's either a saw-off or a loss.

1977

Sittler is again a victim here, -3 despite scoring a good amount of points again. +4 for Clarke.

Ratelle and Boston get their revenge. Clarke is a -4, with Ratelle (5 ES points, +5) appearing to be the benefactor.

1978

Clarke doesn't look great, going -1 against Buffalo. But Perreault is held in check with just 1 ESP and a -3 rating.

Ratelle kills the Flyers for the second year in a row. Clarke is -3.

1979

That awful series I alluded to above. I'm not sure who Clarke was playing against here, but he was -11 in a 5-game loss. Instinctively you'd think Esposito, but Phil was only an Even plus/minus player despite score 6 ES points.

1980

Clarke (+1) appears to have outplayed young Gretzky (-3) in a preliminary round.

He definitely outplayed old Phil Esposito (-2) in this series. +2 despite just two points would indicate a strong defensive effort.

Clarke was good in the Final as well (7 points, +3), and closed the playoffs +10 despite a somewhat modest (for that era) 20 points in 19 games. Trottier and Goring both had a solid series, neither finished a minus player. Hard to say exactly who was playing who in this one.

Conclusion:

Up through 1976, there is little not to like about Clarke in the post-season. It is often remarked that an offensive player did or did not outscore their defensive deficiencies. I think this is a case where we can say the opposite. Clarke's defensive play was so strong that it easily covered for his weak-ish (by standards of the players in this vote) offensive production.

This seems to have stopped quite abruptly in the spring of 1977, however. Clarke all of a sudden has a string of 19 games spread over four playoff series where he's a hideous -19. 13 points in these games is a drop in production, but it's really not a huge step down from where he was at before. Nowhere near big enough to explain that minus-19.

Clarke returned to previous form in 1980 though. He seems to have been no less effective in this almost-Cup win than in 1974-1976. His play remained strong throughout the rest of his career, though the Flyers never went deep in the playoffs again. He had 16 points/+6 in the last 22 games of his playoff career.

Possible Explanation for the "Down Years"?:

It's difficult to look past the fact that Clarke's best playoff series line up so well with years where Bernie Parent was in net. He was there in 1974, 1975, and 1976...but was injured against Boston that year and didn't play most of the semi-final or any of the final. In 1977 he only played three games, and that's right when we see Clarke experience this sudden drop in goal prevention. He was back for all of 1978, however. In 1979 (the year of that awful series), Parent was done for good and didn't play at all in the playoffs. Pete Peeters and then Pelle Lindbergh re-established stability at the goaltender position from 1980 onwards, where Clarke's defensive play seems to have returned to form. The flip side of this argument is, just give Clarke a solid netminder, and he'll do great things...but I must admit, the strong overlap of Clarke's great numbers with years of good/great goaltending is a little concerning for me.

I'm going to try and take a crack at answering the down years for Clarke in the playoffs. I think that Clarke was used more as a stopper then anything. Remember, the Flyers had Orest Kinderchuck and Mel Bridgman at center in 1977-78. Kinderchuck had 10 point in 12 games and Bridgman had 8 points in 12 games ( 1 goal). In 1978-79, they had a 20 year old Ken Linseman lead the way with 8 points in 8 games and the rest of the team just didn't score. In 1979-80, Linseman was leading the way again with 22 points in 17 games and Bridgman had 11 points in 19 games. Clarke took a back seat and let the younger guys have more of the scoring responsibility. Some of this was due to Fred Shero and then Pat Quinn. Also, I'm sure being a diabetic was catching up to him as he played a lot of hockey up until age 30 and I'm sure it was starting to wear him down physically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
People keep saying there are many Nighbor fans around, but who exactly is making an aggressive case for him? I know I posted a lot of material on Nighbor last round, but almost all of it was neutral and part of a larger project about the Ottawa Dynasty playoffs.Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen a serious push for Nighbor.

I didn't have the time last round, but this round I hope to dig some info up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Prime Fetisov had no negatives to his game -offense, defense, skating, physicality.

His weakness is that he fell off so fast, though such falls were somewhat common for USSR players.

1985 fatal car accident claimed his younger brother:

Viacheslav Fetisov - Wikipedia

Not the same player afterwards. Long term effects should be considered.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,860
4,711
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
  • Alex Ovechkin
  • Guy Lafleur
  • Phil Esposito
  • (Sergei Makarov)

There is nothing "early" about Esposito. He is certainly higher in my book than many players who already "made it." Who cares about his defensive game if (a) he brought so much offense and (b) there was Orr?

Ovechkin should not be as far back from Crosby as he currently is.

And, of course, the guy who lead his league in scoring 9 times with 3 MVPs should have already been in (above Richard and Bourque for sure).
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,814
764
Helsinki, Finland
Still no Makarov. As expected.

I don't know, based on the discussion(s), somehow I expected him to become eligible at least at the same time as Fetisov, or even sooner. Or maybe the 'Fetisov critics' were/are more vocal than the Makarov ones?

In any case, it is a shame that he is not eligible yet; I don't think it would be very controversial to suggest that Makarov was superior to, say, Clarke or even Lafleur. Makarov is the Soviet player with the least 'holes' or doubts about his career (stats, awards, longevity...), even though Fetisov was the more highly-touted for most of the 1980s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,105
1,391
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Morning report- Day Two:

Continue to have Alexander Ovechkin & Mark Messier, two guys I thought should have advanced last round, as the front-runners on my ballot. There's some good reading on Messier in the "Centers" project roughly five years back... and refamiliarization of why we put him above Nighbor, Esposito & Clarke at that time certainly helped.

I remain unchanged in my belief that Viacheslav Fetisov was overdue as a nominee. I shouldn't have to try to prove his superiority to the un-nominated Makarov in order to find plenty of room for him here now. Prime Fetisov (in a Soviet league and International Play context) was like Bourque that speaks Russian, but better still as a percentage-player.

I'm waffling a bit on Glenn Hall. I had him in the "overdue" column as a nominee... but might be inclined to reconsider him as an "on-time" candidate. I seriously want to check my work on this assessment- to see if I should be docking him more than I currently am for his playoff history.

Guy Lafleur & Frank Nighbor are players that keep swapping places. Had Lafleur higher on my initial list, but put Nighbor higher on my latest ballot. [So- my reconsideration closed the gap between Nighbor and Plante, but not enough to make a difference, thank G_d.] I mentally trimmed a little off my serving of Lafleur to account for the not-long-ago diluted league. But yesterday, I had a klong of a thought. Nighbor played through WWI. He HAD to have had some competition exit the stage at that time, no? [Of course, there were so few relevant teams then that maybe he had a teammate or two depart, as well(?)]

If I sour completely on Hall, these two will be the immediate beneficiaries.

Brodeur remains on "on-time" nominee.


Esposito & Mikita- to invert the internet meme, the place I'm is: "let's do neither."

I have Sawchuk as being two rounds two early. Clarke? He might be three rounds too early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Batis

Registered User
Sep 17, 2014
1,093
1,030
Merida, Mexico
Prime Fetisov had no negatives to his game -offense, defense, skating, physicality.
This is definitely true. I remember reading a quote from the 1982 edition of Årets Ishockey where the Swedish national team coach Anders "Ankan" Parmström said something along the lines of that Fetisov did not even really need a partner on defence since he could do everything himself.

His weakness is that he fell off so fast, though such falls were somewhat common for USSR players.
2 other guys in that unit, one up next round maybe, had really good success for their ages in the transition.
A bit of a mixed bag.

I think that a big part of the explanation to why Fetisov and especially Krutov struggled more with the transition to the North American game can be found in that they were the only players on the Green Unit who had played their entire careers with CSKA. Makarov, Kasatonov and Larionov had all played both junior hockey and a couple of Soviet League seasons on other teams than CSKA. And while the adjustments to the North American game obviously was massive even for Makarov, Kasatonov and Larionov who all knew about playing hockey outside of CSKA:s training regime I personally believe that they had an advantage over Krutov and Fetisov who only knew about the hockey life at CSKA.

It is perhaps also worth noting that when Fetisov finally got to play on an NHL-team which let him play hockey the way he was used to play it and with players who excelled at playing that style of hockey Fetisov scored 56 points in his first 83 regular season games as a Detroit Red Wing at age 36/37 which actually are rather impressive numbers for a defenceman at that age.

Another thing worth noting is that Fetisov actually had a rather long prime considering that he was top 3 in the SPOTY voting for the first time in 77/78 and the last time in 88/89 (Fetisov had a downperiod relatively speaking in 78/79-80/81 though).
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,892
13,688
Considering that Frank finished 95th in the 2008 project, the fact that he is up this early means he has many fans here.

5 years later he finished 8th among centers in that top 60 project.

I think that the pendulum swung too far, will it be swung back to the middle a bit?

BTW, in the same 2 projects Mikita finished 14th and 5th for what it is worth.

No, what it means is that in 10 years some people researched pre-WWII hockey history.

Even someone who would "hate" Nighbor - say because he doesn't like his face or something - would still have to find completely absurd his 95th ranking from 2008, unless he lost all judgement.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,870
16,373
It would probably have made his case better had he retired maybe.

2 other guys in that unit, one up next round maybe, had really good success for their ages in the transition.

A bit of a mixed bag.

what makes larionov’s nhl career better than fetisov’s? other than longevity that is? (larionov was two years younger)

fwiw it was pretty universally agreed at the time that fetisov had the much better nhl year one than larionov.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
No, what it means is that in 10 years some people researched pre-WWII hockey history.

Even someone who would "hate" Nighbor - say because he doesn't like his face or something - would still have to find completely absurd his 95th ranking from 2008, unless he lost all judgement.

In the last 10+ years a lot more NHL, newspaper and archival data has become available. Plus you have 10+ years of research collective time.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I think that a big part of the explanation to why Fetisov and especially Krutov struggled more with the transition to the North American game can be found in that they were the only players on the Green Unit who had played their entire careers with CSKA. Makarov, Kasatonov and Larionov had all played both junior hockey and a couple of Soviet League seasons on other teams than CSKA. And while the adjustments to the North American game obviously was massive even for Makarov, Kasatonov and Larionov who all knew about playing hockey outside of CSKA:s training regime I personally believe that they had an advantage over Krutov and Fetisov who only knew about the hockey life at CSKA.

It is perhaps also worth noting that when Fetisov finally got to play on an NHL-team which let him play hockey the way he was used to play it and with players who excelled at playing that style of hockey Fetisov scored 56 points in his first 83 regular season games as a Detroit Red Wing at age 36/37 which actually are rather impressive numbers for a defenceman at that age.

Another thing worth noting is that Fetisov actually had a rather long prime considering that he was top 3 in the SPOTY voting for the first time in 77/78 and the last time in 88/89 (Fetisov had a downperiod relatively speaking in 78/79-80/81 though).

Bolded is rather "iffy".

USSR domestic play showed the Green Unit to be generally healthy but in the NHL only Makarov played a complete RS season.

Accurate details of hockey injuries would explain more
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,606
10,249
Melonville
Sawchuk seems rather unique to me. Comes into the league exploding for a few years and then has a long career being middle of the road.

Hard case to judge as he's a goaltender. No real comparable I can think of.
He had a few good years in between. As I mentioned in a Mikita post, he had more first place votes for the Hart than both Mikita (who came in second) and Howe (who won) in '63. Sawchuk had 37 while Howe won with 30 first place votes (he had a massive amount of second place votes). He won his last Vezina two years later. Plus, Sawchuk was crucial in the Leaf's last Stanley Cup win in '67 (.931 save percentage).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad