Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

[Nick Hansen]

If we take Wayne, Orr and Hull out of the equation Nicholls 13th place trumps anything Phil did.

In 68 Bobby Orr was already Bobby Orr in ESG in being on the ice, although it took till the next year to translate into the Bobby Orr in traditional G-A-P.

I have no problem saying that Phil had a good skillset for the era but much of his success and being in consideration is Orr related IMO.

It takes more than a skillset to be on this list just ask Kent Nilsson.

I think Phil belongs on this list but he just isn't a top 50 guy for me.

Too much of his case rests simplay on counting stats and alot of ignoring some really obvious red flags like Orr, playoffs in Chicago and basically outside of 3 Orr related runs and the level of competition of the NHL in the 70's with watered down competition and a huge imbalance of the haves and have nots.

Easy there, bud...

 

[ImporterExporter]

One thing is for sure, I think next round there will be a lot of C's and many will have to come off the board.

I only have one making it this time and I'm still not sure who I want to put in 5th haha. Vote will be in tonight.

 

[ted2019]

The comparison was more to the comment that both players had similar circumstances or competition, which clearly wasn't the case.

How one gauges those differences is up to them.

I think the case for Sakic is his very long an impressive prime both in the regular season and playoffs, not unlike Beliveau, although he obviously never reached the absolute peak that Jean did.

But both players had very long and productive careers over an extended period of time.

Esposito's career looks more like a version of Bernie Nicholls (not stylistically but productive offense only type of players) if he had played with Wayne for 8 seasons.

I think the Orr effect is quite high.

Good post on Taylor BTW but I'm still not sure where to place him.

I'm not even close to being Esposito's biggest fan ( ranked him 40th), but to compare him to Bernie Nicholls is ridiculous and makes me wonder and hope that you don't have a final vote in this project. I can pretty much assure you that Nicolls won't be up for discussion in this project.

 

[ted2019]

Was it just about Orr, or was it more like the whole Boston Bruins and their style of play (e.g. a guy like Cashman digging pucks for him) that helped Esposito?

Anyway, I'm not quite as high on Esposito's performance in 1972 as most people. Okay, he was arguably the best and most important player on the team that won the tournament, but he had his problems too. For example, when he was line-matched vs Vladimir Shadrin's line (with Yakushev and mostly Anisin) in Moscow, he did rather poorly, as I observed in my thread on the excellent performance by Shadrin's line in Moscow. I don't think Esposito was so good in 1972 that he wouldn't have had equally good performances and sometimes without Orr in Boston too.

In my eyes, Esposito wouldn't have had the career that he had in Boston without the Orr's, Cashman's. Boston had talent coming out of it's rump, which helped everyone on that team ( including Orr). Style of play and the rink size helped Esposito also.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm not even close to being Esposito's biggest fan ( ranked him 40th), but to compare him to Bernie Nicholls is ridiculous and makes me wonder and hope that you don't have a final vote in this project. I can pretty much assure you that Nicolls won't be up for discussion in this project.

The comparison was if Nicholls had played 8 years with Wayne or if both players hadn't played with Hull, Orr or Wayne, the results for those years are very comparable and plain to see.

It's obvious Nichols won't be up and he wouldn't be on my top 150 list of all time.

It's also obvious that the guy Phil was traded for did better after the trade and was 2 years older and also never played with a caliber of a player of the 3 superstars mentioned above.

The reasons to drop Phil further down far out weigh voting him in this round IMO.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In my eyes, Esposito wouldn't have had the career that he had in Boston without the Orr's, Cashman's. Boston had talent coming out of it's rump, which helped everyone on that team ( including Orr). Style of play and the rink size helped Esposito also.

So, how many Bruins from the early 70s do you think will be on this final list of top 100, outside of Orr & Esposito?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The comparison was if Nicholls had played 8 years with Wayne or if both players hadn't played with Hull, Orr or Wayne, the results for those years are very comparable and plain to see.

It's obvious Nichols won't be up and he wouldn't be on my top 150 list of all time.

It's also obvious that the guy Phil was traded for did better after the trade and was 2 years older and also never played with a caliber of a player of the 3 superstars mentioned above.

The reasons to drop Phil further down far out weigh voting him in this round IMO.

And how does this have any significance?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If we take Wayne, Orr and Hull out of the equation Nicholls 13th place trumps anything Phil did.

In 68 Bobby Orr was already Bobby Orr in ESG in being on the ice, although it took till the next year to translate into the Bobby Orr in traditional G-A-P.

I have no problem saying that Phil had a good skillset for the era but much of his success and being in consideration is Orr related IMO.

It takes more than a skillset to be on this list just ask Kent Nilsson.

I think Phil belongs on this list but he just isn't a top 50 guy for me.

Too much of his case rests simplay on counting stats and alot of ignoring some really obvious red flags like Orr, playoffs in Chicago and basically outside of 3 Orr related runs and the level of competition of the NHL in the 70's with watered down competition and a huge imbalance of the haves and have nots.

WOW

 

[wetcoast]

WOW

How is that a wow?

No doubt we will have many centers to compare Phil with if he drops this round to the next.

No one has as many red flags, questions or doubts as Phil do they?

Phil would have been a great fantasy hockey guy in the 70s but it's still much too early for him in an overall sense IMO.

 

[bobholly39]

The comparison was if Nicholls had played 8 years with Wayne or if both players hadn't played with Hull, Orr or Wayne, the results for those years are very comparable and plain to see.

It's obvious Nichols won't be up and he wouldn't be on my top 150 list of all time.

It's also obvious that the guy Phil was traded for did better after the trade and was 2 years older and also never played with a caliber of a player of the 3 superstars mentioned above.

The reasons to drop Phil further down far out weigh voting him in this round IMO.

Nichols had one season with a lot of pts. He wasnt mvp
He didnt win art ross. Nada

Esposito broke most offensive records won 5 art rosses and beat Orr in award voting multiple times.

Espo isnt Kurri - which is what you're basically equating him to

Espo is an alternative universe Kurri that scores 100 goals a season a cpl times thanks to Wayne, wins an art ross or two above Gretzky and beats Gretzky in hart voting 3x. That Kurri would be pretty high up on my list...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How is that a wow?

No doubt we will have many centers to compare Phil with if he drops this round to the next.

No one has as many red flags, questions or doubts as Phil do they?

Phil would have been a great fantasy hockey guy in the 70s but it's still much too early for him in an overall sense IMO.

Its a WOW because I'd be very surprised if anyone voting had Esposito outside of the top 50, as you would.

And if they did I'd really question why they were allowed to participate.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Yeah, I have Espo in the 25-30 range. If he falls out of this round he really, really needs to go next time. And I'm somebody who believes his numbers and game were quite enhanced by Orr. But still, he put up a ridiculous peak, had multiple really great playoff runs and was a legend in the 72 Summit series.

 

[MXD]

I think this is the first round where it wouldn't be completely wrong if Esposito was voted in. I don't see him as one of the five best players in this group, but I don't think we'd do a collective mistake anymore, should we somehow rank him amongst five best players this round. And by "we", I mean, us, as a group. Not an individual voter.

Also, a good way to make sure no one bothers is going hyperbolic, and comparing Phil Esposito to Bernie Nicholls is well past the stage of the hyperbole and closer to, and please warn me @quoipourquoi if you feel I'm crossing the line, absolute insanity.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah, I have Espo in the 25-30 range. If he falls out of this round he really, really needs to go next time. And I'm somebody who believes his numbers and game were quite enhanced by Orr. But still, he put up a ridiculous peak, had multiple really great playoff runs and was a legend in the 72 Summit series.

The thing is, we have two guys up for voting this round who played on perhaps the greatest 5 man unit ever. This is what they are famous for. Playing outside of that unit, none of those players seemed close to that good. But Esposito is being hammered for not being that good without Orr.

Now I have one of those former Soviet players going in this round, so I'm not belittling their talent. Just pointing out the huge double standard. I'd also like to know how many of the Esposito detractors ranked Orr number 1. Surely someone who can turn Espo into a superstar singlehandedly simply by being on the same team (not linemates, so not always on the ice together) has to be by far the greatest player ever.

 

[Captain Bowie]

If we take Wayne, Orr and Hull out of the equation Nicholls 13th place trumps anything Phil did.

In 68 Bobby Orr was already Bobby Orr in ESG in being on the ice, although it took till the next year to translate into the Bobby Orr in traditional G-A-P.

I have no problem saying that Phil had a good skillset for the era but much of his success and being in consideration is Orr related IMO.

It takes more than a skillset to be on this list just ask Kent Nilsson.

I think Phil belongs on this list but he just isn't a top 50 guy for me.

Too much of his case rests simplay on counting stats and alot of ignoring some really obvious red flags like Orr, playoffs in Chicago and basically outside of 3 Orr related runs and the level of competition of the NHL in the 70's with watered down competition and a huge imbalance of the haves and have nots.

How??

If you are going to claim Esposito's number should be discounted by more than 20-25%, which has been shown IN DEPTH by another participant to be the reasonable amount well backed by data, then you are going to have to show your work. If you are unable to do so, then making such claims doesn't really do anything to help anyone here. You are just making claims well outside of the norm (which is perfectly fine) and not backing it up with anything but conjecture (which is not fine).

 

[wetcoast]

Its a WOW because I'd be very surprised if anyone voting had Esposito outside of the top 50, as you would.

And if they did I'd really question why they were allowed to participate.

How much of a difference is 40th or outside of the top 50?

I think there would be more outrage for Gretzky being outside of the top 4.

 

[wetcoast]

How??

If you are going to claim Esposito's number should be discounted by more than 20-25%, which has been shown IN DEPTH by another participant to be the reasonable amount well backed by data, then you are going to have to show your work. If you are unable to do so, then making such claims doesn't really do anything to help anyone here. You are just making claims well outside of the norm (which is perfectly fine) and not backing it up with anything but conjecture (which is not fine).

I'm on my phone right now but will show the case later on today or tommorrow morning.

It's a simple case of looking at the stats in some form of context.

 

[wetcoast]

The thing is, we have two guys up for voting this round who played on perhaps the greatest 5 man unit ever. This is what they are famous for. Playing outside of that unit, none of those players seemed close to that good. But Esposito is being hammered for not being that good without Orr.

Now I have one of those former Soviet players going in this round, so I'm not belittling their talent. Just pointing out the huge double standard. I'd also like to know how many of the Esposito detractors ranked Orr number 1. Surely someone who can turn Espo into a superstar singlehandedly simply by being on the same team (not linemates, so not always on the ice together) has to be by far the greatest player ever.

Like I said before I would Makarov #1 this round and Fetisov more lower middle of the pack but above Esposito and Sawchuk.

Makarov had some really good NHL seasons for his age.

Orr would be my #2 player of all time because Wayne simply was relevant for longer, no double standard here.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I'm on my phone right now but will show the case later on today or tommorrow morning.

It's a simple case of looking at the stats in some form of context.

Oh is that all?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Like I said before I would Makarov #1 this round and Fetisov more lower middle of the pack but above Esposito and Sawchuk.

Makarov had some really good NHL seasons for his age.

Orr would be my #2 player of all time because Wayne simply was relevant for longer, no double standard here.

Makarov put up 86 points (24 goals) when he was 31 in the NHL.

Esposito put up 145 points (68 goals) when he was 31. In a lower scoring era.

 

[Sentinel]

How is that a wow?

No doubt we will have many centers to compare Phil with if he drops this round to the next.

No one has as many red flags, questions or doubts as Phil do they?

Phil would have been a great fantasy hockey guy in the 70s but it's still much too early for him in an overall sense IMO.

Not only it's a "wow," but it's batshit crazy.

 

[overpass]

I think Phil belongs on this list but he just isn't a top 50 guy for me.

Scotty Bowman, is that you?

 

[blogofmike]

Still agonizing on Hall and Sawchuk. As @ContrarianGoaltender has pointed on many an occasion, save percentage is a very team-influenced stat. Sawchuk's Hart consideration in some of his post-dynasty years is probably indicative of his team being awful enough that below average save percentages aren't as bad as they look.

Anyways, playing around on nhl.com and here are some random notes:​

Playoff OT Records for Brodeur, Hall, Sawchuk

	Brodeur		Hall		Sawchuk
	W	L	W	L	W	L
All OT	16	24	7	6	4	8
< 1 min	0	2	1	1	0	0
1 OT	11	17	3	4	3	4
2 OT	4	2	2	1	1	1
3 OT	1	2	1	0	0	2
4 OT	0	1	0	0	0	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Hall's team came through more often than the other guys' teams in terms of producing an OT winner. Sawchuk had bad luck in long overtimes, and in the famous duel with Hasek, Brodeur had 125 minutes of shutout hockey that yielded a Loss.

W-L% by GA-games (playoffs)

	Brodeur		Hall		Sawchuk		Win %
GA Game	W	L	W	L	W	L	Brodeur	Hall	Sawchuk
0 GA	24	0	6	0	13	0	1.000	1.000	1.000
1 GA	45	7	19	1	25	2	0.865	0.950	0.926
2 GA	29	22	14	11	10	4	0.569	0.560	0.714
3 GA	13	35	8	17	3	10	0.271	0.320	0.231
4 GA	1	19	2	22	3	14	0.050	0.083	0.176
5 GA	0	6	0	9	0	11	0.000	0.000	0.000
6 GA	0	2	0	2	0	4	0.000	0.000	0.000
7 GA			0	2				0.000
8 GA			0	1	0	1		0.000	0.000
9 GA					0	1			0.000

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Brodeur's "low" playoff wins total (well low relative to 1 guy, and only "low" considering Marty has so many RS wins) seems to make sense looking at this data. The low penalties and defensively sound teams in front of him were assets, but it often came with a low-voltage offense that couldn't bail him out if things went wrong. Patrick Roy's 2-11 record in 5-GA games is better than Brodeur and Hall's records in 4-GA games., and his 7-23 record in 4-GA games is competitive with these guys' 3-GA games too.

Sawchuk seems to have overperformed against Chicago in the late stages of his and Hall's careers, eliminating Chicago in 1963, 1964, and 1967. In those years Sawchuk was 11-5 against Chicago, with 5 1-GA games and 2 shutouts. One of the 4-GA wins for Sawchuk was a 7-4 win to eliminate Hall's Hawks. Chicago was the favoured team each year, with a pair of 2nd vs 4th matchups against Detroit, and a 1st vs 3rd against Toronto.

Playoff Years by GA%-

	Goalie	Year	GSAA	GA%-
?	Sawchuk	1951
?	Sawchuk	1952
1	Brodeur	1995	15.77	68
2	Hall	1961	8.9	74
3	Brodeur	2002	2.93	75
4	Brodeur	1994	10.72	78
5	Hall	1969	1.41	78
6	Brodeur	2003	9.66	81
7	Brodeur	2006	4.52	82
8	Sawchuk	1954	3.83	84
9	Brodeur	2009	3.3	84
10	Hall	1965	4.4	86
11	Brodeur	1998	1.93	86
12	Brodeur	1997	2.73	87
13	Brodeur	2000	4.87	89
14	Hall	1962	3.3	90
15	Sawchuk	1967	1.99	93
16	Sawchuk	1966	0.38	94
17	Hall	1956	0.47	98
18	Hall	1968	0.43	99
19	Hall	1970	0.25	99
20	Brodeur	2007	-1.05	104
21	Hall	1967	-0.36	105
22	Brodeur	2012	-2.54	105
23	Sawchuk	1964	-2.03	107
24	Hall	1959	-1.5	108
25	Sawchuk	1961	-1.97	112
26	Brodeur	2001	-7.56	117
27	Hall	1964	-3.42	118
28	Hall	1963	-3.78	118
29	Hall	1957	-2.7	122
30	Sawchuk	1960	-3.47	122
31	Sawchuk	1955	-4.64	122
32	Sawchuk	1963	-6.2	122
33	Brodeur	2004	-2.69	126
34	Brodeur	2008	-3.37	127
35	Brodeur	2010	-3.41	129
36	Hall	1960	-3.26	130
37	Hall	1966	-6.05	138
38	Sawchuk	1953	-6.9	149
39	Sawchuk	1968	-6.2	152
40	Sawchuk	1958	-7.02	159
41	Brodeur	1999	-8.15	169

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Brodeur has excellent runs near the top of the list. His GSAA are going to be inflated in this field by playing more rounds in some years than Hall and Sawchuk had available to them. Hall has a few, but in aggregate seems mostly average in the playoffs, including in his Smythe year. Sawchuk got shelled a lot on the bad teams, but has two good showings that are just outside the save percentage era. His 4 shutouts in 8 games in 1952 doesn't have a save percentage attached, but even if it was only 20 shots against per game, Sawchuk would have posted a gaudy .969 save percentage (and an error rate around 50?). His 1951 playoffs yielded a GAA comparable to his 1954 playoffs (8th on this list), but is also outside the shot counting era. It's a 6 game 1st round loss which includes 2 long OT losses, where he lost 3-2 in a 4th OT, and 1-0 in a 3rd OT.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'll take a crack at this, as I've been unreasonably quiet this round...responses in bold.

I have a question about each. In original first-name alphabetical order:

Clarke: Having just two 1st team, two 2nd team all star selections, ... only three top-5 in point seasons,... Never top 10 in goals... just five times top-5 in assists.... once a Selke winner... a dirty play artist known to need goon backup to finish what he started... for the life of me: what does Clarke have over ineligibles ( like Yzerman)?

This has a loaded take on it...and I don't find it particularly newsworthy. Clarke was a dirty player, but when you start drawing lines in the sand, eventually you find a way to box yourself in. How much did "dirt" affect your ranking of Eddie Shore, for instance? How much credence do you give the Lady Byng? I'm not saying it's completely irrelevant...but I draw it out to admiration...liking a player in the NFL, for instance, is almost impossible if you want a squeaky clean image...I separate the two...in all facets of my life, I demand to be entertained at all times, the players that can entertain me with their strong play are the ones that I like...if Bobby Hull tagged his wife a few times for putting the wrong type of mustard on his ham sandwich, well, I don't support that of course (I hate mustard), but I'm also not gonna try to whiteknight on Mrs. Hull's behalf 50 years later by voting Bobby last on my ballot. Similarly, Clarke grew up in a real sticky era...hockey got its reputation for roughhousing in the 70's and 80's (because no one remembers the 20's and 30's), Clarke may have been the pied piper of lead-pipe initiatives or maybe not, but he was still a demon of a player too. I'm not gonna let one leak into the other unless I felt that Clarke's scumbaggery consistently hamstrung his team.

What does he have? The pain of dragging a team to being a regular winner without a #1 d-man, possibly the only instance of a team being in the running for championships consistently without having that piece. Then doubled-down by doing it with a fringe goalie after their back-to-back Smythe winner was on the shelf just to prove his dominance defensively and in transition and as a playmaker...he without a d-man to get him the puck (Espo........), he has to cover more ground with the disc on his stick than some others...he was in much tougher spot, and relative to his competition, he did it much better. Let's stick to eligibles, Espo was a better scorer, but in an easier situation for him, in a free-wheeling offensive system with a player's coach that would let him play for three minutes at a time completely unkempt...Clarke played in a defensive structure, with short shifts and was asked to handle much of the transition offense...I get that he didn't break 140 points and all that, but he was almost setup to fail, but succeeded...wildly. Against an eligible player directly too for those that swoon over head to head stuff...and there's at least one of you...

Trottier: Do his two Stanley Cup championship contributions in Pittsburgh as a veteran role player amount to anything in this?

Anything? Sure. He came on to a team that was unsure how to win and what that meant...he helped Lemieux, in that famous pose for the picture, Lemieux and Trottier share a meaningful embrace. Trottier also didn't come in like he owned the place, which is a big deal (Messier...) - he embraced the idea that he's the third line center, there are stars bigger than you, but you're the guy that's gonna push us over the top because you've been there, you know how it works, you know the grind, you know the preparation...and he could still play a valuable role defensively and just allow Lemieux to be Lemieux...

We know what Trottier did and where he made his mark...but you look at the latter years and how he contributed in '91 and '92 and then he retired and the Pens are upset by Al Arbour's Islanders with their best team ever...boy, you wonder with Trottier as the 3C in 1993 instead of whoever it was, maybe young Martin Straka, how that might turn out...they lost the series by a goal...hard to think that the upgrade to Trottier wasn't worth that over his replacement, with his knowledge of Arbour alone...

Cyclone: 1. Does a career of 7-11 great seasons equal one of 12-16 in modern times? 2. Who compares in PPG average (to use a Crosby metric) to Cyclone in the PCHA or NHA?

I'll punt on this one. Kyle McMahon seems to be dropping the Cyclone knowledge, quite well and quite importantly...

Hall: Did you know that not only did Glenn get selected for the 1st or 2nd all-star honors a record 11 times during the star-laden O6 era, but none of those include the year he won the Conn Smythe (1968) nor the year he backstopped a Game 7 Stanley Cup Final run in which he led in wins, saves and shots against (1965)?!

One of the few times he missed games during the season...

Sakic: Should he be compared more to Nighbor and Messier or to Forsberg and Yzerman?

He's up now and Forsberg and Yzerman aren't. So you can only play the hand you're dealt. I think him and Messier make for an interesting comparison...I don't think Nighbor applies because of the fog of war...

Brodeur: He was three times a 1st team all star (over Luongo twice, Turco once), and yet how impressive are compiler stats that come with a long career on a good team?

What a loaded question...woof. I'll be fair because you already asked enough questions that were intended to take down Brodeur that you probably bumped him up to a deserving spot in the list, which is nice. Everything about Brodeur's career is impressive though...he's a lot closer to #1 goalie of all time than #7 when you look at the game itself and don't try to reverse engineer a case against him because you (royal you) heard the Devils might play the spooky, spooky "trap" and no one else on the planet could have possibly played that style at the same time to lesser results...

Bossy: How great is his goals per shot average to his sniper image?

His career shooting percentage of 21.2% would be deemed "unsustainable" by today's attempts at "advanced" statistics...in other words, Bossy is about to go downhill real quick...just you wait...

Esposito: How long can a six-time 1st in goals, seven-time top-2 in assists modern offensive talent go without induction?

Fairly long given the all-time greats that have surrounded him. There's more to the game than point finishes...and I get the offense is valuable, and Espo is going to feature prominently for me at some point. That point is not now...I also wasn't ready for Richard when he was up, wasn't ready for Ovechkin, etc. I still think we have room for multi-dimensional, dominant players...dominant on the ice, game breakers...watching Esposito, I don't get the sense that he was that compared to some guys that were available...I had him originally at 38, I'm becoming more and more convinced that that's a better spot for him than what we're about to do on Monday morning...

Makarov: How significant is 16 goals, 31 points over the 1981, 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups?

Pretty. He was good. Really good. Dare I say, really, really good. In terms of technical skills, he's way up there in this round...

Sawchuk: How does the fact that he has the same number of 1st & 2nd all star berths as Brodeur and yet more Stanley Cups with stellar numbers in victories for two franchises (1954 Detroit, 1967 Toronto) count in his favour? And how much can one ignore the accolades and respect he has garnered among knowledgeable hockey minds?

It shouldn't move the needle much unless you're looking for it to do so...it would completely ignore context, which seems to be the anti-Brodeurian way of this board...

The second question is like sending an S.O.S. while drinking a beer on your couch...

Fetisov: Is it significant that the IIHF voted Fetisov overwhelmingly for its Centennial All-star Team with 54 votes? The next closest was Gretzky with 38. Makarov is on the squad with 18 votes.

Yeah. That was the engine that made the Soviets go. He's overdue for induction in my opinion...this vote cited is probably a product of him being by far the best Euro d-man through, what, the entire 20th century, right? Thus, the more sporadic nature of Canada's d-men allows him to overshadow his peers in this venue more...but still, when you watch, it's clearly on merit...

I'm open to some serious replies.

 

[wetcoast]

Scotty Bowman, is that you?

I think Trottier would be in even more trouble this round going from memory on Scotty's list.