Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 7

[MXD]

Of all the insults you've thrown at me this project, this one I beg you to take on board and follow as advice.

...But I'm not insulting you. You're the one making this personnal. I'm calling out your posts for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. If your feelings are hurt... well... work on your posts.

Because this one :

One reason Brodeur's role on a winning franchise doesn't fly far this round:

He ain't the championship lynchpin of a Sakic, Lindsay, Trottier or Robinson.

It's an embarrassment of riches in terms of championship performers this round. Sentinel must be pleased as punch!

Is a serious headscratcher.

 

[VanIslander]

There is nothing exceptional about Brodeur's role in his team's championships RELATIVE to several others available this round.

Playoff performances is one facet of player evaluation and he has little advantage in that regard when ranking our options this round.

You may disagree but my position is not outrageous or illogical enough to ignore anything else I will ever say.

 

[MXD]

There is nothing exceptional about Brodeur's role in his team's championships RELATIVE to several others available this round.

Playoff performances is one facet of player evaluation and he has little advantage in that regard when ranking our options this round.

You may disagree but my position is not outrageous or illogical enough to ignore anything else I will ever say.

That's called doubling down on a terrible take.

 

[ted2019]

What's the problem with having these three specific players last?

Because he's a Detroit fan. It's just like when the person who came over for Mario/Crosby and pappline for Mikita & Hall. You noticed that those 2 posters haven't been in a thread since their players got voted in?

 

[Wrath]

Can we get some context and detail on why you believe Brodeur's role in championship (presumably playoff+Olympics) success is so diminished?

As a (casual) observer following the last few pages of this thread it seems like you basically proclaim it by fiat.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is nothing exceptional about Brodeur's role in his team's championships RELATIVE to several others available this round.

Playoff performances is one facet of player evaluation and he has little advantage in that regard when ranking our options this round.

You may disagree but my position is not outrageous or illogical enough to ignore anything else I will ever say.

I mean... I agree with you that Brodeur was #2 and not close to #1 in the playoffs specifically, in the specific time period when his team was great. But it's a lot easier to say that when we actually watched all those games right?

 

[ted2019]

I am RIGHT there with you. I have the exact same order at the moment until Lalonde, I have him right below the Trottier/Bossy/Sawchuk clump. Yzerman and Lindsay flipped as well.

I feel that Yzerman had tougher competition in the post season AS voting then Lindsay did. That was my main reason to put Yzerman ahead of Lindsay.

 

[ted2019]

I mean... I agree with you that Brodeur was #2 and not close to #1 in the playoffs specifically, in the specific time period when his team was great. But it's a lot easier to say that when we actually watched all those games right?

Who or what do you feel is #1? Is it Stevens? Is it the system?

 

[GlitchMarner]

If you want to extend peak to three consecutive seasons for Yzerman...

In '88 he finished fourth in points per game (second if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux).

In '89 he had his 155 point season and was third in points per game (first if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux).

In '90 he was fourth in points per game (second if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux).

You're looking at a three season stretch in which he ranked second, first and second in points per game without Gretzky and Lemieux. That's actually very good. Over that cumulative period ('88-'90) he was first in the NHL in points per game excluding Gretzky and Lemieux and was playing on a Red Wings team that didn't have Fedorov or Lidstrom yet.

On a per game basis this stretch may be as good as if not better than any consecutive three season stretch Mike Bossy ever had.


Sakic had a similar three season stretch offensively from '99-'01:

'99: Tied for third in points per game (min. 40 games played).

'00: Second in points per game (min. 40 games played).

'01: Third in points per game (min. 40 games played). Second in points per game among all players that played at least 40 games excluding Lemieux.

'99-'01: Third in points per game (second if you exclude Lemieux).

Sakic played on a better team from '99-'01 than Yzerman's '88-'90 Wings, however.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Who or what do you feel is #1? Is it Stevens? Is it the system?

Stevens. Again, in the playoffs, and in the specific time frame that the Devils were winning championships.

Brodeur pulls ahead (easily) on all-time lists because of what he did after 2003.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I mean... I agree with you that Brodeur was #2 and not close to #1 in the playoffs specifically, in the specific time period when his team was great. But it's a lot easier to say that when we actually watched all those games right?

At least you will answer the following, other detractors of Brodeur will not:

Scott Stevens:

Scott Stevens Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

RS with the Devils was a positive +/- player. PO, 5 times Stevens dipped into minus territory.

Martin Brodeur:

Martin Brodeur Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

PO SV% 0.919 vs RS 0.912.
GAA PO 2.02 vs RS 2.24

Brodeur was obviously the lynchpin, the #1 Devil.

Stevens' performance benefits from the "Big Hit" bias narrative. Overlooking the missed attempts that had to be covered by Brodeur.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At least you will answer the following, other detractors of Brodeur will not:

Scott Stevens:

Scott Stevens Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

RS with the Devils was a positive +/- player. PO, 5 times Stevens dipped into minus territory.

Martin Brodeur:

Martin Brodeur Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

PO SV% 0.919 vs RS 0.912.
GAA PO 2.02 vs RS 2.24

Brodeur was obviously the lynchpin, the #1 Devil.

Stevens' performance benefits from the "Big Hit" bias narrative. Overlooking the missed attempts that had to be covered by Brodeur.

I don't think I've ever been called detractor of Brodeur before.

In case you didn't see before, Brodeur is at or near the top of my list this time. But I don't think he should get all the credit for things his teammates did.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Bill Cook

WC(H)L career (ages [27]-29)

1924 (age 27): led the WCHL in goals, assists, and points. The WCHL had surpassed the PCHA by this point - the two leagues played an interlocking schedule and Cook led the combined leagues in scoring. The NHL still had about half the talent, however (maybe slightly less). Cook led his league in scoring 40-34 (by 18%), the widest margin of any of the leaders. A decent chance of being the Art Ross winner in a consolidated league.

1925 (age 28): Missed 3 games and finished 1 point behind the two players who tied for the scoring championship. 3rd in points and goals, 5th in assists.

1926 (age 29): led the WCHL (now called WHL) in points and goals by very large margins (6th in assists). The WHL was probably slightly better than the NHL at this point, and nobody was an outlier scorer in the NHL. More likely than not, the Art Ross winner in a consolidated league.

Took an interest in those three seasons, as they likely represent the apex-offensive-peak for Cook. Proceeeded to cross-reference-- among his Western League rivals, and also the NHL-leaderboards. Thought to myself "during this span, does this man have a case for 'best-in-the-sport?'" Have to say yes. Yes he does.

And another interesting thing I picked up on- it looks like that in two of those three campaigns, he lead the Western League in Assists (as a Winger) in a league that I can say with metaphysical certitude undercounted Assists. [It begs the questions: "how many assists would he have had if they had been properly counted? And how much more distance would he have put on his competitors if they were?"]

This really contrasts with the statistics that we have for his NHL Rangers years, where he was a nose-for-net guy who would be frequently there with the goals-leaders, but not so much at the top of the assists charts. I have a preliminary hypothesis- and it's favorable to Cook. I suggest adaptability. When he had aging Lalonde and (later) young brother Bun and another "brother-to-the-famous" Corbett Denneny as finishers, he could be an elite set-up man. When he had prime Frank Boucher as set-up man in New York, he could dedicate himself more fully to the coup de grâce.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Modified quote form upthread:

My preliminary list, positions 26-31:
26. Nominee
27. Nominee
28. Nominee
29. Not yet nominated
30. Nominee
31. Nominee
Three of the above are holdovers; two are new arrivals.

Nothing has changed the identity of the five- but the order isn't fully-decided yet. Might flip 1 & 2, maybe.

I've seen little about Robinson to indicate that his relative lack-of-use on the power play to be anything other than volitional allocation of ice-minutes for availability in even-strength and crunch-time situations. He also has (especially considering the environment in which he played) a significant "Chief of Police" role. I've spent a lot of keystrokes on the topic of Bill Cook- but Bill Cook might not be the complete tops among new arrivals. For a physical powerhouse, Robinson really doesn't hurt his team by going into the box so much. [Less than any other Defenseman we've talked about, except for Lidström.] (Damn- Orr had five seasons of triple-digit penalty-minutes! Had to double-check before I made the preceding claim{!})

Bill Cook is one of those gems we get to talk about from time-to-time where the more you dip into his career, the better he looks. He should be safely aboard, I think.

 

[pappyline]

Because he's a Detroit fan. It's just like when the person who came over for Mario/Crosby and pappline for Mikita & Hall. You noticed that those 2 posters haven't been in a thread since their players got voted in?

Who is this pappline you refer to? If you are going to insult me at least get the name right.

If it is me you are referring to, I made posts about Hall & Esposito in vote 5 (which was just last week), two players I know quite a lot about. Nice to know you are keeping track.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Though the counterargument to that is that Lafleur being that great for his brief peak doesn't say that much about Robinson.

Trottier did have those dogs Bossy and Potvin dragging him down.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Why is this HOH project infected with statements of how one will be voting?

In previous HOH projects, it was actively discouraged.

Groupthink adds nothing to the process.

Meh, harmless stuff. There are generally reams of posts for or against each player already. When there is new information or a new take, it also gets posted.

It's sometimes interesting to see just how different some people's viewpoints are from mine. If anything, it causes me to double-check to make sure I'm not selling someone short or have a hidden bias. At the end of the day, the exceptionally varied voting results support my claim that we all follow the beat of our own drum when it comes to selections.

 

[MXD]

Well, I clearly remember someone throwing quite a hissy fit when Jacques Plante was voted in, because it apparently came out of nowhere.

 

[ted2019]

Who is this pappline you refer to? If you are going to insult me at least get the name right.

If it is me you are referring to, I made posts about Hall & Esposito in vote 5 (which was just last week), two players I know quite a lot about. Nice to know you are keeping track.

Not an insult, it's an observation.

 

[Sentinel]

What's the problem with having these three specific players last?

Because they all share one defining characteristic. When I am being accused of bias, yet the accuser displays one of his own... well...

 

[Sentinel]

If peak refers to just one season, that would be a pretty small slice of the pie. Why should one single season carry such an amount of weight?

Because that's what "peak" is. How great the player was, when everything came together for him.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Everybody now!

Everyone *clap clap* has biases *clap clap* and the only way *clap clap* to see past them *clap clap* is to recognize your own *sing it again!*

 

[The Macho King]

I won't lie - there are certain posters I 100% discount in this process. Shame that homerism plays such a prominent role for some people.

We're all hockey fans. We all have our favorite teams. Some of us have national pride that also plays a big role in how we view the game. We all have our favorite players. We have players we hate.

But come on - when all of the discussion centers on one team/one nationality and your discussion isn't one of informing but rather solely of advocacy, it doesn't actually add value to the process.

Anyway - I had to get my vote in early because apparently my job expects me to earn my paycheck.

 

[MXD]

Because they all share one defining characteristic. When I am being accused of bias, yet the accuser displays one of his own... well...

To be honest, I have those three specific players quite low myself, and they may end up 9-10-11 (but probably won't) this round-- and I wouldn't be surprised to see them end up 9-10-11 for the whole round. If anything, that mostly involves they were available a tad too early, or really very much super too early in the case of Sawchuk. Some players have to be last, and while Yzerman probably became available at the right time as far as I'm concerned... somebody has to be at the bottom (or, well, just ahead of Terry Sawchuk for that matter).

I mean, if, say, Frank Boucher was available this round instead of Steve Yzerman, he'd also end up in the bottom group. That's nothing against Steve Yzerman, and nothing against the fact he's mostly associated with the Wings. If anything, that mostly has to do with the very good posts on Cyclone Taylor detailing how he was a bit more than some very flashy player.

But Ted Lindsay stacks up well in this group.

 

[Sentinel]

One reason Brodeur's role on a winning franchise doesn't fly far this round:

He ain't the championship lynchpin of a Sakic, Lindsay, Trottier or Robinson.

It's an embarrassment of riches in terms of championship performers this round. Sentinel must be pleased as punch!

I am pleased but also perplexed. Brodeur wasn't the lynchpin? At worst he was #2 most important player after Stevens. In the 90s-00s when someone said "Devils," you'd think "Brodeur."