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

[DannyGallivan]

'll tell you one thing Robinson didn't do - QB the PP at an elite level. His PP numbers are more like Chris Chelios than they are like any of the defensemen who have been added so far. I realize that he was stuck behind Guy Lapointe on the Montreal PP while the Big 4 were together, but still, at no point in his career, did Robinson show he was an elite PP player.

Simply put...so? That's like saying Rambo was elite with the knife, bow, bazooka and firearm, but didn't really use the grenade that much. Still the best of the Big Three in Montreal.

Quarterbacking the power play is relatively stress free from an offensive point of view. I've seen arguments docking guys for scoring too many power play points as opposed to even strength points.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm not sure Lindsay should be below Sawchuk. Lindsay actually has some noteworthy accomplishments (including his Art Ross) before Detroit was a superteam.

There comes a point where Sawchuk needs to stop being "NR'd". His name became available for a reason. He was considered the best goalie of all time by those who also saw his contemporaries like Plante and Hall. I'm not saying that he should have been in already, but it's not crazy to think that he could sneak in ahead of Terrible Ted.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Simply put...so? That's like saying Rambo was elite with the knife, bow, bazooka and firearm, but didn't really use the grenade that much. Still the best of the Big Three in Montreal.

Quarterbacking the power play is relatively stress free from an offensive point of view. I've seen arguments docking guys for scoring too many power play points as opposed to even strength points.

You compared Robinson to Potvin earlier... I actually do think Robinson was probably similar to Potvin in terms of a player at even strength and shorthanded, but Potvin was much, much better on the powerplay. And it matters at least somewhat - Robinson is the first defenseman to appear as a candidate who was not a top notch PP QB. Or to put it another way - Robinson is the first defenseman to appear as a candidate who was not "excellent at everything."

 

[DannyGallivan]

You compared Robinson to Potvin earlier... I actually do think Robinson was probably similar to Potvin in terms of a player at even strength and shorthanded, but Potvin was much, much better on the powerplay. And it matters at least somewhat - Robinson is the first defenseman to appear on this list who was not a top notch PP QB.

If that's true, then maybe that's a plus for him... still collected his many accolades despite not having to lean on the power play to pad his stats.

...and Potvin has already been chosen, so if q-backing the power play is considered terribly important, he has already been recognized for it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If that's true, then maybe that's a plus for him... still collected his many accolades despite not having to lean on the power play to pad his stats.

...and Potvin has already been chosen, so if q-backing the power play is considered terribly important, he has already been recognized for it.

I just find those accolades to be closer to Chris Chelios and Brad Park than to Denis Potvin or Slava Fetisov.

Maybe I'm underrating what Robinson did in the playoffs... maybe.

 

[MXD]

There comes a point where Sawchuk needs to stop being "NR'd". His name became available for a reason. He was considered the best goalie of all time by those who also saw his contemporaries like Plante and Hall. I'm not saying that he should have been in already, but it's not crazy to think that he could sneak in ahead of Terrible Ted.

That seems to be a good reason to not really bother about people coming up to these conclusions, because there's no evidence those people saw (or considered) Vezina, Benedict and Gardiner in this process.

In that case, well, yeah. Sawchuk is the best netminder of all-time by 1957. Probably. But unless I'm shown convincing evidence that the three players I named above were even considered by observers who came up with such jugements, I'll be giving absolutely no lucks about them.

I mean... Someone will claim sooner or later in 2022 after a fourth straight 40 goals season (and exactly 4 playoffs games past first round) that Auston Matthews is the best Leafs Center of all-time.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Brodeur (best goalie left) and Sakic (best center left) are also virtual locks for me.

Survey says!

Bryan Trottier - 115
Joe Sakic - 103
Cyclone Taylor - 101

So it's (at the minimum) pretty close, per our collective judgement.

I've said before that Trottier brings a panoply of positives with him- with the only real major knock against him being productivity into his 30s. For Taylor, my thought is- we're starting to run a little low on players that were clearly the best in the sport for the better part of a decade- so he starts this round as one of my worthies.

Funny- when Kelly came up, we were riveted by the fact that he transitioned to solid 2nd-line Center after being a Norris-finalist Defenseman. In Taylor, we have a guy who's reported to have played every position except goalie, played at least two of them (maybe three) at award-worthy caliber levels... and so far, we've yawned.

So, yeah- there's a lot more to discuss before we give Sakic a process-bye onto the list.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Maybe I'm underrating what Robinson did in the playoffs... maybe.

Well, there is this...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I have cook at 103 for 7 year, and 96 for 10 year.

Lindsay's offensive results can't exactly be taken at face value...

I agree Lindsay's numbers need to be discounted somewhat since he played so much with Howe, but the question is how much.

Argument against him - his scoring plummeted in 1958, once he was traded to Chicago (punishment for trying to organize a players' union). Chicago was a bad team (lowest scoring team in the NHL) but he went from 85 points (2nd in the league) to 39 points (out of the top 30), in roughly the same number of games played.

Argument for him - he was an established star without peak Howe. In 1948, he led the league in goals and was 9th in points (Howe was on the team but not yet a superstar - he scored 44 points). He followed up with a 3rd place finish in scoring in 1949 (Howe missed a big chunk of the year), then winning the Art Ross in 1950 (Howe's first year as a star - but again Lindsay comfortably led the team in scoring).

I think it's clear that Lindsay was, at least early in his career, an elite scorer in his own right. It also seems likely that he was certainly helped by (if not carried by?) Howe later on. But we'd need to dig further to see when that changed (articles from the 1950s discussing this would be interesting to see - I'll see what I can find).

 

[MXD]

Simply put...so? That's like saying Rambo was elite with the knife, bow, bazooka and firearm, but didn't really use the grenade that much. Still the best of the Big Three in Montreal.

To be honest, TDMM answered to the question blogofmike asked. That's at least worth... something, since players of Robinson's level are probably expected to QB the PP a tad better than he did.

Great quote though.

 

[DannyGallivan]

To be honest, TDMM answered to the question blogofmike asked. That's at least worth... something, since players of Robinson's level are probably expected to QB the PP a tad better than he did.

Great quote though.

Thanks.
I think Montreal was unique in that they also had a guy like Lapointe available. You can't say that about the Islanders and Potvin, Boston and Orr or Boston and Bourque.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Maybe a little but one has to remember that in the late 80's and early 90's he was automatically going to finish 3rd or worse because of Mario and Wayne.

His AS record from 88 to 93 was 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6.

No shame in finishing behind 99 and 66. Without those 2 playing he'd look a lot better on the surface in terms of AS voting.

He also finished behind:

Denis Savard (88)
Mark Messier (90, 92)
Adam Oates (91, 93)
Joe Sakic (91)
Jeremy Roenick (92)
Pat LaFontaine (92, 93)
Doug Gilmour (93)

So it wasn't a matter of just being a victim of Wayne and Mario's dominance. This was during his offensive peak. He has 1 top 10 scoring finish outside of this span (10th in '00). That season was his lone AS selection (1st) in which he also won the Selke. He did not get significant Selke support during his offensive peak.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Funny- when Kelly came up, we were riveted by the fact that he transitioned to solid 2nd-line Center after being a Norris-finalist Defenseman. In Taylor, we have a guy who's reported to have played every position except goalie, played at least two of them (maybe three) at award-worthy caliber levels... and so far, we've yawned.

Probably comes down to era differences, no? I imagine the game had become much more structured and rigid by the 50s and 60s compared to Taylor's time, leading to more defined play styles and expectations of each position. More difficult to be effective across multiple positions as a result.

Not that I'm taking anything away from Taylor by saying that. It's a plus for him, just don't know how comparable it is to Kelly's situation.

 

[MXD]

I agree Lindsay's numbers need to be discounted somewhat since he played so much with Howe, but the question is how much.

Argument against him - his scoring plummeted in 1958, once he was traded to Chicago (punishment for trying to organize a players' union). Chicago was a bad team (lowest scoring team in the NHL) but he went from 85 points (2nd in the league) to 39 points (out of the top 30), in roughly the same number of games played.

And, just to paint a somewhat greyer picture :

Counter-argument 1 : He rebounded (a bit) in 1959.

Counter-argument 2 : He wasn't a spring chicken anymore, and Lindsay hitting a wall at some point was probably expected (I know it goes a bit against counter-argument 1). I'd also add that he was an "old" 32 years old man (that's a really weird thing to say). By then, he had more or less 11 full seasons (and a partial season in 54-55 when he missed roughy 20 games). That might not seem like a lot, but, unless I got my numbers wrong, he was #3rd in career RS games played (and 2nd in career games played) by 57-58. On top of that, he never missed the playoffs, meaning that, by 57-58, he had already played 116 playoffs games. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was, at that time, the all-time leader in playoffs games played (the one player that I suspected had more is Émile Bouchard, and he had "only" 114). And, while this doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things, but Lindsay wasn't a big man, as opposed to Emile Bouchard and Dit Clapper and even Maurice Richard (to a lesser extent), and he played a big man's game, so there are reasons to be believe he might have been somewhat legitmately damaged by then.

Counter-argument 3 : There are absolutely reasons to believe Howe contributed quite a bit to Ted Lindsay's production in 56-57. But that was a VERY productive season for Lindsay (2nd in points, leads league in assists. Even if cutting down his production by 25%, which is a totally random number that I just made up to make the calculating easier, he'd still end up with 64 points, which would put him 5th in scoring that season. .. It would still be a great season.

Counter-argument 4 : More importantly, 56-57 is only one season, what would be Lindsay's last prime season. He already had 8 full seasons of playing at elite level (prime season), one partial season (during his prime), one other when he led his team at ES scoring at 21 years old and his "formative" years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I agree Lindsay's numbers need to be discounted somewhat since he played so much with Howe, but the question is how much.

Argument against him - his scoring plummeted in 1958, once he was traded to Chicago (punishment for trying to organize a players' union). Chicago was a bad team (lowest scoring team in the NHL) but he went from 85 points (2nd in the league) to 39 points (out of the top 30), in roughly the same number of games played.

Argument for him - he was an established star without peak Howe. In 1948, he led the league in goals and was 9th in points (Howe was on the team but not yet a superstar - he scored 44 points). He followed up with a 3rd place finish in scoring in 1949 (Howe missed a big chunk of the year), then winning the Art Ross in 1950 (Howe's first year as a star - but again Lindsay comfortably led the team in scoring).

I think it's clear that Lindsay was, at least early in his career, an elite scorer in his own right. It also seems likely that he was certainly helped by (if not carried by?) Howe later on. But we'd need to dig further to see when that changed (articles from the 1950s discussing this would be interesting to see - I'll see what I can find).

Ted Lindsay depended more on the center.First Abel, than Reibel, followed by Ullman since he was a playmaking winger, twice led the NHL in assists. His bounce back year in Chicago happened when the Hawks acquired Tod Sloan to center what became the Pappyline with Lindsay and Litzenberger.

 

[wetcoast]

No.

See competition.

Exactly judging his all star finishes, say to Lindsay, isn't going to be very productive or informative.

 

[The Macho King]

I agree Lindsay's numbers need to be discounted somewhat since he played so much with Howe, but the question is how much.

Argument against him - his scoring plummeted in 1958, once he was traded to Chicago (punishment for trying to organize a players' union). Chicago was a bad team (lowest scoring team in the NHL) but he went from 85 points (2nd in the league) to 39 points (out of the top 30), in roughly the same number of games played.

Argument for him - he was an established star without peak Howe. In 1948, he led the league in goals and was 9th in points (Howe was on the team but not yet a superstar - he scored 44 points). He followed up with a 3rd place finish in scoring in 1949 (Howe missed a big chunk of the year), then winning the Art Ross in 1950 (Howe's first year as a star - but again Lindsay comfortably led the team in scoring).

I think it's clear that Lindsay was, at least early in his career, an elite scorer in his own right. It also seems likely that he was certainly helped by (if not carried by?) Howe later on. But we'd need to dig further to see when that changed (articles from the 1950s discussing this would be interesting to see - I'll see what I can find).

My issue is...

early in his career the league sucked. Who were the top players pre-1950? Richard (who went top 10 but shouldn't have comeatmebros), Lach, Bentley?

If we dragged Espo as low as we did despite his top 5 worthy trophy case because he played with Orr, I'm ready to drag Lindsay quite a bit for a much less impressive trophy case while being dragged around by Howe.

 

[ImporterExporter]

He also finished behind:

Denis Savard (88)
Mark Messier (90, 92)
Adam Oates (91, 93)
Joe Sakic (91)
Jeremy Roenick (92)
Pat LaFontaine (92, 93)
Doug Gilmour (93)

So it wasn't a matter of just being a victim of Wayne and Mario's dominance. This was during his offensive peak. He has 1 top 10 scoring finish outside of this span (10th in '00). That season was his lone AS selection (1st) in which he also won the Selke. He did not get significant Selke support during his offensive peak.

Oh, I know that. I was just pointing out that his AS finishes would look better if you take out 2 of the big 4 who everyone was finishing behind.

And he's an inferior C to Messier and Sakic as well looking at those folks above.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thanks.
I think Montreal was unique in that they also had a guy like Lapointe available. You can't say that about the Islanders and Potvin, Boston and Orr or Boston and Bourque.

Robinson quarterbacked the 1985-86 Canadiens PP just as effectivey as Bourque QBed the Bruins.

Two points about Robinson.

Guy Lapointe handled the PP after J.C. Tremblay left for the WHA. Even then Lapointe never reached 1985-86 Robinson levels.

Post PP, Bowman preferred Savard and Robinson for defensive and overall purposes.

 

[Sentinel]

Steve Yzerman has the best offensive peak and the best defensive peak of all available players. Any doubt?

 

[MXD]

Steve Yzerman has the best offensive peak and the best defensive peak of all available players. Any doubt?

There's more than a solid doubt that he doesn't have the best offensive peak.

And nothing of this addreesses the main issue that those peaks weren't in any way simultaneous.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Steve Yzerman has the best offensive peak and the best defensive peak of all available players. Any doubt?

Peak offense?

Cyclone Taylor was better. Tough comparison, yes, because of era, but Taylor was putting up insane numbers relative to other players in his league.

Other than Y's 155 point season is he really that much better than guys like Sakic, Trots, Bossy, or Lalonde?

 

[The Macho King]

Peak offense?

Cyclone Taylor was better. Tough comparison, yes, because of era, but Taylor was putting up insane numbers relative to other players in his league.

Other than Y's 155 point season is he really that much better than guys like Sakic, Trots, Bossy, or Lalonde?

155 points in the late 80s versus 118 in the DPE is probably pretty close when "adjusted", but I don't put a *ton* of stock into that.

Yzerman is such a weird case as a player though. I can't help but feeling it's too early for him, which is tough to say because I like him a lot.

For me, Trottier is a lock this round. As is Marty. Big Bird and Cook are too. I can go around on order but I have a hard time envisioning anyone pushing those guys down.

 

[MXD]

Peak offense?

Cyclone Taylor was better. Tough comparison, yes, because of era, but Taylor was putting up insane numbers relative to other players in his league.

Other than Y's 155 point season is he really that much better than guys like Sakic, Trots, Bossy, or Lalonde?

...You really didn't went for the easier comparable, lol.

I mean, spontaneously, the players that came to mind being better offensively (peak) were Trottier and Cook. And yeah, Yzerman was better than anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux. But there was no prime Lafleur and prime Dionne in the NHL at that time either.

 

[ImporterExporter]

155 points in the late 80s versus 118 in the DPE is probably pretty close when "adjusted", but I don't put a *ton* of stock into that.

Yzerman is such a weird case as a player though. I can't help but feeling it's too early for him, which is tough to say because I like him a lot.

For me, Trottier is a lock this round. As is Marty. Big Bird and Cook are too. I can go around on order but I have a hard time envisioning anyone pushing those guys down.

Exactly. That 155 point season looks more impressive compared to some others on the surface but scoring levels were off the charts then.

The league average on goals in 88-89 was 3.74

Joe Sakic's 120 points in 95-96 is just a few points less when you adjust for league averages which was 3.14

His 2001 numbers (118 points) is essentially on par with Yzerman's 88-89. That was the middle of the DPE with scoring dipping to just 2.76 goals per game.