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

[Sentinel]

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.

Yzerman's offensive peak was higher than Trottier's and he's got longevity on him as well.

Why would anyone dismiss the his 155 season? That's like dismissing Hasek's Hart season or Sawchuk's 1952 playoffs.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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

Bowman had the final say about how he wanted to use his exceptional wealth of talent at defense... it was no reflection on Robinson's ability at quarterbacking the power play. All those Stanley Cups means that Bowman certainly wasn't incorrect.

And again, q-backing the power-play is hardly the factor that should be used to support any of the greatest defensemen of all-time. It's a side dish.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

In 2000-01 Sakic played on a loaded squad. Yzerman was a lone star on a squad of nobodies.

 

[The Macho King]

Yzerman's offensive peak was higher than Trottier's and he's got longevity on him as well.

Why would anyone dismiss the his 155 season? That's like dismissing Hasek's Hart season or Sawchuk's 1952 playoffs.

Who dismissed it? But it's one season.

Yzerman's offensive peak isn't that impressive. There is 155, 137, and then a few good-not-great seasons. And during those seasons he was *not* a two-way player. That came later.

That's the interesting thing. Yzerman brought Trottier's defense at the end of his career, but not his offense, and he brought Trottier's offense, but not his defense, at the beginning.

I value the guy that brought great offense and great defense at the same time. Trottier's peak is better, because it encompasses both offense and defense. Trottier's prime is about 10-12 seasons long, with a peak period of about 6 seasons.

 

[overpass]

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.

Right, in 1985-86 Montreal had the third best power play and Robinson was right behind Bourque and MacInnis in PP scoring. And in 1979-80, Robinson led all defencemen in PP scoring and Montreal had the league’s best power play. So Robinson certainly demonstrated the PP ability at times. And Montreal had the most PP success when Robinson had a big role — they had better PP numbers 79-80 and 85-86 than any of the seasons in between.

Most seasons, however, Robinson had fewer than 20 power play points and as a result did not finish high in Norris voting.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Yzerman's offensive peak was higher than Trottier's and he's got longevity on him as well.

Why would anyone dismiss the his 155 season? That's like dismissing Hasek's Hart season or Sawchuk's 1952 playoffs.

Nobody is dismissing his 89 season. Just stating that league scoring was through the roof then compared to other players up for vote. So scoring totals are simply not the same true value year to year.

As always, context is needed.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Neat little factoid.

In 20 seasons, Larry Robinson was never once a minus player.

Since plus/minus was recorded I wonder if anyone else can say that? I mean over the course of a career lasting more than say like 12 years.

 

[sr edler]

Since plus/minus was recorded I wonder if anyone else can say that?

Scott Stevens. Lidström except his last Norris year.

In WSH Stevens had two years where he was +1 and one year when he was 0, so it was (very) close a couple of times.

 

[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 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."

One thing about Robinson that needs to be put into the context of the day was that he was also a nuclear deterrent.

For those of us who remember, the 1970's was a circus of violence. It was like "Escape from New York", and Robinson was a tall Snake Plissken. The Habs swept the two-time Cup champ Flyers because with Robinson, they proved that they could beat the Flyers in the alley as well as on the ice. Meanwhile, the Boston Bruins may have had the best collection of fighters in the league, but they didn't have Robinson. He automatically meant that absolutely no team in the NHL could intimidate the Habs.

Yeah, Montreal had Bouchard, Risbrough, Trembley and Lapointe - all players who could fight. But it was Robinson who was the great equalizer against teams that brought Schultz, Kelly, Dupont, Saleski, Wensink, Jonathan and O'Reilly.

Would Montreal have won those Stanley Cups while facing the bullies employed by Philly and Boston if they could have been intimidated. Maybe once. Possibly twice. Not four times. Of all the players who made them "brave", Robinson was the number one guy.

If that was all that Robinson could do, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But you put that in with everything he did at even strength, and the great numbers he put up with limited power play time, and you can see that he was excellent at some things that some of the defensemen picked before him (Lidstrom, Fetisov, Kelly) were not. They didn't have to be because of the eras they played in. Robinson was called upon to play that way. It's very liberating when your toughest player is also one of your best players.

 

[Captain Bowie]

In 2000-01 Sakic played on a loaded squad. Yzerman was a lone star on a squad of nobodies.

Did he though? Sure, Forsberg and a 40 year-old Bourque. And Roy in net, but not sure how they would inflate Sakic's scoring. Hejduk, Tanguay and Drury were certainly good players. It was a great team because it had solid players top to better, and a few all-time great, one of which was Sakic. But he was easily the prime driver of offence on his line.

Stevie had Adam Oates on the Wings in '89. Gerard Gallant and Paul McLean were not nobodies, at least for about 4 or 5 years each. They were terrible because they had nobodies on defence and in net.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

Just to be clear I'm not advocating for Lindsay (he's likely to be in my bottom three this round - I barely had him in my top 40 in my initial list) but a couple of points:

1. During those three years (1948 to 1950), he was 2nd in the league in goals and GPG to Richard, 2nd in assists and APG to Bentley, and 1st in points and PPG. Not a bad three year stretch, all before Howe hit his peak. Ten of the league's top twelve scorers were Hall of Famers - D. Bentley, Conacher, Abel, Richard, Howe, Lach, M. Bentley, Kennedy and O'Connor. Solid (though not overwhelming) competition for leading the league in scoring. O'Connor may have been a one-hit-wonder, but this period had his big season.

2. To muddy the waters further - I suggested that Lindsay's huge drop-off from 1957 to 1958 was evidence that he relied on Howe. A more charitable interpretation (to Lindsay) was that both those seasons were outliers for whatever reason (he was better than expected in 1957, and worse than expected in 1958). Other than that, he was nice and consistent in Detroit in 1955 and 1956, and then even in Chicago in 1959 (steady between 0.75 and 0.83 PPG).

Since Howe was so freakishly consistent/healthy, it would be tough to do a "with and without" type of analysis. Howe missed six games each in 1955 and 1958 and, although seeing how Lindsay did in those games may be interesting, the sample size is probably too small to be meaningful.

Again, looking at newspaper articles from the 1950s might shed some light on this. No guarantees, but I'll see what I can find.

 

[MXD]

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.

2. To muddy the waters further - I suggested that Lindsay's huge drop-off from 1957 to 1958 was evidence that he relied on Howe. A more charitable interpretation (to Lindsay) was that both those seasons were outliers for whatever reason (he was better than expected in 1957, and worse than expected in 1958). Other than that, he was nice and consistent in Detroit in 1955 and 1956, and then even in Chicago in 1959 (steady between 0.75 and 0.83 PPG).

On that 56-57 season : it doesn't look that amazing when looking at the numbers today, but 85 points was, well, a VERY GOOD season. Only Beliveau and Howe had, at this point, more productive seasons.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'll be able to present the game summary's from Trail of the Stanley Cup for all of Cook's and Lalonde's career playoff games.

I have the old boys leading the charge for me at the start of this round. A good case has already been started for Bill Cook. I did end up having Taylor in my top 5 last round, and him and Newsy should be close a close comparison. Newsy has that Mark Messier quality. Violent in an era where it was an accepted part of the game, question is did he hurt his teams at times by crossing the line?

I am still hard-pressed to envision Sakic making my top 5. Too early for Yzerman IMO. A deep-dive comparison between Sakic and Trottier seems like it would be appropriate at this point (and sure, throw Yzerman in there if you think he belongs too). Time permitting, I'll try to come up with something if nobody else has by that point.

I subscribed to the NYTimes archives; skimming some games now, the coverage of the NYR is disappointing, but I'll keep digging.

I will try to post what I find, even if I don't expect to find as much.

Anybody got any idea which NY newspaper was covering the Rangers the best in the 30s?

 

[Captain Bowie]

One thing about Robinson that needs to be put into the context of the day was that he was also a nuclear deterrent.

For those of us who remember, the 1970's was a circus of violence. It was like "Escape from New York", and Robinson was a tall Snake Plissken. The Habs swept the two-time Cup champ Flyers because with Robinson, they proved that they could beat the Flyers in the alley as well as on the ice. Meanwhile, the Boston Bruins may have had the best collection of fighters in the league, but they didn't have Robinson. He automatically meant that absolutely no team in the NHL could intimidate the Habs.

Yeah, Montreal had Bouchard, Risbrough, Trembley and Lapointe - all players who could fight. But it was Robinson who was the great equalizer against teams that brought Schultz, Kelly, Dupont, Saleski, Wensink, Jonathan and O'Reilly.

Would Montreal have won those Stanley Cups while facing the bullies employed by Philly and Boston if they could have been intimidated. Maybe once. Possibly twice. Not four times. Of all the players who made them "brave", Robinson was the number one guy.

If that was all that Robinson could do, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But you put that in with everything he did at even strength, and the great numbers he put up with limited power play time, and you can see that he was excellent at some things that some of the defensemen picked before him (Lidstrom, Fetisov, Kelly) were not. They didn't have to be because of the eras they played in. Robinson was called upon to play that way. It's very liberating when your toughest player is also one of your best players.

Trying to put it into context for someone not around for those days. How did he compare in this regard to say Zdeno Chara? I understand it was a different league back then, but in context how would you compare the two as deterrents?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Right, in 1985-86 Montreal had the third best power play and Robinson was right behind Bourque and MacInnis in PP scoring. And in 1979-80, Robinson led all defencemen in PP scoring and Montreal had the league’s best power play. So Robinson certainly demonstrated the PP ability at times. And Montreal had the most PP success when Robinson had a big role — they had better PP numbers 79-80 and 85-86 than any of the seasons in between.

Most seasons, however, Robinson had fewer than 20 power play points and as a result did not finish high in Norris voting.

This is bizarre.I always thought Robinson's origin as a forward could be the reason he wasn't a great PPQB, but I realize now he at least shown the capacity to be one.I don't understand why Robinson wasn't used more as a PPQB, at least post-dynasty when Lapointe was declining.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Trying to put it into context for someone not around for those days. How did he compare in this regard to say Zdeno Chara? I understand it was a different league back then, but in context how would you compare the two as deterrents?

Chara has rarely needed to be a deterrent in today's day and age. However, if we play the time machine game, he would have been invaluable in the '70's. He doesn't stack up to Robinson's overall skill package, but man, he would have been invaluable to a high-skill team looking for some backbone against the goons.

Mix Chara, Duncan Keith and Brent Burns together and you might get prime Larry Robinson.

 

[BenchBrawl]

One thing about Robinson that needs to be put into the context of the day was that he was also a nuclear deterrent.

For those of us who remember, the 1970's was a circus of violence. It was like "Escape from New York", and Robinson was a tall Snake Plissken. The Habs swept the two-time Cup champ Flyers because with Robinson, they proved that they could beat the Flyers in the alley as well as on the ice. Meanwhile, the Boston Bruins may have had the best collection of fighters in the league, but they didn't have Robinson. He automatically meant that absolutely no team in the NHL could intimidate the Habs.

Yeah, Montreal had Bouchard, Risbrough, Trembley and Lapointe - all players who could fight. But it was Robinson who was the great equalizer against teams that brought Schultz, Kelly, Dupont, Saleski, Wensink, Jonathan and O'Reilly.

Would Montreal have won those Stanley Cups while facing the bullies employed by Philly and Boston if they could have been intimidated. Maybe once. Possibly twice. Not four times. Of all the players who made them "brave", Robinson was the number one guy.

If that was all that Robinson could do, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But you put that in with everything he did at even strength, and the great numbers he put up with limited power play time, and you can see that he was excellent at some things that some of the defensemen picked before him (Lidstrom, Fetisov, Kelly) were not. They didn't have to be because of the eras they played in. Robinson was called upon to play that way. It's very liberating when your toughest player is also one of your best players.

This is what I meant by Robinson being an "endboss".Extremely valuable factor IMO.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Chara has rarely needed to be a deterrent in today's day and age. However, if we play the time machine game, he would have been invaluable in the '70's. He doesn't stack up to Robinson's overall skill package, but man, he would have been invaluable to a high-skill team looking for some backbone against the goons.

Mix Chara, Duncan Keith and Brent Burns together and you might get prime Larry Robinson.

I disagree, Chara was a deterrent that didn't need to do it often.When the Bruins were at their peak, they were one of the most aggressive and intimidating teams of the last 30 years.Chara was the "endboss", even if it was Lucic and S.Thornton doing the most fighting.Everybody knew Chara was there at the end of the line, and he was on the ice for almost half the game.Every Bruins was taller and bolder because of Chara's presence.

So in a sense, Chara had that "endboss" quality that Robinson had, possibly more than any other defenseman since Robinson retired.But that doesn't make him Robinson obviously.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I disagree, Chara was a deterrent that didn't need to do it often.When the Bruins were at their peak, they were one of the most aggressive and intimidating teams of the last 30 years.Chara was the "endboss", even if it was Lucic and S.Thornton doing the most fighting.Everybody knew Chara was there at the end of the line, and he was on the ice for almost half the game.Every Bruins was taller and bolder because of Chara's presence.

So in a sense, Chara had that "endboss" quality that Robinson had, possibly more than any other defenseman since Robinson retired.But that doesn't make him Robinson obviously.

I thought I said that? Anways, I agree.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I thought I said that? Anways, I agree.

Sorry, I misread your post a bit.I shouldn't eat poutine anymore, that stuff just kills you for hours.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Sorry, I misread your post a bit.I shouldn't eat poutine anymore, that stuff just kills you for hours.

(chuckle, chortle) You're such an American.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Rafalski never was minus during his eleven years. Al Macinnis was -1 his first and last year (only three games), otherwise a 'clean record'. Bobby Clarke -1 his first year, the rest of his career was all in the positive double digit except year two that was +9. Craig Ramsay a positive player from start to finish. Mikita single digit minus at 35 and 36, otherwise clean. Bobby Hull only was minus as a 41-year old in his last NHL season (though no info as for his first two years in the NHL as well as for his first two years in the WHA).

 

[Thenameless]

I disagree, Chara was a deterrent that didn't need to do it often.When the Bruins were at their peak, they were one of the most aggressive and intimidating teams of the last 30 years.Chara was the "endboss", even if it was Lucic and S.Thornton doing the most fighting.Everybody knew Chara was there at the end of the line, and he was on the ice for almost half the game.Every Bruins was taller and bolder because of Chara's presence.

So in a sense, Chara had that "endboss" quality that Robinson had, possibly more than any other defenseman since Robinson retired.But that doesn't make him Robinson obviously.

There's a subtle but important difference in how the two (Chara and Robinson) were needed though. Chara was already on a tough team (maybe among the toughest of the time), and was a "nice to have". For example, Boston may still have bullied the Canucks in 2011 even without Chara - it was Marchand on Sedin after all. As DannyGallivan has explained in detail, Montreal absolutely needed Robinson in the 70's - needed. Sure, they had a few guys that could hold their own, but I suspect everyone on that team plays a lot smaller without Big Bird patrolling the back end. The iconic fight with Hammer Schultz meant a lot more to Montreal than just winning one fight.

 

[overpass]

This is bizarre.I always thought Robinson's origin as a forward could be the reason he wasn't a great PPQB, but I realize now he at least shown the capacity to be one.I don't understand why Robinson wasn't used more as a PPQB, at least post-dynasty when Lapointe was declining.

Robinson was the #1 defenceman on the PP from 79-80 to 85-86. But for most of those years Montreal took a democratic approach and spread the PP minutes. So Robinson was getting maybe 60% of the minutes instead of the 80-90% that stars on other teams like Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, Carlyle and Wilson were getting. Leaving more PP minutes for players like Robert Picard, Gaston Gingras, Gilbert Delorme, and Ric Nattress.

Something else to consider about Robinson in the 80s was that he was used on both sides of the ice, paired with rookies, etc. Taking the role that Serge Savard had played for him in the 70s, when Robinson got to play his natural left side with the veteran Savard babysitting on the right.

 

[wetcoast]

I think Yzerman is VASTLY underrated by some of the comments I've read. However, I still have Big Bird and Trottier ahead of him... at this point.

Yzerman could do it all as a center man. He could score, he could set up plays. And, as was proven, he could play elite defense and lead. He's penalized by having his best offensive years during the Red Wings rebuild era, which meant his big numbers were overshadowed by a lack of team success (after all, he couldn't do it all by himself).

I have Yzerman ahead of Trottier as he simply aged much better and was relevant for a significantly longer period of time.

Not sure about Robinson as he had a slower start to his career and aged very well.

I have Robinson ahead of Fetisov quite easily, would have been interesting to see them both in this round.