Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 9

[Kyle McMahon]

First off, when examining Apps' career, it is important to note that he missed all of 1943-44 and 1944-45, as well as large parts of 1942-43 and 1945-46 to serve during World War 2.

Great post on Apps, but one minor correction. Apps broke his leg crashing into the goal post in late January of 1943. He joined the military after his recovery, but his reason for missing the rest of 1942-43 was a season-ending injury.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Great post on Apps, but one minor correction. Apps broke his leg crashing into the goal post in late January of 1943. He joined the military after his recovery, but his reason for missing the rest of 1942-43 was a season-ending injury.

Nice work Kyle.

 

[MXD]

Apps was the face of a franchise.

I reckon that the above is one of the things that could explain a player being better than the other.

However, Apps' Hart support seems to be directly tied to this, and frankly, had he been put in Malkin's situation, he wouldn't have been the face his team either.

I guess the clearest point of differentiation is that Apps was the Alpha Dog of his team, and Geno (for all his merits) wasn't/isn't. I think Boucher is a more plausible comparable to Malkin than Apps.

So- guess I can add Apps to my "all-Charles" team (along with Gardiner, Conacher, etc.)...

In keeping with my policy of giving credit to major-league performances, even if not physically in the Bigs; is there any reason to believe that Apps would have been anything other than an (at least) good NHLer if he'd had the opportunity to enter the league at age 21?

(see above, + ...)

Good point. Apps didn't enter the NHL particularily late (like the similar-aged Bill Durnan), but he really hit the ground running. I don't have a shortlist of rookie seasons, but his Calder season would be the best (for a skater) until... ehmmmm.... Trottier, maybe?

(This doesn't do much vs. Malkin for this comparison, since the same situation would apply to Malkin to a certain extent, but I'm aware it's not the point you're making)

Apps had more seasons as a high end player. If you picked out their top 9 seasons to form a Frankenstein player, Frankenstein would be 6 parts Apps, 3 parts Malkin.

- Apps missed 20% or more of his team games for four of his ten seasons (I'm totally aware that Malkin missed quite a bit of games, too).

- No, Syl Apps didn't have six seasons better than Malkin's 2017-18. I don't care if he finished 2nd in Hart voting, as his support obviously rested on his valuableness to his team than on excellence per se. Also, Malkin's three best seasons seem, at glance, better than ANY Apps season, and it's not like Malkin had a spike or anything : he just had three VERY good seasons when aged 21, 22 and 25.

- Also, we should probably have some regard to the era both players played. That is obviously not a "old-time hockey sucks" argument... but we have to recognize that Apps' didn't exactly occur during hockey's golden age (no fault of his own).

-

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sounds like you are saying Malkin isn't as good because Crosby was on his team.

The thing is that Apps was probably the best player in the world in the half decade or so leading up to WW2. Not every year of course, but over the course of the 5 seasons, regular season and playoffs combined.

The counterargument of course is that it wasn't the strongest era.

Edit: To add, I think a big reason Apps got so much Hart love was his importance to the Leafs' transition game, as the team no longer had a top notch transition defenseman after Clancy retired.

Transition skating game seemed to be very important to Hart voters at the time (it was a big part of Shore, Morenz, and Clancy's games), as this was the era (1930-1944) when players could pass the puck forward within any of the 3 zones, but couldn't pass it forward between zones.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Where I'm at now:

I went into this round with Chelios and Kharlamov at the top of my list and I haven't seen anything to make me change that opinion.

Clancy and Dryden are pretty likely to be in my top 5.

I can't decide between the 3 centers this round. Apps wins for short prime and offense. Richard for longevity as a top player and two-way game. Boucher somewhere in between. All 3 were outstanding in the playoffs (Richard with a more defensive tilt than the other 2 in the postseason).

I do prefer Apps to Conacher among short/high prime players.

I'm still not totally sold on Tretiak quite yet. I feel he was somewhat a big fish in a small pond in a USSR thst didn't really produce any other high quality goaltenders. Internationally, his late career peak in the early 1980s was quite strong, but he was too up-and-down in the 1970s for my liking at this stage.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Here are the questions I had on each player coming in that I am still unsure about:

Chelios - I'm having a hard time gauging his offensive abilities. Put up good looking numbers for a few seasons, but on closer look they seem to be especially fruitful seasons for defencemen, so in context they might not be as impressive. Here is how his 3 70+ point seasons finished: 4th in 88/89, 4th in 95/96, 9th in 92/93. Probably top 5, and a candidate for top spot but not convinced yet.

Park - I feel like my biggest question mark keeps coming back to simply how he compares to Chelios. They feel close, but what is the major thing that sets one apart from the either?

Coffey - I have a good grasp on him I think, it's just slotting him in within the group is the tough part.

Clancy - Seems to be someone I badly misjudged on my initial list, had him embarassingly low. Certainly did pretty well in Hart voting, which was common for D-men then. Need to hear more about him though, could land anywhere at this point.

Pilote - His Norris record is very strong. Dominating his peers in scoring over his prime. But how flawed was his game?

Apps - Such a short career, only lost 2 years to the war. Very good peak stastistically, but how weak were those years overall?

Conacher - Is it too early for him in the top 5? He looks to stack up favourably, but didn't add a lot outside of his best 6 or so years.

Boucher - The player this round I feel I have the least understanding of. Why was he such a lock to win the Lady Byng year in and year out?

Richard - Feels a couple rounds too early for him, but I'm not sure. He fared the worst of all forwards over his prime, but it was a very strong era for forwards. He is being lauded as a strong 2-way player, but to what level are we talking? One step behind Clarke/Nighbor? 2, 3 steps behind? Could be last this round

Dryden/Kharlamov/Tretiak I am fairly confident on. All 3 will be near the bottom. To me there needs to be a fairly big gap between Sawchuk and the next goalie.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here are the questions I had on each player coming in that I am still unsure about:

Park - I feel like my biggest question mark keeps coming back to simply how he compares to Chelios. They feel close, but what is the major thing that sets one apart from the either?

Number of elite seasons/ performance after the age of 30 or so...

Pilote - His Norris record is very strong. Dominating his peers in scoring over his prime. But how flawed was his game?

Well, his even strength GF/GA numbers are excellent. His penalty killing is going to be among the weakest of any defenseman in our top 100.

Apps - Such a short career, only lost 2 years to the war. Very good peak stastistically, but how weak were those years overall?[/B]

2.5 years. He missed a good portion of 45-46 because of the war too. And of course missing half a season means missing any chance at a top 10 or whatever finish. (Thanks, Kyle for correcting me on why Apps missed half of 42-43).

Conacher - Is it too early for him in the top 5? He looks to stack up favourably, but didn't add a lot outside of his best 6 or so years.

Whats the case for Conacher over Apps anyway? And Apps isn't exactly a lock at this point.

Richard - Feels a couple rounds too early for him, but I'm not sure. He fared the worst of all forwards over his prime, but it was a very strong era for forwards. He is being lauded as a strong 2-way player, but to what level are we talking? One step behind Clarke/Nighbor? 2, 3 steps behind?

I would have him just a single step behind them defensively. Henri was a key player in shutting down Bobby Hull, Phil Esposito, and Bobby Clarke in various playoffs.

 

[MXD]

Whats the case for Conacher over Apps anyway? And Apps isn't exactly a lock at this point.

I'd say that Apps has a case because of that whole "best player in the world" thing, but was he that much better than Schmidt?, was being better than Schmidt a big thing, and suffers of a general case of Sidneycrosbytis circa 2014, meaning that every damn argument for him comes with "PPG" somewhere.

 

[VanIslander]

Apps' Hart votes are in part the respect he had as a MAN. There are so many accolades to his character. He's been called the model of a man.

His goal scoring is underwhelming.
His passing is underwhelming.
His defensive play is underwhelming.
His playoff success is underwheming (compared to others uninducted yet, even his Leaf teammate Kennedy).

The darling of Toronto has no clothes.
(Or, at least are skimpy ones at this point, smelling of smoke more than burnt by fire.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd say that Apps has a case because of that whole "best player in the world" thing, but was he that much better than Schmidt?, was being better than Schmidt a big thing, and suffers of a general case of Sidneycrosbytis circa 2014, meaning that every damn argument for him comes with "PPG" somewhere.

Yes, the case for Apps is somewhat based on PPG, but it was a consistently high PPG, ever season of his career. And yes, that is a Crosby-esque case.

I'm copying these comparisons from the centers project:

Top 20 points Apps: 2, 2, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 12, 16
Top 20 points Schmidt: 1, 4, 4, 10, 10, 18

Top 20 PPG Apps: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 8
Top 20 PPG Schmidt: 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12

Hart finishes by season

Apps (1939-1948): 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, war, war, (war), NA, 5
Schmidt (1940-1954): 4, NA, (war), war, war, war, NA, 2, 8(inj?), (inj?), 5, 1, 4, NA, 6

In the years leading up to the war, Apps was way ahead of Schmidt. Schmidt did more after the war.

Apps' Hart votes are in part the respect he had as a MAN. There are so many accolades to his character. He's been called the model of a man.

His goal scoring is underwhelming.
His passing is underwhelming.
His defensive play is underwhelming.
His playoff success is underwheming (compared to others uninducted yet, even his Leaf teammate Kennedy).

The darling of Toronto has no clothes.
(Or, at least are skimpy ones at this point, smelling of smoke more than burnt by fire.)

Apps was a fairly balanced scorer, so he ranked higher in "points" (3 times Art Ross runner-up) than in "goals" or "assists separately.

And I would really like to see a source for what appears to be the claim that off-ice factors affected Hart voting when Apps was in his prime.

 

[sr edler]

Why was he such a lock to win the Lady Byng year in and year out?

What if Evelyn Byng just thought he was handsome and possessed/carried an almost Hollywood-ish movie star gentlemanly aura on and around the ice? Frank Nighbor had become a shell of his former playing self (at least offensively speaking) when Boucher began to rack up his Byngs, but it was still in the very early phase of the award/trophy and I suspect Evelyn still had a pretty strong say in which direction the award should be handed out (having presented it in person to Nighbor in its inaugural year).

I don't want to sound too much of conspiracy theorist here, but take a close look at the physical and facial make up of the only player who succeeded in breaking Boucher's Great Wall of China of Lady Byng Memorial Trophies between 1928 and 1935, namely "Gentleman Joe" Primeau.

They're almost eerily identical. Both left-handed shots, gentlemanly playmaking French-Canadian center forwards, centering a high (goal) scoring rough and tumble Anglo-Canadian right winger (Bill Cook/Charlie Conacher), both with a low amount of PIMs of course, and average height/weight (5'10/5'9 | 175/160).

And, as for the facial similarities: same type of slightly curly brown hair, and the same type of generous hair line. The mellow/dreamy brown eyes. The straight nose. The pointy ears. Even the exact same type of chin and vacant mouth.

If you allow your imagination to run free for a couple of moments, I don't think it's totally out of question to raise the possibility of a case of mistaken identity when it comes to the 1931–32 Lady Byng Memorial Trophy. In this scenario Evelyn just forgot Boucher's name and went by physical description instead while informing the league authorities of her preferred choice for the prize.

 

[VanIslander]

Top 20 points Apps: 2, 2, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 12, 16
Top 20 points Schmidt: 1, 4, 4, 10, 10, 18

In a 6-team (or 7-team) league,... most of that is laughably insignificant AT THIS STAGE of induction.

Three GREAT years each. Not exceptional, but three all-time noteworthy seasons.

Both of them are stunningly miscast if you think them top-50 all-time greats.

(Please minimize ppg at this still early stage of induction... in honor of those who had many great seasons but aren't up for induction consideration yet.)

 

[VanIslander]

Syl Apps is not the greatest player the Leafs ever had and I will not vote for his induction until at least three other Leafs are inducted.

Like it or not.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Nice, straight-shooting post.

Where I'm at now:

I went into this round with Chelios and Kharlamov at the top of my list and I haven't seen anything to make me change that opinion.

They're podium guys for me, too.

I do prefer Apps to Conacher among short/high prime players.

I came to the other conclusion, but based on your conviction, I'll check my work on that one more time.

I'm still not totally sold on Tretiak quite yet. I feel he was somewhat a big fish in a small pond in a USSR thst didn't really produce any other high quality goaltenders. Internationally, his late career peak in the early 1980s was quite strong, but he was too up-and-down in the 1970s for my liking at this stage.

Tretiak: too up-and-down? You know we just advanced Sawchuk, right? The guy whose face is most likely to be found in our glossary next to the entry 'up-and-down?' Tretiak had some off-games. Every Goaltender does. Sawchuk had off series- entire sub-par seasons, really. In the end, his high highs more than offset his low lows. And although Tretiak didn't hit Hot Peak level (quite!) as high as Sawchuk [although his highs could be pretty high, too(!)], his lows were nowhere near as low, either.

To me, there's less distance between Sawchuk and the Tretiak/Dryden tier than there is between the Tretiak/Dryden tier and the next Goaltender on deck for discussion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The thing is that Apps was probably the best player in the world in the half decade or so leading up to WW2. Not every year of course, but over the course of the 5 seasons, regular season and playoffs combined.

The counterargument of course is that it wasn't the strongest era.

Edit: To add, I think a big reason Apps got so much Hart love was his importance to the Leafs' transition game, as the team no longer had a top notch transition defenseman after Clancy retired.

Transition skating game seemed to be very important to Hart voters at the time (it was a big part of Shore, Morenz, and Clancy's games), as this was the era (1930-1944) when players could pass the puck forward within any of the 3 zones, but couldn't pass it forward between zones.

Actually would love to see the distribution by NHL award voting by city. This would answer a number of points raised.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Now Leaving on Tracks 31-33
Background concerning our early departures:

Charlie Conacher, Age 31:

Injuries caught up with the rugged forward towards the end of the 1930s, so the Leafs traded him to Detroit, where he played one season. Conacher finished his career with the New York Americans for one* season (*ed. note- it was actually two seasons) after that. (Joe Pelletier)

Ken Dryden, Age 31:

In Dryden's book, "The Game", he made it clear he was losing his edge because of boredom. Hockey as a job had stopped challenging him. He was becoming more excited about the Law. Money wasn't really a big issue with him at that point.

Vladislav Tretiak, Age 32:

Though he was only 32 in 1984 and still capable of playing top-level hockey for many more years, Tretiak retired. It is said that he wanted to spend more time with his family and asked Tikhonov for a training regime, in which he could live at home and come to the training camp before games. Since the rest of the team spent most of their time away from home in the training camp, Tikhonov refused. This move by Tikhonov contributed to Tretiak's decision to retire. (Wikipedia)

Syl Apps, Age 33:

Syl had had enough, and chose to serve in other ways. Although only 33 years of age and having finished seventh in league scoring, including a hat-trick in his final regular season game, Apps decided to move on in his life. Both Conn Smythe and Hap Day attempted to change their captain's decision but he was resolute. He took a Marketing position with Simpson's department store. (HHoF.com-Spotlight)

Valeri Kharlamov, Age 33:

Was killed in a car accident at the outskirts of Moscow on the Leningrad highway. His wife Irina was at the wheel when their car skidded on a slippery road and veered into the path of an oncoming truck. Her brother was in the back seat. All three died.

 

[wetcoast]

I reckon that the above is one of the things that could explain a player being better than the other.

However, Apps' Hart support seems to be directly tied to this, and frankly, had he been put in Malkin's situation, he wouldn't have been the face his team either.



(see above, + ...)

Good point. Apps didn't enter the NHL particularily late (like the similar-aged Bill Durnan), but he really hit the ground running. I don't have a shortlist of rookie seasons, but his Calder season would be the best (for a skater) until... ehmmmm.... Trottier, maybe?

(This doesn't do much vs. Malkin for this comparison, since the same situation would apply to Malkin to a certain extent, but I'm aware it's not the point you're making)



- Apps missed 20% or more of his team games for four of his ten seasons (I'm totally aware that Malkin missed quite a bit of games, too).

- No, Syl Apps didn't have six seasons better than Malkin's 2017-18. I don't care if he finished 2nd in Hart voting, as his support obviously rested on his valuableness to his team than on excellence per se. Also, Malkin's three best seasons seem, at glance, better than ANY Apps season, and it's not like Malkin had a spike or anything : he just had three VERY good seasons when aged 21, 22 and 25.

- Also, we should probably have some regard to the era both players played. That is obviously not a "old-time hockey sucks" argument... but we have to recognize that Apps' didn't exactly occur during hockey's golden age (no fault of his own).

-

I wasn't going to bring Gino up but agree with this post and will add that Malkin's playoff resume would rank very well this round as well.

 

[MXD]

I wasn't going to bring Gino up but agree with this post and will add that Malkin's playoff resume would rank very well this round as well.

I'm doing that to help myself situate Apps in this (and I'm just seeing lots of parallels with Malkin).

Also underlining the fact that Apps and Malkin's longevity is quite similar at this juncture (and that's probably generous to Apps).

 

[wetcoast]

Syl Apps is not the greatest player the Leafs ever had and I will not vote for his induction until at least three other Leafs are inducted.

Like it or not.

I'm not a fan of this line of thinking.

If you think others this round are better then that's fine but he is up against players in this round, not players before it or players that might come up.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Here are the questions I had on each player coming in that I am still unsure about:

Chelios - I'm having a hard time gauging his offensive abilities. Put up good looking numbers for a few seasons, but on closer look they seem to be especially fruitful seasons for defencemen, so in context they might not be as impressive. Here is how his 3 70+ point seasons finished: 4th in 88/89, 4th in 95/96, 9th in 92/93. Probably top 5, and a candidate for top spot but not convinced yet.

Park - I feel like my biggest question mark keeps coming back to simply how he compares to Chelios. They feel close, but what is the major thing that sets one apart from the either?

Coffey - I have a good grasp on him I think, it's just slotting him in within the group is the tough part.

Clancy - Seems to be someone I badly misjudged on my initial list, had him embarassingly low. Certainly did pretty well in Hart voting, which was common for D-men then. Need to hear more about him though, could land anywhere at this point.

Pilote - His Norris record is very strong. Dominating his peers in scoring over his prime. But how flawed was his game?

Apps - Such a short career, only lost 2 years to the war. Very good peak stastistically, but how weak were those years overall?

Conacher - Is it too early for him in the top 5? He looks to stack up favourably, but didn't add a lot outside of his best 6 or so years.

Boucher - The player this round I feel I have the least understanding of. Why was he such a lock to win the Lady Byng year in and year out?

Richard - Feels a couple rounds too early for him, but I'm not sure. He fared the worst of all forwards over his prime, but it was a very strong era for forwards. He is being lauded as a strong 2-way player, but to what level are we talking? One step behind Clarke/Nighbor? 2, 3 steps behind? Could be last this round

Dryden/Kharlamov/Tretiak I am fairly confident on. All 3 will be near the bottom. To me there needs to be a fairly big gap between Sawchuk and the next goalie.

Your bottom 3 are my top 3 at the moment.

 

[MXD]

I'm not a fan of this line of thinking.

If you think others this round are better then that's fine but he is up against players in this round, not players before it or players that might come up.

I can't exactly speak for VanIslander, but Clancy and Conacher are two really, really low hanging fruits.

 

[wetcoast]

I can't exactly speak for VanIslander, but Clancy and Conacher are two really, really low hanging fruits.

I think Clancy might be depends on how one compares him to the other 3 Dmen.

It's a bit early for Conacher who has a peak but basically nothing else.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Fun fact: King Clancy out-PiMmed Charlie Conacher during their joint tenure in Toronto- 377 to 346.

Did quick review to see if this trend continued in their collective Playoffs. Yes- it did...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Fun fact: King Clancy out-PiMmed Charlie Conacher during their joint tenure in Toronto- 377 to 346.

Did quick review to see if this trend continued in their collective Playoffs. Yes- it did...

Yeah, Clancy's PIM's sneak up on you. He was a tiny guy but played like a Ted Lindsay IMO.

Still, I like Clancy a lot this go. I like his Hart record. I like his AS record despite it not being a thing until he was 27 (which omits his entire tenure in Ottawa). By my count he led all defensemen in scoring 4 times and was runner up twice while being a really good player in his own end by most accounts. Just an overall strong 2 way player who played much bigger than his size. A poor/small man's Eddie Shore in a lot of ways.

Chelios is a lock. Clancy will be in my top 3-4. Dryden top 5. The real question is do I slot both Soviets in this go? They might be #4 and 5 and go as a pair, sort of like Fetisov and Makarov did earlier.

Coffey is bottom 3. Didn't play D and benefited more than any other Dman in history playing on multiple dynasties with Gretzky, Mario, and Yzerman (among others). Enough said.

Park is near the bottom as well. I was already a bit lower on him than most anyway, and more discussion doesn't seem to really lift his case.

The C's are all jammed up once again. I don't see one guy that really stands out. I honestly don't think any of them make it this round.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah, Clancy's PIM's sneak up on you. He was a tiny guy but played like a Ted Lindsay IMO.

Still, I like Clancy a lot this go. I like his Hart record. I like his AS record despite it not being a thing until he was 27 (which omits his entire tenure in Ottawa). By my count he led all defensemen in scoring 4 times and was runner up twice while being a really good player in his own end by most accounts. Just an overall strong 2 way player who played much bigger than his size. A poor/small man's Eddie Shore in a lot of ways.

Chelios is a lock. Clancy will be in my top 3-4. Dryden top 5. The real question is do I slot both Soviets in this go? They might be #4 and 5 and go as a pair, sort of like Fetisov and Makarov did earlier.

Coffey is bottom 3. Didn't play D and benefited more than any other Dman in history playing on multiple dynasties with Gretzky, Mario, and Yzerman (among others). Enough said.

Park is near the bottom as well. I was already a bit lower on him than most anyway, and more discussion doesn't seem to really lift his case.

The C's are all jammed up once again. I don't see one guy that really stands out. I honestly don't think any of them make it this round.

Can't see how Chelios can be a lock and Park near the bottom.

Seems Chelios has the edge in longevity (though Park played 17 years) and Cups. Park was the better offensive player. Defensively too close to call.

Through 15 seasons, Park was +411. Then he went to Detroit. Ended at +363.
Through 15 seasons, Chelios was +199. Then he went to Detroit. Ended at +351.