Top 20 Left Wings

[Kyle McMahon]

Would Esa Tikkanen be a top-50ish LW?

Without actually listing out the top 50 LW, I'd say that yes Tikkanen would probably sneak into the 45-50 range. Playoff resume is just plain excellent, and he was considered one of the best aggitators in the league for a long time while playing a strong two-way game. Tik bounced around the league after his Edmonton days, but he always seemed to end up on a deep playoff run.

 

[seventieslord]

Honestly, I'd take Martin over Shutt.

The difference is, that Ramsay could be made ineffectual by physical play. Barber and Gainey were not handicapped. And that exploitable weakness absolutly hurts him.

That may be true. And it shows in the results. Imagine how much more he may have scored and defended compared to Gainey if he had that size and physicality? He didn't have that, but he still scored and defended better... at least according to the numbers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Difference Makers

My thoughts on Ramsay vs Gainey are not too different from seventieslord, but this strikes me as a plausible point for Gainey. The 1970s were a very unbalanced decade in team strength, with great teams and terrible teams. Was Ramsay padding his superior regular season numbers against weak teams? When the Hockey Summary Project finishes up with the 1970s I'll probably take a look, although there may not be full plus-minus data, which is a big part of Ramsay's case.

1975-76 to 1978-79 Canadiens

vs Flyers. Regular season 10W 2L 4T , playoffs 4W 0L

vs Bruins. Regular season 11W 3L 5T, playoffs 12W 5L

mainly due to the ability of a Bob Gainey to play his game on the road where intimidation was a factor at the Spectrum and Boston Garden.

Contrast the fact that the Sabres with Craig Ramsey never won a play-off series against the three most physical teams from the 1970's into the mid 1980's era - losing 3 times to the Islanders and twice each to the Bruins and Flyers

Plus/Minus comparisons. Regular season hockey is not the same as playoff hockey.Teams may be playing upwards of 7 consecutive games against each other so the wear and tear factor has to be considered. The opponents number one line during the season may have been on the ice for 1.5 GPG.If you can reduce this to 1GPG then a low minus rating is very acceptable for your checking line.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assuming..............

That may be true. And it shows in the results. Imagine how much more he may have scored and defended compared to Gainey if he had that size and physicality? He didn't have that, but he still scored and defended better... at least according to the numbers.

Assuming that he would have retained his speed,movement, agility,stamina,etc.and developed the skills and mindset to play a physical style.

 

[reckoning]

It always seemed to me that the Sabre who did the biggest disappearing act when the games got tough was actually #11. 4 points in 11 playoff games against the Flyers isn't good enough from your top guy.

 

[seventieslord]

Unfortunately there was no playoff +/- until 1984 and I don't think there has ever been raw +/- data for the playoffs, even now. So it's impossible to quantify what type of effect Ramsay had on his team's success or lack of it in the playoffs. With Gainey the proof is in the pudding.

there's no doubt in my mind that Rammer was the better player in the regular season. Was Gainey just clutch and Ramsay a choker? Well, Gainey won 5 cups and Ramsay was just a one-time finalist. Circumstances played a massive part in that, but the whole size/physicality in the playoffs issue does have merit. It can't really be proven or disproven but if it's accepted to be true it helps to explain why history remembers these two guys the way that it does.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Distinct Roles

Unfortunately there was no playoff +/- until 1984 and I don't think there has ever been raw +/- data for the playoffs, even now. So it's impossible to quantify what type of effect Ramsay had on his team's success or lack of it in the playoffs. With Gainey the proof is in the pudding.

there's no doubt in my mind that Rammer was the better player in the regular season. Was Gainey just clutch and Ramsay a choker? Well, Gainey won 5 cups and Ramsay was just a one-time finalist. Circumstances played a massive part in that, but the whole size/physicality in the playoffs issue does have merit. It can't really be proven or disproven but if it's accepted to be true it helps to explain why history remembers these two guys the way that it does.

You have to factor in the difference between second line responsibilties - Ramsay/Luce ys third or fourth line responsibilities Gainey/Jarvis during the regular season and the elevated role that the Gainey/Jarvis line played during the playoffs.

Factor in fatigue and how Scotty Bowman used the lines during the regular season, often rolling four lines and an accurate picture emerges.

 

[Laterade]

Player|Seasons|NHL "HHOF Monitor" PTS
Bobby "The Golden Jet" Hull |1957-80|4138.00
Ted "Scarface" Lindsay |1944-65|2589.00
Cy "The Cornwall Colt" Denneny |1917-29|2405.00
Frank "Big M" Mahovlich |1956-74|2138.50
Aurel "The Mighty Atom" Joliat |1922-38|1852.50
Dickie "Digging Dicker" Moore |1951-68|1701.00
Hector "Toe" Blake|1934-48|1655.00
Luc "Lucky Luc" Robitaille |1986-06|1646.00
John "Chief" Bucyk |1955-78|1595.00
Harvey "Busher" Jackson |1929-44|1436.50
Doug "Dandy Doug" Bentley |1939-54|1427.50
Alexander "Ovie" Ovechkin |2005-09|~1400.00
Paul "The Sharpshooter" Kariya |1994-09|~1380.00
David "Sweeney" Schriner|1934-46|1337.50
Markus " We Choked " Naslund |1993-09|~1280.00
Brendan "Shanny" Shanahan |1987-09|~1280.00
Roy Conacher |1938-52|1195.50
Reg "Old Sarge" Noble |1917-33|1192.85
Albert "Babe" Siebert |1925-39|1167.25
Bob "Le Capitaine" Gainey |1973-89|1084.50
Michel "Gou" Goulet |1979-94|1082.50

fixed it for ya.

 

[seventieslord]

You have to factor in the difference between second line responsibilties - Ramsay/Luce ys third or fourth line responsibilities Gainey/Jarvis during the regular season and the elevated role that the Gainey/Jarvis line played during the playoffs.

Factor in fatigue and how Scotty Bowman used the lines during the regular season, often rolling four lines and an accurate picture emerges.

Can you further elaborate on that? Second line or third line, Rammer and Gainey were always used against the other team's top line, were they not?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Top Line

Can you further elaborate on that? Second line or third line, Rammer and Gainey were always used against the other team's top line, were they not?

The Canadiens also had the Jacques Lemaire line that was very responsible defensively and the Risebrough line that would not hurt them defensively although the Risebrough line rarely played against the top line for the elite teams. So they had three options - three different defensive forward line approaches and Bowman would try to choose the best option given the circumstances.

You also overlook the elite defensemen who were part of the mix. Example the Bruins with the Ratelle line would be defensed differently if the Park pairing was on then if the the second defense pairing was on. You have to look at the d-rotations as well from both sides.


In blow-outs there was no point in matching the Jarvis/Gainey line against the borderline teams "top line" who would be playing extra minutes.Put the Lemaire line on and keep Lafleur and Shutt happy or use the situation as a teaching opportunity for the Risebrough line.

 

[FissionFire]

Jack Adams. Your assessment is very true at the NHL level after Tommy Ivan left. Jack Adams was very good at spotting who could play with Howe and Delvecchio - Gary Aldcorn, Parker MacDonald, generating attractive stats so that they could be packaged in trades for other players. Some trades Adams won some he lost.

The Red Wings after Red Kelly and Marcel Pronovost who were home grown after WWII never found or developed a worthwhile defenceman under Adams. Ivan started in Omaha and coached many of the future Red Wing stars of the late forties into the mid 1950's. After the Ivan left the best forward prospects Murray Oliver were underused in Detroit as Adams went for the quick fix getting aging players like Stasiuk, Labine, etc. This approach continued when Sid Abel assumed the GM position - Macgregor,Martin, Henderson were stiffled in Detroit. The results were the same regardless of who was pulling the strings starting in 1962-63.

That Roy Conacher was dumped for asking for more money is true. Do you pay more money to players that are not part of the future? The Howe/Lindsay/Abel had shown that it was the #1 unit going forward,Billy Taylor was fighting his demons, Roy Conacher was an aging, finesse player that given the style favoured by Toronto and Montreal was not worth a premium salary, evidenced by the fact that the Hawks never received worthwhile trade offers from other contenders of the era nor were the Rangers willing to overpay to make the initial deal work

While Detroit's scouting may have declined, don't fool yourself into thinking they were the primary reason Adams got bad returns on his trades. Don't underestimate the influence and reach of Bruce Norris on the American NHL teams at that time. The Blackhawks were essentially owned by him in proxy, and the Lindsay/Hall trade was as much about banishing Lindsay as it was about trying to build up the Blackhawks to increase the value of his investment. Norris also had tremendous influence over the Rangers, and IIRC he was majority owner of the building they played in so he pretty much had them in his pocket. Even Boston wasn't immune, although they had a lesser influence. Many of the Detroit trades in that timeframe weren't about hockey decisions. Some are well documented (Lindsay for example). Others are just things I've heard rumors about from some of things I've read and people I talked to who with first- or second-hand accounts. I've even been told that allegedly Norris would have Adams make bad deals intentionally as part of behind-the-scenes agreements to buy votes from other owners on different issues. I'm not sure if the real truth behind alot of the events in the NHL at that time will ever really be known, but I'm convinced that hockey was a secondary consideration in more than a few decisions in that time frame from all teams.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting but.......................

While Detroit's scouting may have declined, don't fool yourself into thinking they were the primary reason Adams got bad returns on his trades. Don't underestimate the influence and reach of Bruce Norris on the American NHL teams at that time. The Blackhawks were essentially owned by him in proxy, and the Lindsay/Hall trade was as much about banishing Lindsay as it was about trying to build up the Blackhawks to increase the value of his investment. Norris also had tremendous influence over the Rangers, and IIRC he was majority owner of the building they played in so he pretty much had them in his pocket. Even Boston wasn't immune, although they had a lesser influence. Many of the Detroit trades in that timeframe weren't about hockey decisions. Some are well documented (Lindsay for example). Others are just things I've heard rumors about from some of things I've read and people I talked to who with first- or second-hand accounts. I've even been told that allegedly Norris would have Adams make bad deals intentionally as part of behind-the-scenes agreements to buy votes from other owners on different issues. I'm not sure if the real truth behind alot of the events in the NHL at that time will ever really be known, but I'm convinced that hockey was a secondary consideration in more than a few decisions in that time frame from all teams.

Interesting but the concept of "benefit" has to be put to the test.

Basically you have three issues that are interlocked - hockey benefit or on ice results. Financial benefit - bottom line from sold-out or near capacity buildings to an individual. League benefit - getting all member teams on the same page re the emerging players' union or other issues.

Hockey benefit. The Wings made a number of dubious trades including the Olmstead trade to Montreal, the two Sawchuk deals, the Lindsay/Hall trade and the Kelly(NY faux pas/Toronto) yet in spite of all these poor hockey trades in the 1945-46 to 1966-67 era the Wings went to the Stanley Cup Final 11 out of 22 seasons winning four times. The three remaining American teams produced the following results NYR - one appearance/lost,Boston four final appearances/ 4 losses, Chicago - three appearances/ 1 win in 1961.
Other than Glenn Hall, the three American teams received a lot more from the Canadiens and Leafs then from the Wings. Rangers received O'Connor and Eddolls from Montreal, Bruins Mackell, Boivin, Flaman plus fringers from Toronto and Horvath from Montreal that cemented the Uke line in 1958. The 1961 Hawks depth and support was former Montreal and Toronto players with two former Rangers, Murphy and Evans.

So from a hockey standpoint the benefit to the other three US teams was marginal - one of the three would slip into the play-offs regardless and from a business standpoint the spike in admissions was very small. In fact in 1950 the Rangers played home games during the SCF in Toronto and had to juggle the 1956 and 1962 dates playoff dates because of the circus which was more of a priority at MSG

The union issue that allegedly was the focus of the Lindsay trade and later the Kelly situation overlooks a basic question if your portrayal of interest in the other teams is accurate. On the Wings Adams controlled salaries by lowballing Gordie Howe and adjusting salaries accordingly. What benefit would there be to trading Lindsay and Kelly, who were friendly with Gordie Howe, to other teams thereby giving the union impetus, a larger audience, faciliting the exchange of salary data and comparables? What other significant league issues were there and why trade to influence them in the USA when an additional boxing gala or two would have the same net result?

 

[MXD]

Would Esa Tikkanen be a top-50ish LW?

Yeah.

Is the question "best LWs" or "best scoring LWs"?

Anyway, Clark Gillies is wondering which of Propp, Goulet, Shutt, etc., are going to be thrown out of the house to make room for him and his 4 Stanley Cups, HHOF induction and book entitled How I Redefined the Term "Power Forward".

Why a guy with 4 stanley cups and an HHOF induction and some other achievements (namely, a 60 goal season...) would be kicked out by a guy with 4 stanley cups and an HHOF induction?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

The union issue that allegedly was the focus of the Lindsay trade and later the Kelly situation overlooks a basic question if your portrayal of interest in the other teams is accurate. On the Wings Adams controlled salaries by lowballing Gordie Howe and adjusting salaries accordingly. What benefit would there be to trading Lindsay and Kelly, who were friendly with Gordie Howe, to other teams thereby giving the union impetus, a larger audience, faciliting the exchange of salary data and comparables? What other significant league issues were there and why trade to influence them in the USA when an additional boxing gala or two would have the same net result?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't Kelly tell Detroit he was going to retire so they would trade him?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Retirement

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't Kelly tell Detroit he was going to retire so they would trade him?

Kelly threatened to retire after being traded to the Rangers so the deal was canceled.

He also retired a few times with the Leafs as a contract negotiating ploy. Common tactic used by many players since the early days of sports.

 

[Nordic*]

Ovy is better than anyone on the original list. He shouldn't be penalized for not being in the league more than 3 years. He's simply the best left winger, and winger period, of all time - only challenged by perhaps Jagr.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Ovy is better than anyone on the original list. He shouldn't be penalized for not being in the league more than 3 years. He's simply the best left winger, and winger period, of all time - only challenged by perhaps Jagr.

Hi, welcome to the history section. Where we actually pay attention and respect history.

To say Ovechkin is better than a 7 time goal scoring leader is lunacy. To say Ovechkin is better than a 20 time top 5 point getter is far beyond mere madness.

 

[raleh]

Ovy is better than anyone on the original list. He shouldn't be penalized for not being in the league more than 3 years. He's simply the best left winger, and winger period, of all time - only challenged by perhaps Jagr.

Also, Mike Green is the best rushing defenseman ever.

 

[vippe]

Ovy is better than anyone on the original list. He shouldn't be penalized for not being in the league more than 3 years. He's simply the best left winger, and winger period, of all time - only challenged by perhaps Jagr.

He sure has the skill to one day be considered the best LW of all time but let's not go there yet.. he still needs to put up great seasons like the ones he have so far to be even considered an alltime great!

 

[HyeDray]

Perhaps I am bias as an Islanders fan, but I just dont see how Clark Gillies is not on that list.

I believe it could be argued that Gillies was the first what is not called a "power forward." This is a man who scored 30 goals in 6 of 7 seasons while being the teams toughest component. Without Gillies patrolling the left wing on the Trottier-Bossy line, perhaps those offensive players might not have had the success they enjoyed. He is a core player who won 4 rings with the Isles and was not just a roll player as many of todays tough guys are. He was a critical component to the Islanders Dynasty.

He belongs in the mix of top 20.

 

[SealsFan]

My top 20:

1. Hull (no-brainer)
2. Lindsay (equal no-brainer)
3. Mahovlich

That's my top three also. Big Mahovlich fan. After that, I'm not sure.

 

[kmad]

I don't see how you leave Kharlamov outside of the top four.

 

[MXD]

I don't see how you leave Kharlamov outside of the top four.

Well, by having Hull, Lindsay, Mahovlich and Moore ahead of him? It's definitely a point that could be made.

 

[Passchendaele]

I have a hard time putting a 3rd liner on an all-time best list.