Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10

[The Macho King]

I think this stat is skewed by the fact that Hedman played a larger percentage of playoff games at an older age, no?

His regular season stats are from ages 19-30
His playoff stats are age 20 (6 points in 18 games), then not again until ages 23-30.
Victor Hedman Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

That said, being the #1 dman on 4 Conference finalists in 6 years - he was definitely doing something right.

His highest scoring season also didn't result in a playoff berth.

I just want to compare him to Weber here honestly, because they're quasi-contemporaries (if not overlapping primes). Weber has never made it out of the second round, I believe. And having watched a ton of Weber in the playoffs - I gotta say he's a large part of the reason they never did. For a guy who - when you look at his style of play you would think is tailor-made for the playoffs, he just doesn't have that extra gear. Maybe it's a case of he plays at level X all the time so he doesn't have anything more to give when it gets there (the Ryan Callahan situation), but I think it's very reasonable to take Weber's playoff performances as a negative.

I also say this irrespective of Hedman. Always felt Weber was a disappointment in a way that other defensive-focused Dmen with big shots were not (Chara, for example). Weber also has the good fortune of playing his entire prime with *very* good partners - so there's a symbiosis there that I think elevates him. I don't know how much weight to put on his Montreal years, but I don't think it's a coincidence that he no longer has Josi or Suter beside him and he starts looking a lot more "good not great".

 

[GammaAway]

I also say this irrespective of Hedman. Always felt Weber was a disappointment in a way that other defensive-focused Dmen with big shots were not (Chara, for example). Weber also has the good fortune of playing his entire prime with *very* good partners - so there's a symbiosis there that I think elevates him. I don't know how much weight to put on his Montreal years, but I don't think it's a coincidence that he no longer has Josi or Suter beside him and he starts looking a lot more "good not great".

I'm not a voter, so I don't know that my opinion matters - but he still got non negligible support in his first Montreal season (6th in Norris - although the single 1st place vote is debatable) and he might have managed a weak top 10 in his 4th if he'd played 15-20 games more. His 5th and 6th seasons (aka last year and this one) are really the one where it's fair to say Weber is clearly not worthy of any Norris consideration and has entered compiling mode.

 

[ImporterExporter]

His highest scoring season also didn't result in a playoff berth.

I just want to compare him to Weber here honestly, because they're quasi-contemporaries (if not overlapping primes). Weber has never made it out of the second round, I believe. And having watched a ton of Weber in the playoffs - I gotta say he's a large part of the reason they never did. For a guy who - when you look at his style of play you would think is tailor-made for the playoffs, he just doesn't have that extra gear. Maybe it's a case of he plays at level X all the time so he doesn't have anything more to give when it gets there (the Ryan Callahan situation), but I think it's very reasonable to take Weber's playoff performances as a negative.

I also say this irrespective of Hedman. Always felt Weber was a disappointment in a way that other defensive-focused Dmen with big shots were not (Chara, for example). Weber also has the good fortune of playing his entire prime with *very* good partners - so there's a symbiosis there that I think elevates him. I don't know how much weight to put on his Montreal years, but I don't think it's a coincidence that he no longer has Josi or Suter beside him and he starts looking a lot more "good not great".

I never got the Weber (or Suter) hype. I mean he's worth of being up for discussion at this point but I personally find him overrated. Huge body and shot, capable of taking over a game in the manner of a Pronger, but those instances are few and far between. Never thought he used his size consistently enough.

His resume is basically Norris and AS finishes (and I don't find post Lidstrom to be very competitive for Dmen in an all time light), and a few great tournaments for Canada, though I think they are held in lesser regards than the 70's/80's just because over the last 10+ years, Canada has been the overwhelming favorites internationally speaking.

I see other contemporaries who were used more heavily at ES (Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, etc), on the PP/PK and the impact he's having on those units is rather bland.

Special teams roles - 1960-2017

Of all the D candidates up for debate now, he's got the biggest hole(s) IMO.

 

[The Macho King]

I never got the Weber (or Suter) hype. I mean he's worth of being up for discussion at this point but I personally find him overrated. Huge body and shot, capable of taking over a game in the manner of a Pronger, but those instances are few and far between. Never thought he used his size consistently enough.

His resume is basically Norris and AS finishes (and I don't find post Lidstrom to be very competitive for Dmen in an all time light), and a few great tournaments for Canada, though I think they are held in lesser regards than the 70's/80's just because over the last 10+ years, Canada has been the overwhelming favorites internationally speaking.

I see other contemporaries who were used more heavily at ES (Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, etc), on the PP/PK and the impact he's having on those units is rather bland.

Special teams roles - 1960-2017

Of all the D candidates up for debate now, he's got the biggest hole(s) IMO.

I wonder if there's a degree of the "OEL-effect" with Weber (and a bit with Suter as well honestly). Not to say he's not as good as OEL - he clearly is much better, but the effect is the same (see also: Seth Jones).

It's a team that you don't watch much, you don't expect to be very good, they have solid defensive results, and he's the #1 D on that team. Therefore, there must be something there.

I think looking at the results Trotz has gotten outside of Nashville out of his Defensive groups (look especially at the narrative forming around Pelech and Pulock in NYI), that deserves a bit of a look back at how we viewed other players under him and his systems. With that in mind, how much of Weber is coaching/situation, and how much of it is him?

I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole. He's clearly very good. But I wonder if his reputation deserves a bit more of a second glance in light of that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In Weber's 2 "almost-Norris" seasons, he did receive a non-trivial amount of support in a pair of player's polls for "who is the toughest defenseman to play against?"

Who is the toughest defenseman to play against? 2010-11

1. Chara 34%
2. Lidstrom 20.3%
3. Pronger 20%
4. Weber 7%
5. Keith 3%

Who is the toughest defenseman to play against? 2011-12
Zdeno Chara (Boston) – 61%
Shea Weber (Nashville) – 12%
Nicklas Lidstrom (Detroit) – 6%
Chris Pronger (Philadelphia) – 3%
Brooks Orpik (Pittsburgh) – 3%
Douglas Murray (San Jose) – 1%

Polls linked to here, including a valid link for the 2011-12 poll, the original link for the 2010-11 poll is broken, but I post these numbers in good faith: the most overrated Hockey player of all time

Not sure if this adds anything. It makes Chara look great, of course, but we already added him a long time ago.

 

[The Macho King]

In Weber's 2 "almost-Norris" seasons, he did receive a non-trivial amount of support in a pair of player's polls for "who is the toughest defenseman to play against?"

Who is the toughest defenseman to play against? 2010-11

1. Chara 34%
2. Lidstrom 20.3%
3. Pronger 20%
4. Weber 7%
5. Keith 3%

Who is the toughest defenseman to play against? 2011-12
Zdeno Chara (Boston) – 61%
Shea Weber (Nashville) – 12%
Nicklas Lidstrom (Detroit) – 6%
Chris Pronger (Philadelphia) – 3%
Brooks Orpik (Pittsburgh) – 3%
Douglas Murray (San Jose) – 1%

Polls linked to here, including a valid link for the 2011-12 poll, the original link for the 2010-11 poll is broken, but I post these numbers in good faith: the most overrated Hockey player of all time

Not sure if this adds anything. It makes Chara look great, of course, but we already added him a long time ago.

The thing with those type of players polls is I don't know what they mean by "toughest" to play against. Lidstrom is on there so clearly some of them did not take "how many cross checks am I receiving" as the metric, but on the other hand Brooks Orpik shows up and I can't imagine why if cross checks are not a direct factor.

 

[tarheelhockey]

IMO the debate is less Weber vs Hedman, more Weber vs Laperriere.

Norris finishes
Laperriere: 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 8, 9
Weber: 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 8, 10

That's really, really close. Add up the numbers and you have 8 seasons each totaling 38 and 39 (this isn't a meaningful metric, just shows how close they are).

Peak/Prime
If there's a difference, IMO it isn't appreciable. Weber's peak may have lasted a bit longer, as Laperriere's prime was cut short by a broken leg in the semifinals.

Longevity
Weber has a clear longevity advantage, playing from age 20-35+ compared to Laperriere's 21-32. Again, Laperriere's was cut short by a major knee injury which forced his early retirement.


Playoffs

I have a feeling that playoffs will ultimately be the arbiter between them, and that should be an advantage to Laperriere. His legacy gets dinged for the fact that he missed a couple of good playoff runs with injuries, but bear in mind he did participate in some very successful runs of his own.

1967 - Full disclosure, this was a poor showing. Laperriere hadn't played playoff hockey since his injury in the '65 semis, was coming off probably the worst season of his career, and struggled with penalties and gaffes.

1968 - During Montreal's first-round sweep of Boston, two different papers (the Montreal Gazette and Ottawa Journal) said Laperriere had played the best hockey of his career.

The following series was marked by a scoring explosion from JC Tremblay (6 points in 5 games) but Laperriere also had a very good series, only on the ice for 3 of Chicago's 10 goals despite playing heavy minutes.

Not to read too much into this, but when the Gazette's Pat Curran rolled out the annual Conn Smythe debate (an article where he actually boosted for Dickie Moore to be considered), he mentioned Laperriere second after Gump Worsley front-runners. In the end, Glen Hall won the award as the rare losing-team selection, but I have always seen Worsley mentioned as the "snub". If Curran meant his list order to be taken literally, one could presume that Laperriere was the top Smythe candidate among skaters.

Noteworthy: After the Cup was won and award results released, Curran commented: "Those who have followed the Canadiens closely should also be surprised at the fact that... J.C. Tremblay had 26 points to only 12 for Jacques Laperriere. The latter was by far the best Montreal rearguard all season."

1969 - This is widely remembered for Serge Savard's big run that ended in a Smythe. But Laperriere was also very good during that run, and arguably had more of a hand in Savard's success than we give him credit for. He was especially good during the Habs' semifinal series against Boston (the Final was a cakewalk over St. Louis, so the semifinal was effectively for the Cup). He scored a key goal in the Habs' Game 5 win to take the series lead, and was arguably even better in their series-clinching OT win in Game 6.

Habs coach Claude Ruel on Laperriere's Game 6 performance, which effectively won the Cup for Montreal: "Listen, Jacques Laperriere played the best game of his life out there tonight and no one ever hears about him or Harris. I don't hear anybody going around shouting to make them all-stars. And I don't know what they have to do to be all-stars. Laperriere did everything tonight. He blocked shots, he skated, he killed penalties, he was on the power play."

Serge Savard describing one of the key goals that earned him the Smythe: "On the goal I scored I told Jacques (Laperriere) to stay back because I was going in front of the net. I went in close and when Yvan Cournoyer had a chance, the puck came to me and I shot it from close range." (noteworthy: in this same game, Boston scored the tying PP goal when Savard accidentally cleared the puck directly off Laperriere's butt, pinballing it back into scoring position. Savard actually played forward on that Habs PK unit, with Laperriere playing back)

Subjectively, Laperriere's name tended to be mentioned before Savard's when the writer wanted to emphasize the Habs' stingy defense, and vice versa when emphasizing their scoring power.

1971 - Bear in mind, this was the season that Serge Savard was lost in the regular season with a broken leg. As luck would have it, a young Guy Lapointe stepped in and replaced him almost seamlessly -- until the playoffs, when Laperriere stepped up to showcase as the Habs' best two-way force.

Laperriere had 4-9-13 in 20 games with a +11. Compare to Tremblay's 3-14-17 with a +5, and Lapointe's 4-5-9 with a +7, all three with the same GP.

He again was a pivotal figure in the Habs' 7-game series against Boston, a monumental upset that prevented a Bruins dynasty.

This was after he missed nearly half the season with a pinched nerve in his neck that, at one point, paralyzed his left arm. He returned in time for the playoffs, then broke his wrist in the first game of the Final, and played through it.

In the Montreal Gazette's spread on the Cup-win, it applied the word "hero" to three players: Henri Richard, Ken Dryden, and Jacques Laperriere.

 

[ImporterExporter]

08 Dec, 1964, Montreal Gazette

Early in Laperriere's career he was being compared to Doug Harvey openly (Clarence Campbell one of the folks) though the great Toe Blake put the breaks on that haha.

Really neat scouting report and write up in the early going.

 

[Batis]

This is neat.

How would you characterize Suchy's overall career on the international stage?

Outstanding peak performances between 1968 and 1971 when he led the WHC All-Star voting among defencemen 4 times in a row which is something that only Fetisov managed to achieve outside of Suchy. And as @DN28 has shown very well in this thread Suchy also recieved some praise for his play in the 1966 and 1967 tournaments and was the leading point producer among Czechoslovakian defencemen in the 1974 WHC.

But going back to his peak play on the international stage one thing that stands out to me is just how heavily relied on Suchy was when the Czechoslovakian team was defending their lead against the Soviets in their famous 2-0 victory in the 1969 WHC. An example of this is that Suchy never left the ice during the last ca 6 minutes of that game. During those last 6 minutes of play the Soviets had 2 powerplay opportunities and with players like Firsov, Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Petrov and Maltsev they tried hard to take advantage of those opportunities but Suchy and his teammates managed to hold them off. Here you can watch the last 6 minutes of that game. Suchy is number 17.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Outstanding peak performances between 1968 and 1971 when he led the WHC All-Star voting among defencemen 4 times in a row which is something that only Fetisov managed to achieve outside of Suchy. And as @DN28 has shown very well in this thread Suchy also recieved some praise for his play in the 1966 and 1967 tournaments and was the leading point producer among Czechoslovakian defencemen in the 1974 WHC.

But going back to his peak play on the international stage one thing that stands out to me is just how heavily relied on Suchy was when the Czechoslovakian team was defending their lead against the Soviets in their famous 2-0 victory in the 1969 WHC. An example of this is that Suchy never left the ice during the last ca 6 minutes of that game. During those last 6 minutes of play the Soviets had 2 powerplay opportunities and with players like Firsov, Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Petrov and Maltsev they tried hard to take advantage of those opportunities but Suchy and his teammates managed to hold them off. Here you can watch the last 6 minutes of that game. Suchy is number 17.

Fantastic. Thank you sir.

Would you say there are some Pierre Pilote qualities in there or was he near as explosive skating as someone like Orr/Coffey?

 

[DN28]

Quick thoughts:

Suchý's four-season peak > Petrov's four best seasons.

Suchý was 1st or 2nd best player in Europe in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, while Petrov was "only" best Euro center in 1973, 1975, 1979 with 1977 as his fourth excellent season. (See my post on Petrov from previous vote: link). At no point in time, a majority or even just a plurality of European hockey observers considered Petrov the best or second best player on the continent - at least not to my knowledge. Most people thought and have been thought about him as a 3rd best player on his own line.

Petrov's remaining seasons > Suchý's remaining seasons.

Overall, I'll take Suchý. I don't see Petrov's non-peak seasons sufficiently great to overtake Suchý's spot on the list.
_________________

There are Kharlamov, Tretiak, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Martinec, Holeček and Vasiliev as largely 1970s Eastern Bloc players already on the list.

There are Fetisov, Makarov, Krutov as largely 1980s Eastern Bloc players on the final list.

Then there is Firsov as only 1960s/early 1970s Eastern Bloc player on the final list.

A logical question arises: Aren't we perhaps a little too kind on 1970s players compared to other eras? This is precisely the kind of situation where we have one big star from one era (Suchý), and one very good player from the next era (Petrov). Adding Petrov to the list would mean adding 8th largely 1970s Eastern Bloc player to the final list.
_________________

"Compared to what?" argument.

I've already said it but I want to reiterate the two points:

a) Even if Suchý ends up 1st this vote, the gap between him and Firsov on the list will be the thing that simply doesn't reflect the historical reality. Whereas...

b) ...By adding Petrov to the list now would create another incentive to quickly vote two other Euro Cs that are very much comparable to Petrov (= Nedomanský and Larionov).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Quick thoughts:

Suchý's four-season peak > Petrov's four best seasons.

Suchý was 1st or 2nd best player in Europe in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, while Petrov was "only" best Euro center in 1973, 1975, 1979 with 1977 as his fourth excellent season. (See my post on Petrov from previous vote: link). At no point in time, a majority or even just a plurality of European hockey observers considered Petrov the best or second best player on the continent - at least not to my knowledge. Most people thought and have been thought about him as a 3rd best player on his own line.

Petrov's remaining seasons > Suchý's remaining seasons.

Overall, I'll take Suchý. I don't see Petrov's non-peak seasons sufficiently great to overtake Suchý's spot on the list.
_________________

There are Kharlamov, Tretiak, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Martinec, Holeček and Vasiliev as largely 1970s Eastern Bloc players already on the list.

There are Fetisov, Makarov, Krutov as largely 1980s Eastern Bloc players on the final list.

Then there is Firsov as only 1960s/early 1970s Eastern Bloc player on the final list.

A logical question arises: Aren't we perhaps a little too kind on 1970s players compared to other eras? This is precisely the kind of situation where we have one big star from one era (Suchý), and one very good player from the next era (Petrov). Adding Petrov to the list would mean adding 8th largely 1970s Eastern Bloc player to the final list.
_________________

"Compared to what?" argument.

I've already said it but I want to reiterate the two points:

a) Even if Suchý ends up 1st this vote, the gap between him and Firsov on the list will be the thing that simply doesn't reflect the historical reality. Whereas...

b) ...By adding Petrov to the list now would create another incentive to quickly vote two other Euro Cs that are very much comparable to Petrov (= Nedomanský and Larionov).

I don't see Larionov as comparable to Petrov.

 

[DN28]

I don't see Larionov as comparable to Petrov.

He is.

3rd best player on a top Soviet line in the 1970s vs. 3rd best player on a top Soviet line in the 1980s.

Comparable SPOTY record despite Petrov having more opportunities - 13 seasons as a Soviet NT player vs. Larionov's 8 seasons before his departure to North America.

Larionov's professional career lasted twice as long. His post-prime NHL career has to count for something.

It may not convince the majority here and I fully expect Petrov finishing higher on the final list than Larionov but they are comparable.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He is.

3rd best player on a top Soviet line in the 1970s vs. 3rd best player on a top Soviet line in the 1980s.

Comparable SPOTY record despite Petrov having more opportunities - 13 seasons as a Soviet NT player vs. Larionov's 8 seasons before his departure to North America.

Larionov's professional career lasted twice as long. His post-prime NHL career has to count for something.

It may not convince the majority here and I fully expect Petrov finishing higher on the final list than Larionov but they are comparable.

Fair enough.

 

[MXD]

Voted. Jacques Laperrière and Hooley Smith finished the round higher than they started it. Hedman got docked a bit. Goodfellow too. Still unsure whether he was the best forward-moved-to-D that played in the 30ies and that possibly inconsciously hindered him.