Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Fetisov vs Kasatonov in the NHL (gp, points, +/-):

NJD:
1989-90: 72 42 + 9 vs 39 21 +15 --Both scored at similar ppg
1990-91: 67 19 + 5 vs 78 41 +23 --Kasatonov about twice as many pts, and better +/-
1991-92: 70 26 +11 vs 76 40 +14 --Kasatonov clearly the better scorer
1992-93: 76 27 + 7 vs 64 17 + 4 --Fetisov slightly more ppg
TOT Fet: 285 114 +32
TOT Kas: 257 119 +56
So Kasatonov, known for being better defensively than offensively, actually outscored Fetisov, and had clearly better official +/-

If just comparing the 3 seasons where they were of same age (Fetisov is one year older), we get:
1989-92: Fet 209 87 +25
1990-93: Kas 218 98 +41
Here the two score about as much, with Kasatonov having slightly better ppg and slightly better official +/-.

Conclusion: The stats so far suggest Fetisov and Kasatonov might have been about equally good.


Then the got to play on different teams:
1993-94: 52 15 +14 vs 63 24 + 3 --slightly higher ppg for Kasatonov. +/- no longer that applicable.

1994-95: 18 15 + 1 vs 44 16 - 2 --Fetisov now in DET, producing at far higher ppg than before (14 pts in 14 gp)
Kasatonov apparantly chosen by ANA to play in the all star game

1995-96: 69 42 +37 vs 19 01 + 1 --Kasatonov no longer NHL calibre, though still solid defensively, and got to play next season for CSKA

Fetisov played another two years in the NHL, winning two Stanley Cups on a loaded DET team.

So judging their NHL career stats alone, the two actually looked about equally good.


Having seen them play more than 100 times in the 1980s, and hearing what commentators and experts used to say about them, I recall the two as being considered about equally good and valuable. Sometimes Kasatonov was considered the better one, and more often Fetisov. Overall, Fetisov usually was considered slightly better, as well as the one who scored more points, while Kasatonov often was a little more defensive minded.

We also have the Soviet league, which I didn't follow, but where apparantly Fetisov usually was considered the clearly better one of the two. (Someone like Theokritos likely knows this subject better than me/most.)

But... To separate the two by 100 places..?

Have you guys watched games with them from the 1980s and compared them to each other, and to the Canadian and other defensemen the played against?

Fetisov sucked in NJ big time. Being better than him wasn't exactly a great accomplishment.

In retrospect, there is a sense that Kasatonov had an easier time adjusting to the NHL because he played a simpler game. Remember that during Fetisov's late career rebirth of sorts in Detroit, Bowman had them playing what was (at the time) an unprecedented European style.

 

[BenchBrawl]

What is the case for any of Sundin, Zetterberg, Ratelle or Stamkos over Frank Fredrickson?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My mid-week impressions, no particular order.
Top 5 as of now:
Lionel Conacher/Jacques Lemaire/Mark Recchi/Alexei Kasatanov/ Vaclav Nedomansky
Next in Line: Steven Stamkos/Luc Robitaille/Jean Ratelle/Michel Goulet/ Frank Frederickson/Grant Fuhr/Billy Smith
Somewhere over the Rainbow: Babe Dye/J.C. Tremblay/Mats Sundin

The thing that Stamkos has going for him is his post season AS. Lemaire over Recchi due to his defensive game.
I currently have Nedomansky as my 1st forward going off my board and Conacher as my first defenseman. After that, it's Oranges and Apples.

Your Rainbow guys will all be in my top 5.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What is the case for any of Sundin, Zetterberg, Ratelle or Stamkos over Frank Fredrickson?

I have to think one angle is modernity.

If we go by our own rankings, Fredrickson would be roughly the 8th-10th ranked forward during his prime. Sundin would be roughly the 16th-18th. Stamkos would be 12th-14th.

(this gets complicated because it invites quibbles on what's considered a "prime"... I wouldn't count Messier over Sundin in his 1993-03 prime, for example, or Stewart over Fredrickson in 1920-26. I think the numbers listed above are fair ranges that most of us would agree on without much fuss.)

I doubt anyone is operating on a strict "quota" by era, but I have a feeling we all carry a sense of how the eras stack up to each other, and roughly how the proportions should look when all is said and done. If it feels weirdly out of proportion for the ~8th best forward of the 1920s to go before the ~12th best player of the 2010s, like we're failing to properly acknowledge a proportionate change in the depth of talent over time, then that's a valid reason to think maybe Stamkos should go in over Fredrickson. Likewise the other eras in relation to each other.

I'm a pretty big fan of the 1920s, but I balk a little at the idea that it was even 50% as deep in talent as the 1990s or the present era. As we get into these second-tier stars, the era gap should be growing a bit. I think Fredrickson is coming up at the right time, in the sense that he's competitive with this group but not clearly superior to them. I'd like to see his case over them just as much as vice versa.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That Tremblay description is a quite a bit off. I mean, he won just one Cup in in 70ies, but he did lead the Habs scoring for their 1966 win, lead the team in D-scoring for 4 out of the 5 Canadiens cup wins he was a part of (each time also leading the whole playoffs in D-scoring).

You're right, I shouldn't have said "70s Habs dynasty". That feels like an editing mistake on my part.

What I was trying to express was that Kasatonov and Tremblay were both high-end support players on dynasty teams, so there's a somewhat clear basis of comparison between them. To me, Tremblay's contributions to the Habs feel somewhat hit-and-miss... '68 and '71 were brilliant, but '69 was just kind of an OK year, for example.

In an earlier thread I wrote some posts (mainly here and here) about how the Habs seemed to cycle through breakout seasons from their D during that period, and reputations were heavily accentuated by high-profile playoff outbursts (Tremblay in '68, Savard in '69). I think Tremblay has some legitimately great seasons to his name from 66-68 and 71-72, but outside of those timeframes there's really not a lot of meat on the bone. One of the themes of our project has been where do we draw the line on these Habs teams? Now that we've arrived at Lemaire and Tremblay, I'm inclined to say we're getting into 'we wouldn't be talking about this guy if he'd played for the Rangers' territory.

Kasatonov is less sexy of a candidate because he doesn't have the Cup rings or point totals, and Norris votes were out of the question. But he was the steady #2 on arguably the best long-term hockey club ever assembled, a team that positively wiped the floor with the NHL's best in 1983 and 1985. If you're adding a #2 defenseman to your dynasty team, do you really take Tremblay for the points and on-again-off-again stardom? Or do you take the guy who's going to show up every year and quietly go about the business of shutting down world-class superstars while his teammates take care of the other end of the ice? It's a bit of a Langway-ish case... except that Kasatonov did this in some of the most meaningful hockey ever played, not during first round exits.

The third way is to vote against both of them. I could see a case for that, too.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I have to think one angle is modernity.

If we go by our own rankings, Fredrickson would be roughly the 8th-10th ranked forward during his prime. Sundin would be roughly the 16th-18th. Stamkos would be 12th-14th.

(this gets complicated because it invites quibbles on what's considered a "prime"... I wouldn't count Messier over Sundin in his 1993-03 prime, for example, or Stewart over Fredrickson in 1920-26. I think the numbers listed above are fair ranges that most of us would agree on without much fuss.)

I doubt anyone is operating on a strict "quota" by era, but I have a feeling we all carry a sense of how the eras stack up to each other, and roughly how the proportions should look when all is said and done. If it feels weirdly out of proportion for the ~8th best forward of the 1920s to go before the ~12th best player of the 2010s, like we're failing to properly acknowledge a proportionate change in the depth of talent over time, then that's a valid reason to think maybe Stamkos should go in over Fredrickson. Likewise the other eras in relation to each other.

I'm a pretty big fan of the 1920s, but I balk a little at the idea that it was even 50% as deep in talent as the 1990s or the present era. As we get into these second-tier stars, the era gap should be growing a bit. I think Fredrickson is coming up at the right time, in the sense that he's competitive with this group but not clearly superior to them. I'd like to see his case over them just as much as vice versa.

Is this really the case though? Fredrickson's prime was from 1921 to 1927. Who were the better forwards during that stretch?

Frank Nighbor, Bill Cook, then maybe Cy Denneny and maybe Mickey Mackay. I don't see it for Frank Boucher. Newsy Lalonde was not really from that era except the beginning. Hooley Smith was after. Morenz didn't outdo Fredrickson neither in that stretch. Then you have guys like Babe Dye, who weren't foundational type like Fredrickson.

Fredrickson was arguably the best player in the world in 1923. Then in 1927, in a consolidated league, he finished 3rd in Hart voting and 2nd among forwards behind Bill Cook. He got official recognition 6 out of 7 years regardless of his statistical fluctuation and in all three leagues.

Unless I made a blunder and forgot someone, Fredrickson is at worst the 5th best forward from 1921 to 1927, and he has a case to be as high as 3rd. The other players being ranked over him is also a matter of longevity, to some extent.

The way I see it, Fredrickson peaked higher than Sundin, Zetterberg and Stamkos, he was the 2nd best in the playoffs, the 2nd best defensively, at least as good a leader as Sundin and Z, and probably the most physical out of the group.

 

[DN28]

Fetisov vs Kasatonov in the NHL (gp, points, +/-):

NJD:
1989-90: 72 42 + 9 vs 39 21 +15 --Both scored at similar ppg
1990-91: 67 19 + 5 vs 78 41 +23 --Kasatonov about twice as many pts, and better +/-
1991-92: 70 26 +11 vs 76 40 +14 --Kasatonov clearly the better scorer
1992-93: 76 27 + 7 vs 64 17 + 4 --Fetisov slightly more ppg
TOT Fet: 285 114 +32
TOT Kas: 257 119 +56
So Kasatonov, known for being better defensively than offensively, actually outscored Fetisov, and had clearly better official +/-

If just comparing the 3 seasons where they were of same age (Fetisov is one year older), we get:
1989-92: Fet 209 87 +25
1990-93: Kas 218 98 +41
Here the two score about as much, with Kasatonov having slightly better ppg and slightly better official +/-.

Conclusion: The stats so far suggest Fetisov and Kasatonov might have been about equally good.


Then the got to play on different teams:
1993-94: 52 15 +14 vs 63 24 + 3 --slightly higher ppg for Kasatonov. +/- no longer that applicable.

1994-95: 18 15 + 1 vs 44 16 - 2 --Fetisov now in DET, producing at far higher ppg than before (14 pts in 14 gp)
Kasatonov apparantly chosen by ANA to play in the all star game

1995-96: 69 42 +37 vs 19 01 + 1 --Kasatonov no longer NHL calibre, though still solid defensively, and got to play next season for CSKA

Fetisov played another two years in the NHL, winning two Stanley Cups on a loaded DET team.

So judging their NHL career stats alone, the two actually looked about equally good.


Having seen them play more than 100 times in the 1980s, and hearing what commentators and experts used to say about them, I recall the two as being considered about equally good and valuable. Sometimes Kasatonov was considered the better one, and more often Fetisov. Overall, Fetisov usually was considered slightly better, as well as the one who scored more points, while Kasatonov often was a little more defensive minded.

We also have the Soviet league, which I didn't follow, but where apparantly Fetisov usually was considered the clearly better one of the two. (Someone like Theokritos likely knows this subject better than me/most.)

But... To separate the two by 100 places..?

Have you guys watched games with them from the 1980s and compared them to each other, and to the Canadian and other defensemen the played against?

They had been both past their prime when they entered NHL. Kasatonov's somewhat simpler game was more suited to NHL's dump & chase hockey compared to Fetisov who had to completely re-organized his playing style from scratch.

Both of these guys' primes were spent in 1980s Europe and the difference between their recognition in terms of Soviet Player of the Year award-voting or in terms of Izvestia award-voting for best players in Europe was huge.

Soviet Player of the Year voting finishes.
Fetisov: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5
Kasatonov: 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 9, 9, 10, 10, 16

Izvestia voting finishes.
Fetisov: 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 19
Kasatonov: 5, 6, 9, 9, 16

Their record is very much on even ground in 1980-1983 when both players were younger and I guess that's where the sentiment of yours and of some other observers comes from. But the 1984-1989 timeframe, and their overall record, speaks about considerable difference in how these d-men were viewed in their times. It's like comparing award-voting record of someone like Doug Harvey to someone like Pat Stapleton...

Soviet voters thought of Fetisov as the best Soviet d-man for 8 straight years (1982-1989) + for one more year in 1978. Soviet voters NEVER considered Kasatonov as the best Soviet d-man at any point.

1980? Vasiliev and Pervukhin above Kasatonov. 1981? Vasiliev above Kasatonov. 1982? Fetisov and Vasiliev above Kasatonov.

Vasili Pervukhin also outvoted Kasatonov in 1985. Valeri Shiryayev also outvoted Kasatonov in 1989. This isn't the case where Kasatonov was always #2 d-man just behind Fetisov...

I made a post detailing about how various European defensemen fared against one another last week. Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 13

Again, plenty of Czech, Swedish, Finnish defensemen earned more voting points than Kasatonov at different seasons during the 1980s.

Now don't get me wrong, I ranked Kasatonov #165 on my original list. I have been ranking Kasatonov inside my top-10 for last 4 voting rounds or so. If Kasatonov goes on the final list now, I'll have no issue with that. My point is only to show that the 100+ spots of gap between Fetisov and Kasatonov is justified.

 

[plusandminus]

They had been both past their prime when they entered NHL. Kasatonov's somewhat simpler game was more suited to NHL's dump & chase hockey compared to Fetisov who had to completely re-organized his playing style from scratch.

Both of these guys' primes were spent in 1980s Europe and the difference between their recognition in terms of Soviet Player of the Year award-voting or in terms of Izvestia award-voting for best players in Europe was huge.

Soviet Player of the Year voting finishes.
Fetisov: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5
Kasatonov: 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 9, 9, 10, 10, 16

Izvestia voting finishes.
Fetisov: 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 19
Kasatonov: 5, 6, 9, 9, 16

Their record is very much on even ground in 1980-1983 when both players were younger and I guess that's where the sentiment of yours and of some other observers comes from. But the 1984-1989 timeframe, and their overall record, speaks about considerable difference in how these d-men were viewed in their times. It's like comparing award-voting record of someone like Doug Harvey to someone like Pat Stapleton...

Soviet voters thought of Fetisov as the best Soviet d-man for 8 straight years (1982-1989) + for one more year in 1978. Soviet voters NEVER considered Kasatonov as the best Soviet d-man at any point.

1980? Vasiliev and Pervukhin above Kasatonov. 1981? Vasiliev above Kasatonov. 1982? Fetisov and Vasiliev above Kasatonov.

Vasili Pervukhin also outvoted Kasatonov in 1985. Valeri Shiryayev also outvoted Kasatonov in 1989. This isn't the case where Kasatonov was always #2 d-man just behind Fetisov...

I made a post detailing about how various European defensemen fared against one another last week. Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 13

Again, plenty of Czech, Swedish, Finnish defensemen earned more voting points than Kasatonov at different seasons during the 1980s.

Now don't get me wrong, I ranked Kasatonov #165 on my original list. I have been ranking Kasatonov inside my top-10 for last 4 voting rounds or so. If Kasatonov goes on the final list now, I'll have no issue with that. My point is only to show that the 100+ spots of gap between Fetisov and Kasatonov is justified.

Good points.
Kasatonov did, however, end up on the World Championship all-star-team 4 times, 1982, 1983 (best defenceman), 1985 and 1986. But yeah, Fetisov was generally rated higher.
Kasatonov was the highest scoring defenseman (11 pts compared to Gretzky's 12) during the 1981 Canada Cup. Kasatonov, but not Fetisov, ended up on that tournament's all-star-team.

But yeah, the Soviet voters/rankers (as you explain) seem to think there was a considerable gap, so ok.

 

[DN28]

Ratelle and Nedomansky had a lot of overlap, Ned being only 4 years younger. Anyone have an idea of who was considered the better player at the time? Or a way to judge it for ourselves?

I don't like using their overlapping NHL time as evidence, because it came very late in both their careers. But during that brief window their scoring pace was near-identical with Ned being a few years younger, but also playing in a much more challenging environment.

You're almost teasing me to create some projection of Nedomanský's would-be scoring numbers in NHL during his prime - endeavor which I found the most entertaining.. But to be honest, given what happened last time, there is clearly not much of interest for it from this group of participants.

...Still, I'll allow myself to share some of my thoughts on the matter..

Ned finished 28th in NHL scoring when he was 34 y/o (even got some throwaway AST vote). He finished 38th in NHL scoring next year when he was 35 y/o.

Based on this, is it so farfetched to imagine that Nedomanský is a top-10 NHL scorer for 6 straight seasons (1969-1974)? Seems like a reasonable guess (to me at least)...

I mean, since 1991, there were 16 seasons of North American Art Ross winners and 13 seasons of European Art Ross winners. So we have almost 30 years sample and we see NA forwards having a 55.2 % chance of winning Art Ross compared to 44.8 % chance of Euro forwards.

I've never seen even the biggest fanboys of 1970s-1980s European forwards arguing that any one of them would be able to outscore Gretzky/Lemieux in the 1980s. So that leaves us with tight 10-year window of 1970-1979 where a European forward could have been mathematically expected to win NHL scoring. I'm not going to surprise anyone when I say that I do believe it would have happened a few times in that 1970s decade... But I don't know how else to convince anybody about this assesment other than to show the actual results from 1991 to 2020 which speak loud and clear.

If Jágr didn't outscore Lindros, if Ovechkin/Malkin/Sedins didn't outscore Crosby, if Kucherov/Draisaitl didn't outscore McDavid, THEN it would be a different discussion and different ranking... but we know what happened once the integration of all the world's top-end talent was processed.

I've provided countless evidence that Nedomanský was better suited for NHL type of game. The adjustment he would have had to endure in order to play in NHL was not as big as with some other Euro players. That's why NHL scouts specifically targeted Nedomanský as one of the hottest commodities in Europe for a decade.

I'm pretty sure Ned was a lot better than Ratelle (and other available players) with regards to raw talent. Take a full look at this article from 1979; parts of which I've transcripted and posted last week.

Problem with Ratelle is that he feasted on very weak competition. He seems to be the prime example of a 1970s scorer who inflated his stats by playing entirely on O6 teams facing some very abysmal expansion franchises. @Vilica posted the statistical analysis of Jean Ratelle's 1972 season in the Preliminary Discussion thread which basically reveals that Ratelle's peak season was a fraud. The thread is locked and I can't cite his post properly so I'm just going to re-post it.

@Vilica, Nov 11, 2020, Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

"Let's get back to something more relevant to discussion: Why did Jean Ratelle win the Pearson in 71-72?

Using my +GD/-GD team framework, BOS, CHI, MNS, MTL, NYR and TOR are the +GD teams, and BUF, CGS, DET, LAK, PHL, PIT, STL and VAN are the -GD teams. Let's look at Orr, Esposito, Ratelle, and Hull's individual and team performances versus each of those sides and compare them. First, the +GD teams:

+GD	GP	TGF	TGA	GF/G	GA/G	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	Sh	Sh%	G%	P%
Ratelle	22	65	65	2.955	2.955	22	12	12	24	5	68	0.176	0.185	0.369
Hull	30	84	76	2.800	2.533	30	17	15	32	15	116	0.147	0.202	0.381
Esposito	28	108	66	3.857	2.357	28	21	16	37	13	132	0.159	0.194	0.343
Orr	28	108	66	3.857	2.357	28	11	32	43	32	125	0.088	0.102	0.398

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nothing untoward in those numbers, all strong performers. Now, the -GD teams:

-GD	GP	TGF	TGA	GF/G	GA/G	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	Sh	Sh%	G%	P%
Ratelle	41	207	79	5.049	1.927	41	34	51	85	56	115	0.296	0.164	0.411
Hull	48	172	90	3.583	1.875	48	33	28	61	38	220	0.150	0.192	0.355
Esposito	48	214	128	4.458	2.667	48	45	51	96	41	294	0.153	0.210	0.449
Orr	48	214	128	4.458	2.667	48	26	48	74	51	228	0.114	0.121	0.346

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's the outlier - Ratelle shot 30% in 41 games against a bunch of AHL-level teams to boost his production. When people talk about weakened competition during expansion, this is what it looks like statistically. But when players and writers voted back then, this sort of information wasn't readily available. They just saw the top line data, and not that Ratelle shot 58% on 12 shots against California and 55% on 9 shots against Vancouver."

 

[MXD]

You're right, I shouldn't have said "70s Habs dynasty". That feels like an editing mistake on my part.

What I was trying to express was that Kasatonov and Tremblay were both high-end support players on dynasty teams, so there's a somewhat clear basis of comparison between them. To me, Tremblay's contributions to the Habs feel somewhat hit-and-miss... '68 and '71 were brilliant, but '69 was just kind of an OK year, for example.

In an earlier thread I wrote some posts (mainly here and here) about how the Habs seemed to cycle through breakout seasons from their D during that period, and reputations were heavily accentuated by high-profile playoff outbursts (Tremblay in '68, Savard in '69). I think Tremblay has some legitimately great seasons to his name from 66-68 and 71-72, but outside of those timeframes there's really not a lot of meat on the bone. One of the themes of our project has been where do we draw the line on these Habs teams? Now that we've arrived at Lemaire and Tremblay, I'm inclined to say we're getting into 'we wouldn't be talking about this guy if he'd played for the Rangers' territory.

... You're raising the only year where he wasn't the leading scoring D in the playoffs as an off year (before his prime that is). Had he been "on", that would've given him 5 seasons.

I mean... You're basically blaming Tremblay for only leading the D-Men in playoffs scoring 4 times instead of five because of the team he played for (he could also have led in '67, but he didn't, while playing less games than the leader... and Tremblay also had a much better +-). That reads like an argument against the team rather than against the player; also, yes, his contributions aren't super impressive before that. You'll also notice that his team wasn't winning the Cup, and that, had he been as impressive in the first half of the 60ies as he was later on, there wouldn't be much of a case to rank him lower than, say, Tim Horton, who is with good reason long gone.

 

[tarheelhockey]

... You're raising the only year where he wasn't the leading scoring D in the playoffs as an off year (before his prime that is). Had he been "on", that would've given him 5 seasons.

Did you read '69 as saying '64? Otherwise I'm not following you here. '69 was definitely right in the middle of his prime, he was 30 years old.

I mean... You're basically blaming Tremblay for only leading the D-Men in playoffs scoring 4 times instead of five because of the team he played for (he could also have led in '67, but he didn't, while playing less games than the leader... and Tremblay also had a much better +-). That reads like an argument against the team rather than against the player; also, yes, his contributions aren't super impressive before that. You'll also notice that his team wasn't winning the Cup, and that, had he been as impressive in the first half of the 60ies as he was later on, there wouldn't be much of a case to rank him lower than, say, Tim Horton, who is with good reason long gone.

The issue I'm raising is whether "led his team's D in playoff scoring" is the full measure of the player. When Pat Curran, who knew these Habs teams inside and out, says the voters got it completely wrong by ranking peak-season Tremblay over Laperriere, that's a pretty strong signal that the points aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Over the long haul, Tremblay scored only 4 more points per 82 games than Laperriere, and the latter was the much better defensive player. That should create a large gap between them. Tremblay's playoff should close that gap somewhat, but I would think it still ends up being larger than the 12 spots we currently have between them.

 

[overpass]

Did you read '69 as saying '64? Otherwise I'm not following you here. '69 was definitely right in the middle of his prime, he was 30 years old.



The issue I'm raising is whether "led his team's D in playoff scoring" is the full measure of the player. When Pat Curran, who knew these Habs teams inside and out, says the voters got it completely wrong by ranking peak-season Tremblay over Laperriere, that's a pretty strong signal that the points aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Over the long haul, Tremblay scored only 4 more points per 82 games than Laperriere, and the latter was the much better defensive player. That should create a large gap between them. Tremblay's playoff should close that gap somewhat, but I would think it still ends up being larger than the 12 spots we currently have between them.

Are we sure that Laperriere was better defensively at all than Tremblay, let alone much better?

@Sturminator rated J.C. Tremblay's defensive game highly, I believe at least partly on having watched him.

On Tremblay's playing style:

J.C.'s reputation for softness precedes him. He was simply not a physical player, and had the bad luck to play in Montreal in an era when Habs fans were as bloodthirsty as it gets in modern times. They were simply merciless with any Canadiens players who didn't try to drive opposing skaters through the sideboards on every shift. The two main targets for their affection were Tremblay and Bobby Rousseau - two terrifically talented hockey players who simply did not initiate contact. In truth, Rousseau got it worse - being practically driven out of Montreal by the boos of the fans - but Tremblay got a disproportionate share of criticism as well.

As opposed to 60's/early 70's Montreal, J.C.'s game wouldn't seem so strange to today's hockey fan. He had some fight in him, and would scrap for the puck when necessary, but the puck (and not the man) was always his focus, and he had a remarkable number of ways of going about establishing control of it. In the defensive zone, the easiest style comparison would be Nicklas Lidstrom. This is not perfectly apt - Lidstrom is better at defending the front of the net, for example - but in terms of stick play and general approach, they aren't so different. One thing that set Tremblay apart was his ability to improvise; he was very good at catching the puck in mid-air and at playing the puck with his feet, to the point that he looked a bit like a soccer player at times. It was extremely hard to pass the puck anywhere near Tremblay because of this factor combined with his hockey sense and anticipation. There was a somewhat "Gretzkian" quality to many of the things Tremblay did on the ice; his control of body and the puck was supreme, and it was very hard to predict what his next move would be.

Defensively, he was one of the best defensemen in the league in spite of his lack of physicality. I've already described how he played, so I'll let a few others describe how effective he was...

Here are the quotes he cited from others. High praise from Red Fisher in particular. Joe Pelletier rates Tremblay's defence highly as well.

During his time, there was nobody better, in terms of taking care of business in his own end of the ice.

He didn't have the size, but few had a better understanding of what was needed to win. Tremblay's colleagues during his years with the team were people such as Jacques Laperriere, Ted Harris and Jean-Guy Talbot, but when a lead had to be protected or an important goal was needed, Tremblay was your man

Unfortunately the link is broken for the Red Fisher quote.

Greatest Hockey Legends.com: 1966: Roger Crozier vs. J.C. Superstar

The year is 1966. Ace defenseman Jean-Claude Tremblay is the key player as the Montreal Canadiens defend their Stanley Cup championship.

Tremblay leads all Canadiens players in point scored during these playoffs, tallying 11 points including 1 goal and 6 points in the finals against Detroit. His defensive effort was also supreme. He seemed to always be on the ice for the many crucial situations faced in a playoff game.

Montreal Canadiens Legends: J. C. Tremblay

Jean-Claude (J.C.) Tremblay is one of the most intelligent, two-way defenders of all time. Yet very few give him recognition as such. Tremblay's departure in 1972 to the World Hockey Association on one hand helped to establish the WHA as a true alternative to the National Hockey League, but on the other hand appears to have hurt his shot at eternal fame.

J.C. starred for years with the Montreal Canadiens. He became a regular in 1961 and played for 794 games until 1972. Tremblay was an excellent all around performer during this time, and saved his best performances for the playoffs.

He never was a true offensive force during his first 11 regular seasons. His highest offensive output was 39 points. He was tremendously responsible defensively and a great two way defenseman, often headmanning the puck to the speedy Montreal forwards, but never put up great numbers until 1970-71.

Defensively Tremblay was efficient and heady, relying on his intelligent stick to break up plays rather than bones. He never really had an obvious physical game, something that his critics pointed out regularly. But he was so smart, it did not really matter.

 

[MXD]

Did you read '69 as saying '64? Otherwise I'm not following you here. '69 was definitely right in the middle of his prime, he was 30 years old.

Actually, there's a word missing : "excluding". Thus it should read "excluding before his prime".

I also think we did a mistake by ranking Laperrière ahead of Tremblay; there's no correcting that, but that's no reason to make the whole issue worse.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What is the case for any of Sundin, Zetterberg, Ratelle or Stamkos over Frank Fredrickson?

Zetterberg has an eliteness defensively and in the playoffs that I think is a step above the others. Like... I kind of see him in the Kopitar/Toews category. At the bottom of that category, yes, but still that type of player. But he went last week so....

Based on my votes last time, this would be my top 5 this time:

Edit: I should say that I wrote this post before reading the last page of posts.

1. Vaclav Nedomansky - I had a few guys over him last time, but he is my highest remaining. I really do think he is the next non-NHL European to be added. Others have made the case better than I could have. Apparently, he was quite bad defensively, but his goal scoring numbers are outstanding, and for quite a long time too.

2. Frank Fredrickson - Probably shouldn't go that far behind McKay. Like Ratelle, he has a single dominant regular season with several more very good seasons. I like his playoff record (including getting the better of Howie Morenz head-to-head in the 1925 Cup finals) better than Ratelle's.

3. Jean Ratelle - arguably the best offensive player left, some praise for his defense, I feel he was more important to his teams than Mark Recchi. Edit: I might drop him a few spots after reading the post above. Not a lot though.

4. Mark Recchi - at some point, his offensive record is too great to ignore. I like him a little better than Robitaille because he had a couple of seasons that I think were a little better than anything Robitaille ever did.

5. JC Tremblay - I'll make it my thing to post more on him. I think he was pretty clearly the 3rd most important member of the 1960s Canadiens dynasty in the playoffs, moreso than Laperriere, who was already added to our list (because of Laperriere's injuries in the playoffs, but still).

I expected to vote Stamkos #1 as soon as he appeared (he was my 2nd highest "not yet available" guy after Kopitar for a little bit now), but @seventieslord did make a good case against him, so I'm not sure now.

 

[overpass]

Here's more of the article quoted above by Red Fisher about J.C. Tremblay. The quoted excerpt is followed by a recounting of the 1966 Stanley Cup Final and Tremblay's anger when he was snubbed by the Conn Smythe voters.
Habs' unsung superstar; No. 19: J.C. Tremblay

Fisher, Red. The Gazette. Montreal, Que. [Montreal, Que]17 Oct 2009: D.1.

The Canadiens have been blessed with a number of elite defencemen over the years. Doug Harvey was the best - and by far. The Big Three of Larry Robinson, Serge Savard and Guy Lapointe arguably are the best trio ever to play together. Butch Bouchard and Tom Johnson are Hall of Famers. Add J.C. Tremblay, who is not in the Hall.

What made Tremblay special was his playmaking. He had an uncanny feel for the puck. If he wasn't feathering a pass to a sprinting forward, he was the NHL's best delivering it in a high, lazy arc to an open man. During his time, there was nobody better, in terms of taking care of business in his own end of the ice.

He didn't have the size, but few had a better understanding of what was needed to win. Tremblay's colleagues during his years with the team were people such as Jacques Laperriere, Ted Harris and Jean-Guy Talbot, but when a lead had to be protected or an important goal was needed, Tremblay was your man.

J.C., at 170 pounds, saw the ice better than the best players of his time. Give him the smallest opening, and he'd make opponents pay for it with his quick pass or his matchless rising floater that somehow always fell at the feet of a colleague in full flight.

There are many people who feel Tremblay is the best Canadiens defenceman who hasn't been voted into the Hall. The fact is he wa nominated several times, but failed to attract the required number of votes. Still, the argument continues. Laperriere is there, so why not Tremblay? Johnson is a member, why not J.C. Superstar?

Tremblay wasn't the bodychecker most fans expect from defencemen, but he was an entertaining player who would keep the opposition guessing about his next move. More importantly, on most nights he knew what was needed to win - and far more often than not delivered it.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Zetterberg has an eliteness defensively and in the playoffs that I think is a step above the others. Like... I kind of see him in the Kopitar/Toews category. At the bottom of that category, yes, but still that type of player. But he went last week so....

2. Frank Fredrickson - Probably shouldn't go that far behind McKay. Like Ratelle, he has a single dominant regular season with several more very good seasons. I like his playoff record (including getting the better of Howie Morenz head-to-head in the 1925 Cup finals) better than Ratelle's.

Oh I agree, Z was better defensively and in the playoffs than Fredrickson, and I said that in the next post too.

Fredrickson has at least two dominant regular season: 1923 and 1927. I include 1927 because when you're 2nd in Hart voting among forwards (3rd overall), in a consolidated NHL, I call that dominant.

Hart voting 1927 (two last columns are votes and vote%):

1	Herb Gardiner	35	MTL	D	89	24.05
2	Bill Cook	30	NYR	RW	85	22.97
3	Frank Fredrickson	31	TOT	C	75	20.27
4	Dick Irvin	34	CBH	C	73	19.73
5	King Clancy	23	OTS	D	48	12.97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Definitely Fredrickson over Ratelle in the playoffs. Actually, Fredrickson over Ratelle in everything except longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

JC Tremblay's playoff stats are really, really good.

Leading playoff scorers 1965-1969 (Montreal wins 4 Cups in 5 years):

Jean Beliveau 63 points, +11
Dick Duff 42 points, +13
JC Tremblay 41 points, +35
Henri Richard 40 points, +7 (with very little PP time)
Bobby Rousseau 40 points, +3
Yvan Cournoyer 39 points +5
NHL Stats

As shown earlier, JC Tremblay also played a huge role on the team's PK. Edit: The stats were for the regular season, but I don't think things changed much in the playoffs, especially with Laperriere playing less of a role in the playoffs than in the regular season.

Leading playoff scorers 1965-1969 among defensemen:

JC Tremblay 41 points in 59 games
Pierre Pilote 20 points in 39 games (for Chicago)
Ted Harris 13 points in 60 games

NHL Stats

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I know at least a couple of participants and a couple of observers have been really anxious to get Stamkos up for voting, he of the 54 career playoff points by age 31. Well, he's finally here. And personally, I am in no hurry to get him on this list.

The best thing we can say about the guy is that he has an outstanding four-year regular season peak as a producer: 5th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd in points. Other than that...... what?

His peak doesn't look as impressive when you consider that in three of those seasons, his winger, Martin St. Louis, either outscored him or was a single point behind. He has no positive reputation for doing anything other than scoring. He has perhaps the most unfavourable playoff reputation of any star forward in recent memory. I find it very hard to take his career of regular season scoring that seriously. He seems to be very low on substance, an empty-points kind of guy. Is that unfair? I don't mind voting for a guy who's just empty points, if it's enough of them and for long enough. I'll definitely vote for him on this list but I see no reason why he should be seen as "OMG ITS ABOUT TIME LETS ALL VOTE HIM 1ST RIGHT NOW!!!!"

As someone mentioned last night, I don't see a path for him to surpass Sundin. Sundin was just so good for so long, and while he was never a top-5 scorer in the NHL for four years, everyone seemed to agree that he had the ability to do it, if he was given a better linemate/team situation. He also brought it in big moments for his NHL and international teams. He was a very adequate defensive player, used his size well, could beat you in every way with approximately equal frequency, and carried some historically abysmal linemates in his prime. If prime Martin St. Louis was his linemate, would he have been a top-5 scorer four times? YES, absolutely he would have.

Sundin's THN center rankings from 1993 to 2007: 12+ (not a top-25 player but wouldn't have missed by much and would have been the 13th center if named next), 12, 10, 8(RW), 3, 5, 5, 5, 9, 4, 7, 5, 6, 14, 16
Stamkos' rankings from 2009 through 2019: 20, 7, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 11, 17, 11, 12 (not ranked in top-20 centers following 2019-20 season)

Similar top-end rankings, but just far superior depth in there for Sundin. There are also a few really questionable decisions in there. Fair enough about 2014, Stamkos was just 24 and deserved the benefit of the doubt, but by 2015 having visibly declined from his physical peak there was no reason to still rank him 4th. On the other hand, Mats Sundin not being ranked following his 2007-08 season (5th in goals, 10th in points among centers, +17 on a team that was -29, played with a mix of Antropov, Ponikarovsky, Blake and Steen, and led his team in scoring by 22 points) was a disgrace, and possibly a literal mistake. Ancient 44-game Joe Sakic, Gomez, Rookie Toews, Briere, Stastny and Roy all placed in the top-16 on this list - Sundin had a strong case for 10th.

I can't even envision a world where we will look back on history in 20 years and think of Stamkos more highly than we do a guy like Mark Recchi. Similar regular season production peaks (though Stamkos' peak was concentrated in four consecutive seasons and Recchi's were across ten years), but just so much more substance - so many great off-peak years, so many years as a solid contributor, so much respect as a gamey veteran, so much winning. Stamkos seems like a Jack Eichel whose GM actually managed to build a good team around him. Centers naturally get more points through more puck touches - do we really want to vote a center who was outscored by his winger in some of his best seasons, over a winger who regularly outscored his centers?

i'd go a step further than that... actually maybe this is like nine steps further. is stamkos' career to date even more substantial than phil kessel's?

higher scoring placements? sure, though their points are waaaay closer than looking just at goals. but enough to cover longevity and playoffs?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i'd go a step further than that... actually maybe this is like nine steps further. is stamkos' career to date even more substantial than phil kessel's?

higher scoring placements? sure, though their points are waaaay closer than looking just at goals. but enough to cover longevity and playoffs?

I think this vastly underestimates Stamkos' regular season peak. I mean, the man's regular season stats are pretty similar to Pavel Bure's, probably a little better than Bure's, even. Of course a lot of that has to be credited to St. Louis, but you'd have to knock Stamkos down as far as we knocked Bucyk for him to be considered Kessel level.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Kessel did way more in the playoffs than Stamkos though. Ask me which one I take on my contender team, and I pick Kessel. It's not like Stamkos, for all his RS peak, ever proved he could be a foundation player. The facts are speaking in the opposite direction. So as it is, both Stamkos and Kessel are secondary core type players on a contending team and the comparison essentially holds.

Even in Boston Kessel showed flashes of clutchness. I remember it first hand and there's probably a few posts by me on this site pre-Pittsburgh attesting to this (EDIT: here, for example). Stamkos never showed anything like that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Are we sure that Laperriere was better defensively at all than Tremblay, let alone much better?

@Sturminator rated J.C. Tremblay's defensive game highly, I believe at least partly on having watched him.

Here are the quotes he cited from others. High praise from Red Fisher in particular. Joe Pelletier rates Tremblay's defence highly as well.

Unfortunately the link is broken for the Red Fisher quote.

Greatest Hockey Legends.com: 1966: Roger Crozier vs. J.C. Superstar


Montreal Canadiens Legends: J. C. Tremblay

5. JC Tremblay - I'll make it my thing to post more on him. I think he was pretty clearly the 3rd most important member of the 1960s Canadiens dynasty in the playoffs, moreso than Laperriere, who was already added to our list (because of Laperriere's injuries in the playoffs, but still).

I'm not picking on you by saying this TDMM, because this is a collective issue and not an individual one, but I think the bolded is how we end up asking ourselves why we over-ranked all the Habs dynasty players again. Every time one of them comes up for voting, he's the most important one of the group. The target keeps jumping around, but logically we know that 3 different guys weren't the best D simultaneously. We run into this issue with ATD bios and Joe Pelletier quotes as well. It's like Gretzky talking about prospects.

This starts to manifest when we're sitting here talking about Tremblay as equal to Laperriere defensively, when there are reams and reams of quotes praising Laperriere's defense against one Red Fisher quote for Tremblay. It verges on revisionism to suggest Tremblay was actually seen as the defensive heart of those Habs teams. I say "verges" because the Fisher quote is better than nothing. But it takes a certain willingness to overlook the fact that Fisher was in a small minority opinion, and speaking in the context of fighting uphill for HHOF consideration.

It definitely is revisionism to suggest that he was criticized simply for playing a non-physical game, as opposed to legitimately being inconsistent defensively. Tremblay was called out on any number of occasions for a lack of intensity and commitment to his defensive duties. He was a good defender when he wanted to be. He didn't always want to be.

Anyway, here's C58 on Tremblay compared to his Habs teammates:

In the NHL J.C. Tremblay needed a specific type of defensive partner to play his game. Effective only with a physical presence on LD - first Lou Fontinato, then Ted Harris. Same is true for the partners. Both Fontinato and Harris led the NHL in +/- when partnered with J.C. Tremblay.

You raise his strong playoffs in 1965, 1966, 1968, 1971. But where was he during the regular season:

1965RS, outscored and outperformed by Jacques Laperriere, the teams best defenceman and Jean-Guy Talbot by then the 5th d-man and PK specialist:

1964-65 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Laperriere was hurt midway in the 1965 playoffs.

1966 better RS,lead team d-men in scoring and the team in scoring in the playoffs, but defensive holes persisted:

1965-66 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1967, 1968,1969, RS at the 30-40 point RS plateau,nothing special in the playoffs except for the final round in 1968.1968 he was a 2nd team AS as injuries and aging of the NHL old guard contributed. 1970 major regression to 21 RS points.

1966-67 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1967-68 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1968-69 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1969-70 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1971, bounce back RS, 1st AST but gets offset by a 3rd place finish in the Norris, solid playoffs but the defensive game was not at the level expected from a 10+ season veteran:

1970-71 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1972 showed that 1971 was an outlier RS:

1971-72 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

A few comments. Never the Canadiens #1 defenceman during the RS unless injuries put him in the position, then he was a shaky #1, never taking the opportunity to establish himself as a true #1. Laperriere was always the #1,the Serge Savard became the #1 in waiting by 1969, winning the Smythe in 1969.

The 1960s Canadiens PP after Doug Harvey was such that the LD on the PP,first Talbot later Tremblay would inevitably be the top scorer amongst the team's defencemen. Tremblay played LD on the PP, RD at ES.

J.C. Tremblay played the 4th d-man role in certain situational match-ups.Terry Harper drew the big LWs like Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich.

We know C58 watched that team a lot and thought a lot about this topic. He undoubtedly had a lot of respect for Tremblay and wasn't trying to bury him with those comments. But realistically, no he was not a great defensive defenseman and yes the point totals could be somewhat shallow -- if we're going to punish Ratelle and Stamkos for that, we should hold Tremblay to the same standard.

The upside of his argument is that he wasn't some Phil Housley disaster defensively, and there's no doubt he had a great offensive record in the playoffs over a handful of seasons, which is why he's coming up now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not picking on you by saying this TDMM, because this is a collective issue and not an individual one, but I think the bolded is how we end up asking ourselves why we over-ranked all the Habs dynasty players again. Every time one of them comes up for voting, he's the most important one of the group. The target keeps jumping around, but logically we know that 3 different guys weren't the best D simultaneously. We run into this issue with ATD bios and Joe Pelletier quotes as well. It's like Gretzky talking about prospects.

This starts to manifest when we're sitting here talking about Tremblay as equal to Laperriere defensively, when there are reams and reams of quotes praising Laperriere's defense against one Red Fisher quote for Tremblay. It verges on revisionism to suggest Tremblay was actually seen as the defensive heart of those Habs teams. I say "verges" because the Fisher quote is better than nothing. But it takes a certain willingness to overlook the fact that Fisher was in a small minority opinion, and speaking in the context of fighting uphill for HHOF consideration.

It definitely is revisionism to suggest that he was criticized simply for playing a non-physical game, as opposed to legitimately being inconsistent defensively. Tremblay was called out on any number of occasions for a lack of intensity and commitment to his defensive duties. He was a good defender when he wanted to be. He didn't always want to be.

Anyway, here's C58 on Tremblay compared to his Habs teammates:



We know C58 watched that team a lot and thought a lot about this topic. He undoubtedly had a lot of respect for Tremblay and wasn't trying to bury him with those comments. But realistically, no he was not a great defensive defenseman and yes the point totals could be somewhat shallow -- if we're going to punish Ratelle and Stamkos for that, we should hold Tremblay to the same standard.

The upside of his argument is that he wasn't some Phil Housley disaster defensively, and there's no doubt he had a great offensive record in the playoffs over a handful of seasons, which is why he's coming up now.

I don't think JC Tremblay was as good defensively as Laperriere - if we're going to give defensemen "types," Tremblay was a puck mover. But I think there's a lot more reason to think he was responsible defensively than the other way around. I mean, Toe Blake wouldn't have had him killing massive amounts of penalties - not as much as Laperriere when Laperriere was healthy but far more than any other Habs defenseman - if he was notably weak in his own end.

Since 1960 when we first have stats, Tremblay is #2 all-time in average PK usage among defensemen. Behind his teammate Laperriere. Now, that "all-time" stat is definitely slanted towards guys who had their peaks in the 1960s, and clearly Toe Blake rode his best defensemen hard on the PK if he coached #1 and #2 all-time in terms of average PK usage. But still.

In the playoffs, Tremblay looks to me to very clearly be the most important Canadiens defenseman of the 1960s dynasty, and it isn't close. This was mentioned when Laperriere came up to vote. What forward would you even consider taking over him other than Beliveau or Richard? Ralph Backstrom I guess has a case, but IMO, it's a thin one.

I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea that we tend to overrate secondary players on dominant teams - see my posts about Jacques Lemaire - but does that apply to the 1960s Montreal dynasty? Only Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Jacques Laperriere (who tended to be injured in the playoffs), and Serge Savard (who won the Conn Smythe in 1969 but only played 6 playoff games before then) have been added from that team so far.

 

[BenchBrawl]

C1958 when asked who was the 3rd most important player of the 1960s Montreal dynasty responded firmly that it was Ralph Backstrom, because it allowed Montreal to match-up centers better. Make of that what you want.

Edit: Here's the actual post: What makes a dynasty? Is winning enough - or do you have to also dominate?

 

[MXD]

If Tremblay was an absolute defensive stalwart, he'd be long gone.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

C1958 when asked who was the 3rd most important player of the 1960s Montreal dynasty responded firmly that it was Ralph Backstrom, because it allowed Montreal to match-up centers better. Make of that what you want.

Edit: Here's the actual post: What makes a dynasty? Is winning enough - or do you have to also dominate?

Not that I think it would have changed his opinion, but in 2018, I don't think anyone had access to playoff plus/minuses from that far back.

Tremblay's +35 in the playoffs from 1965-1969 (the 4 Cups in 5 years) is ridiculous, especially when the next best were Ted Harris at +18, Jean-Guy Talbot at +17 and Terry Harper at +16.

NHL Stats