Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 16

[seventieslord]

Procedure

• You will be presented with ~15 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to @seventieslord
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top-5 players will be added to The List

Eligible Voters

• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 220 players (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the History of Hockey ranking
• Batis, BenchBrawl, bobholly39, buffalowing88, Dennis Bonvie, DN28, Dr John Carlson, Hockey Outsider, MXD, Professor What, ResilientBeast, seventieslord, tarheelhockey, ted2019, TheDevilMadeMe, Vilica, Weztex

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project.

House Rules

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
• We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates
  
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
• Finish your drink when someone mentions that goaltenders cannot be compared to skaters

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, March 12th at midnight and continue through Sunday, March 14th at 8:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, March 15th.


Vote 9 Candidates

• Babe Dye
• Babe Siebert
• Billy Smith
• Brendan Shanahan
• Carey Price
• Carl Brewer
• Denis Savard
• Emile "Butch" Bouchard
• Grant Fuhr
• Harry "Hap" Holmes
• Igor Larionov
• Jacques Lemaire
• Lorne "Gump" Worsley
  
• Michel Goulet
• Rob Blake

Click to read more...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

About time for Crazy Carl Brewer & Babe Siebert.

 

[MXD]

... Wow, I probably have to be convinced that the top five spots of my ballot shouldn't be completely occupied by newcomers, and I just can't quite see the "worse" of them (Larionov, as far as I'm concerned) miss my ballot either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

... Wow, I probably have to be convinced that the top five spots of my ballot shouldn't be completely occupied by newcomers, and I just can't quite see the "worse" of them (Larionov, as far as I'm concerned) miss my ballot either.

I was thinking the same thing. This is an unusually strong batch of new nominees.

@ImporterExporter has done some new research on Hap Holmes which should make for an interesting case. At least for now, I'm inclined to rate him over Smith and maybe Fuhr.

Butch Bouchard is an interesting candidate. His best statistical seasons came during WWII, which we should take with a grain of salt for obvious reasons. But unlike some other guys with that WWII issue, he had a very long and productive post-war career. To me the biggest question is where he ranked among defensemen through each of his phases, and whether that ranking would be high enough to put him over a guy like Blake who had a decently long stretch at a top-5/10 defenseman in a much larger league.

I've always found Larionov hard to rank. Several times now we've talked about him in these ranking projects, and I still don't feel like I have a very firm grasp on just how good he was with the KLM line... whether he was a star driving their success, or just a solid player who happened to be along for the ride. I know my perception of him certainly was influenced by his success with the Sharks and Red Wings later in his career, but time has faded the importance of those performances a bit.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I've always found Larionov hard to rank. Several times now we've talked about him in these ranking projects, and I still don't feel like I have a very firm grasp on just how good he was with the KLM line... whether he was a star driving their success, or just a solid player who happened to be along for the ride. I know my perception of him certainly was influenced by his success with the Sharks and Red Wings later in his career, but time has faded the importance of those performances a bit.

maybe one thing to establish is whether they only called him the russian gretzky because he was skinny and wore a jofa helmet, or if there really was something to that comparison.

 

[ted2019]

Brewer vs. Bouchard should be a nice discussion. For me, Bouchard would be my top defenseman over Blake and Brewer. Siebert is a hybrid and has to be treated as such for me in this voting.
Larionov vs. Lemaire should be a good comparison.
Assuming that Dye & Savard will make it this round.

 

[tarheelhockey]

FWIW, Siebert is a case where multi-positionality really mattered to his teams.

In that era, players were sometimes moved around the lineup in really limited, context-heavy situations which didn't necessarily speak to their athletic superiority. An example discussed earlier in this project was Busher Jackson being moved back to D when he had aged out of being a fast-skating scoring threat.

Siebert's multipositional movement was not like that. With the Maroons he showed that he could be both a major scoring threat as part of the "S" line, and also a very good defenseman. Eddie Gerard took full advantage of that flexibility to move Siebert around the lineup creating matchup issues and opening up space for Siebert to use his speed.

In Boston, after the Eddie Shore/Ace Bailey incident, Art Ross took advantage of Siebert's experience to move him from LW back to Shore's position at D. Siebert turned out to be not just a short-term solution for Shore's absence, but a long-term fixture next to Shore after he returned. That kicked off a career turnaround that culminated in winning a Hart trophy and finishing 3rd for another, while playing D back in Montreal.

All that to say, Siebert was really good at both positions. He was one of the best LWs in the league and then one of the best Ds, both for a stretch of several years. That's a flexibility value-add that only a few players have ever had (Red Kelly jumps to mind).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

FWIW, Siebert is a case where multi-positionality really mattered to his teams.

In that era, players were sometimes moved around the lineup in really limited, context-heavy situations which didn't necessarily speak to their athletic superiority. An example discussed earlier in this project was Busher Jackson being moved back to D when he had aged out of being a fast-skating scoring threat.

Siebert's multipositional movement was not like that. With the Maroons he showed that he could be both a major scoring threat as part of the "S" line, and also a very good defenseman. Eddie Gerard took full advantage of that flexibility to move Siebert around the lineup creating matchup issues and opening up space for Siebert to use his speed.

In Boston, after the Eddie Shore/Ace Bailey incident, Art Ross took advantage of Siebert's experience to move him from LW back to Shore's position at D. Siebert turned out to be not just a short-term solution for Shore's absence, but a long-term fixture next to Shore after he returned. That kicked off a career turnaround that culminated in winning a Hart trophy and finishing 3rd for another, while playing D back in Montreal.

All that to say, Siebert was really good at both positions. He was one of the best LWs in the league and then one of the best Ds, both for a stretch of several years. That's a flexibility value-add that only a few players have ever had (Red Kelly jumps to mind).

Both Babe's should go in now. They really should have gone earlier.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Brewer vs. Bouchard should be a nice discussion. For me, Bouchard would be my top defenseman over Blake and Brewer. Siebert is a hybrid and has to be treated as such for me in this voting.
Larionov vs. Lemaire should be a good comparison.
Assuming that Dye & Savard will make it this round.

I had both Bouchard and Brewer well ahead of Blake.

And Brewer ahead of Bouchard.

 

[Professor What]

I never felt quite ready for Fuhr or Price, and I soured some on Smith in the last round. The only goalies on my radar right now are Holmes and Worsley.

I'm still not feeling Blake from last round. Savard and Shanahan kind of defaulted into my last two slots last time, and since I think I like most, if not all, of the newcomers better, that's about where they stay. I think there's the most wiggle room for me on Savard though. He's of a type of player that I struggle with -- high peak but shorter shelf life among post-expansion players. Outside of the ridiculous heights of an Orr or a Dryden, I really have a hard time with the balance.

I also agree that I find Larionov very hard to rank individually, but he's in contention here, at least at the moment because he just kind of feels right. I can't really express what I mean other than to say it's a gut level thing.

The guys that have been around for a couple of rounds are feeling more and more like it's time for them to go, and I really like the defensemen overall (save Blake).

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

People actually think Hap Holmes is a candidate here? I don't really see how that is justifiable. Holmes would be the 5th goalie on this list born before 1900 (in fact, the 5th born just between 1885 and 1893). In contrast, there are only 6 goalies already voted in who were born after 1952.

If you think Holmes should go in soon ahead of Fuhr and Price, then I'd love to hear an explanation of why you think there were almost as many Top 180 goalies born during a 9 year stretch in the 19th century as there were over roughly four decades of hockey history, a period that includes more than half of the Baby Boom generation as well as the vast majority of non-Canadian NHLers.

Look at the implied talent pool increase from the skaters in the current Top 175 (I just grabbed the first position given on the master list to keep things simple):

Centers:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 25

Defencemen:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 19

Wingers:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 18

Goalies:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 6

That's a total of 16 early era skaters, compared to 62 in the latter group. So if the representation of all-time great skaters born since 1953 is 3.9 times higher than in the pre-1900 talent pool, then why should we think that a split of close to 1-to-1 when it comes to goalies is in any way reasonable and not obvious evidence of a systematic underrating of modern netminders?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Didn't have Holmes or Worsley on my original list.

I'm reconsidering Gump (great name) but that losing record (333-348-149) hurts.

 

[seventieslord]

People actually think Hap Holmes is a candidate here? I don't really see how that is justifiable. Holmes would be the 5th goalie on this list born before 1900 (in fact, the 5th born just between 1885 and 1893). In contrast, there are only 6 goalies already voted in who were born after 1952.

If you think Holmes should go in soon ahead of Fuhr and Price, then I'd love to hear an explanation of why you think there were almost as many Top 180 goalies born during a 9 year stretch in the 19th century as there were over roughly four decades of hockey history, a period that includes more than half of the Baby Boom generation as well as the vast majority of non-Canadian NHLers.

Look at the implied talent pool increase from the skaters in the current Top 175 (I just grabbed the first position given on the master list to keep things simple):

Centers:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 25

Defencemen:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 19

Wingers:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 18

Goalies:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 6

That's a total of 16 early era skaters, compared to 62 in the latter group. So if the representation of all-time great skaters born since 1953 is 3.9 times higher than in the pre-1900 talent pool, then why should we think that a split of close to 1-to-1 when it comes to goalies is in any way reasonable and not obvious evidence of a systematic underrating of modern netminders?

You're not wrong, but I'd really like to hear from you about these modern goaltenders. How would you vote? Who's missing here?

 

[ted2019]

Didn't have Holmes or Worsley on my original list.

I'm reconsidering Gump (great name) but that losing record (333-348-149) hurts.

The losing record was the reason that I didn't add him. I have 6 other goalies rated from #168-#220

 

[ted2019]

People actually think Hap Holmes is a candidate here? I don't really see how that is justifiable. Holmes would be the 5th goalie on this list born before 1900 (in fact, the 5th born just between 1885 and 1893). In contrast, there are only 6 goalies already voted in who were born after 1952.

If you think Holmes should go in soon ahead of Fuhr and Price, then I'd love to hear an explanation of why you think there were almost as many Top 180 goalies born during a 9 year stretch in the 19th century as there were over roughly four decades of hockey history, a period that includes more than half of the Baby Boom generation as well as the vast majority of non-Canadian NHLers.

Look at the implied talent pool increase from the skaters in the current Top 175 (I just grabbed the first position given on the master list to keep things simple):

Centers:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 25

Defencemen:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 19

Wingers:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 18

Goalies:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 6

That's a total of 16 early era skaters, compared to 62 in the latter group. So if the representation of all-time great skaters born since 1953 is 3.9 times higher than in the pre-1900 talent pool, then why should we think that a split of close to 1-to-1 when it comes to goalies is in any way reasonable and not obvious evidence of a systematic underrating of modern netminders?

My other 6 goalies are broken down this way.
Pre-1900: 3
1953- now: 3

 

[tarheelhockey]

People actually think Hap Holmes is a candidate here? I don't really see how that is justifiable. Holmes would be the 5th goalie on this list born before 1900 (in fact, the 5th born just between 1885 and 1893). In contrast, there are only 6 goalies already voted in who were born after 1952.

If you think Holmes should go in soon ahead of Fuhr and Price, then I'd love to hear an explanation of why you think there were almost as many Top 180 goalies born during a 9 year stretch in the 19th century as there were over roughly four decades of hockey history, a period that includes more than half of the Baby Boom generation as well as the vast majority of non-Canadian NHLers.

Look at the implied talent pool increase from the skaters in the current Top 175 (I just grabbed the first position given on the master list to keep things simple):

Centers:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 25

Defencemen:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 19

Wingers:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 18

Goalies:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 6

That's a total of 16 early era skaters, compared to 62 in the latter group. So if the representation of all-time great skaters born since 1953 is 3.9 times higher than in the pre-1900 talent pool, then why should we think that a split of close to 1-to-1 when it comes to goalies is in any way reasonable and not obvious evidence of a systematic underrating of modern netminders?

I think this is a pretty persuasive line of logic, similar to why I was pretty high on getting guys like Stamkos and Sundin inducted sooner rather than later.

That said, I think it's important to point out that "1953-now" includes multiple eras, and our list doesn't represent those eras equally:

1953-1962: nobody +1

1962-1971: Belfour, Hasek, Roy +4

1972-1981: Brodeur, Luongo +3

1982-present: Lundqvist +5

The "+X" represent players that haven't been inducted yet, but received votes on the master list that @quoipourquoi posted at the beginning of the project. Price and Fuhr are included here as "+".

I think what this shows is that goalies born in that first decade arrived in the NHL at a really bad time to be a pro goalie (late 70s - late 80s), at least from a legacy standpoint. First they would get lit up in the most offensively-potent environment in history, then they would be sent off to early retirement by a fundamental change in the position. I'm not sure we really have the choice to rank that cohort in equal numbers with goalies who played during more stable, long-career eras.

Then there's the most recent cohort, who simply haven't completed their careers yet. Based on the master list, we actually have a really large number of nominees among active goalies... it's just that we don't agree on which ones belong. That makes sense, when talking about active players. Right?

I think you have a valid point that it's a bit weird to have more goalies born 1885-93 than 1972-81. If all of the candidates come forward (I don't know if they will, or if we would induct that many goalies so quickly) it would even out a bit, but it does make the list look a bit odd. Still... from the standpoint of full-career greatness and legacy, it's not too hard to see why the top tier of 1910s-20s goalies would be ranked over the top tier of 1980s goalies.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

People actually think Hap Holmes is a candidate here? I don't really see how that is justifiable. Holmes would be the 5th goalie on this list born before 1900 (in fact, the 5th born just between 1885 and 1893). In contrast, there are only 6 goalies already voted in who were born after 1952.

If you think Holmes should go in soon ahead of Fuhr and Price, then I'd love to hear an explanation of why you think there were almost as many Top 180 goalies born during a 9 year stretch in the 19th century as there were over roughly four decades of hockey history, a period that includes more than half of the Baby Boom generation as well as the vast majority of non-Canadian NHLers.

Look at the implied talent pool increase from the skaters in the current Top 175 (I just grabbed the first position given on the master list to keep things simple):

Centers:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 25

Defencemen:
Pre-1900: 6
1953-now: 19

Wingers:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 18

Goalies:
Pre-1900: 4
1953-now: 6

That's a total of 16 early era skaters, compared to 62 in the latter group. So if the representation of all-time great skaters born since 1953 is 3.9 times higher than in the pre-1900 talent pool, then why should we think that a split of close to 1-to-1 when it comes to goalies is in any way reasonable and not obvious evidence of a systematic underrating of modern netminders?

Thank you for articulating what I was vaguely thinking.

Hap Holmes looks like the next best goalie of the Vezina/Benedict/Lehman generation, but he was nowhere near as revered as the other three.

I think that this could be the round Price/Smith/Fuhr start to be relevant. I was hoping you'd post a bit on them last round, but perhaps this round is when it's time.

____

As for me, Denis Savard is a lock for near the top of my list. There's an active center I'd love to vote above him, but he's not available yet.

Rest of my ballot is pretty wide open.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Didn't have Holmes or Worsley on my original list.

I'm reconsidering Gump (great name) but that losing record (333-348-149) hurts.

How much did Gump even distinguish himself from Rogie Vachon?

At the very least, he was quite a bit less important to his dynasty than Smith or Fuhr, right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

FWIW, Siebert is a case where multi-positionality really mattered to his teams.

In that era, players were sometimes moved around the lineup in really limited, context-heavy situations which didn't necessarily speak to their athletic superiority. An example discussed earlier in this project was Busher Jackson being moved back to D when he had aged out of being a fast-skating scoring threat.

Siebert's multipositional movement was not like that. With the Maroons he showed that he could be both a major scoring threat as part of the "S" line, and also a very good defenseman. Eddie Gerard took full advantage of that flexibility to move Siebert around the lineup creating matchup issues and opening up space for Siebert to use his speed.

In Boston, after the Eddie Shore/Ace Bailey incident, Art Ross took advantage of Siebert's experience to move him from LW back to Shore's position at D. Siebert turned out to be not just a short-term solution for Shore's absence, but a long-term fixture next to Shore after he returned. That kicked off a career turnaround that culminated in winning a Hart trophy and finishing 3rd for another, while playing D back in Montreal.

All that to say, Siebert was really good at both positions. He was one of the best LWs in the league and then one of the best Ds, both for a stretch of several years. That's a flexibility value-add that only a few players have ever had (Red Kelly jumps to mind).

I think Siebert has a bit of a case in this round (I like Seibert/Brewer/Blake among the dmen here with no idea as to the order right now), but if we was one of the best LWs in the league, why was he never an All-Star LW? Was he ever even close?

 

[ted2019]

How much did Gump even distinguish himself from Rogie Vachon?

At the very least, he was quite a bit less important to his dynasty than Smith or Fuhr, right?

The Habs got rid of both Gump & Rogie by the 71-72 seasons. ( Gump by the 69-70 season) With Dryden , Myre & Thomas in the pipeline, they were both deemed to be expandable by Montreal management. They essentially gave Rogie away for bit parts and 7 games of DeJordy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think Siebert has a bit of a case in this round (I like Seibert/Brewer/Blake among the dmen here with no idea as to the order right now), but if we was one of the best LWs in the league, why was he never an All-Star LW? Was he ever even close?

That's a really good question. Thinking through it year by year, he would have had the best case during the S Line seasons 1930-32.

1930 - No All Star teams yet, so I can only conjecture who the voters would have gone for. This was the goofy year where the offside rules changed dramatically mid-season, so the scoring numbers are all out of whack and the arbitrary timing of hot/cold streaks makes a dramatic difference on the bottom line. All of that uncertainty notwithstanding, Hec Kilrea was probably the surprise breakout star of the season and would certainly have pulled down an AS selection. Bun Cook and Dutch Gainor were both successful in supporting roles on top lines. Aurel Joliat was active but in a relatively quiet phase. Detroit was rolling a couple of good LWs in George Hay and Herbie Lewis, but I don't think they'd have gained votes. It's possible that maybe Siebert gets a look from the voters here... I'm not sure if it's enough to pull a 2AS.

1931 - All Star LWs are Aurele Joliat and Bun Cook. This being the start of Joliat's late-career surge that would climax in a Hart win, I think it's fair to say he was simply a better player; but it should be noted that Siebert scored more goals that year, while Joliat had a whole lot more assists next to a Hart-winning Howie Morenz. Bun Cook is one you can look at and easily wonder if the voters were just enamored with the Bread Line, all three members receiving AS awards (which strongly implies that a number of ballots had the line listed together). I give Cook credit for being a very good glue guy and clearly perfect for his role on that line, but as an individual player I have a hard time ranking him over Siebert even at his peak. This was also a very solid season for Busher Jackson, and Johnny Gottselig had his first really good year in Chicago. Kilrea had fallen off his pedestal by this point and was just "good enough".

1932 - This was the year Busher Jackson blew up and won the scoring race, which carries an obvious 1AS along with it. Joliat and Siebert tied each other in points, with Joliat again getting a bunch of assists next to 1AS Morenz while playing on a much better team, and that translated to a 2AS for Joliat. I find the "3AS" selection of Hec Kilrea puzzling, as he was nothing special on a mediocre Detroit team. Other than being a lot of fun to watch, I don't see anything to recommend him for that high of a placement. Beyond that you've got more votes for Bun Cook, and then scattered votes for a bunch of players (including Hooley Smith who registered votes at all 3 forward positions).


Taking this whole period in its entirety, I'd tier the league's LWs as follows (in alpha order within each tier):

Busher Jackson - This was the heyday of the Kid Line and Jackson's 1932 was really impressive
Aurel Joliat - 1930 was on the weaker side, but he really broke out in 1931 and was one of the best players in the league for a while after that

*gap*

Bun Cook - He was a very good glue guy, with all the positives and negatives that implies.
Hec Kilrea - In spite of the 1932 AS votes, he fell off pretty sharply. That being said, he was a hell of a player in 1930. Supposedly he was a little too friendly with the bottle after that.
Babe Siebert - In a given year he would be about the 5th highest scoring LW, but also the meanest by a mile, and probably the fastest after Kilrea.

*gap*

Dutch Gainor - I may be underselling him slightly here... he was really productive, but I feel like that was pretty heavily driven by Cooney Weiland.
Johnny Gottselig - His best years were still ahead, but he had a respectable breakout on a challenged Chicago team.
George Hay - Way over the hill by this time, but he still had some crafty veteran presence left in him.
Herbie Lewis - At this stage he was pretty raw, but a speedster.


So yeah, Siebert wasn't quite at the level to pull big AS votes. This was a period of pretty good competition at LW and there were solidly 4 or 5 name-brand forward lines active at the same time (Kid Line, Dynamite Line, S Line, Bread Line, Howie Morenz and Whoever's On Howie Morenz's Line) which elevated the profile of those LWs considerably. I feel like a Siebert-level player could probably have pulled down a decent amount of AS support at certain points in history, but this wasn't one of those points.

Note: in the process of looking through all this, I see the Gazette published the individual ballots of each 1931 voter in a series from late February to early March. I'm not sure how that could prove useful, but it's good to know it's there.

 

[MXD]

How much did Gump even distinguish himself from Rogie Vachon?

At the very least, he was quite a bit less important to his dynasty than Smith or Fuhr, right?

I realize this is probably not the greatest argument, but there's probably no way Johnny Bower ended up where he did without giving ANY consideration to the time he spent in the AHL.
And he was in the AHL because...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I realize this is probably not the greatest argument, but there's probably no way Johnny Bower ended up where he did without giving ANY consideration to the time he spent in the AHL.
And he was in the AHL because...

Gump!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How much did Gump even distinguish himself from Rogie Vachon?

At the very least, he was quite a bit less important to his dynasty than Smith or Fuhr, right?

Gump played three times as many games for the Rangers as he did for the Canadiens.

In 581 games for the Rangers his GAA was 3.04. For the Canadiens in 172 games his GAA was 2.40. No surprise.

But Gump's SV% for New York was .913 and for Montreal was .914. That seems remarkable to me.

He also had a third place finish in Hart voting for the Rangers and led the league in SV% (.927) in another season in New York.

I had Vachon on my original list, but not Worsley. That was probably a mistake.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The Habs got rid of both Gump & Rogie by the 71-72 seasons. ( Gump by the 69-70 season) With Dryden , Myre & Thomas in the pipeline, they were both deemed to be expandable by Montreal management. They essentially gave Rogie away for bit parts and 7 games of DeJordy.

To be fair, Gump was 40 when Montreal got rid of him. Rogie was 26.