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

[tarheelhockey]

The main issue with Blake is there's a perception that he wasn't very strong defensively, and he often put himself out of position to make big hits. I've sometimes seen him compared to Ed Jovanovski or Dion Phaneuf (not in terms of ability, but in terms of having very clear strengths and weaknesses).

Maybe I'm forgetting, but I don't think this perception existed during his career. Sure, he wasn't Scott Stevens defensively, but did anyone question his defensive play while he was active? I think a lot of the pushback has arisen because he's one of a small handful of defensemen to win the Norris with a negative plus/minus. And he's been widely criticized - perhaps rightly so - for taking the Norris from Lidstrom 1998.

The other issue is, despite having a long career (20 years, nearly 1,300 games), he was in the conversation for best defenseman for only a short period (pretty much 1998 to 2003). Only Lidstrom got more Norris trophy votes during that five year period. But Blake got surprisingly little support for the Norris outside of that five year window.

One thing that helps his case - after it was apparent LA would trade him in 2001, he was considered a hugely valuable addition to any contender. And he delivered immediately - he was arguably Colorado's 3rd most valuable player that spring as they won the Stanley Cup.

All that being said - still not sure where I'll rank him.

I'm wondering about the contemporary criticism as well.

From what I remember when Blake won that Norris, the reason it seemed like a relatively weak win was mostly because it wasn't one of the big-name superstars like Bourque, Chelios, Leetch who had dominated the award for close to 15 years by that point. There was a changing of the guard going on, and Blake had been a bit off the radar for the past few years. Then he has this big season where he looks like the next big HOF defenseman and while it made sense for him to win the award, it just wasn't quite the level of perceived domination that we were used to seeing.

(fair warning on possible mis-remembering) I feel like I didn't start seeing the idea that Lidstrom was robbed until later, when Lidstrom had emerged as the clear-cut better player. If anything, in 1998 I feel like there was still some lingering suspicion about the amount of spotlight Lidstrom was getting playing very conservatively on a heavily stacked Detroit team, relative to Blake doing everything pretty much on his own for the Kings. That debate looks very different in light of 2001-08, but I think the Hart balloting reinforces that the common perspective at that moment in history was not so favorable to Lidstrom as it would be a few years later. I think a smart fan could have looked at those results in 1998 and not seen an issue with them.

Of course that doesn't mean that the criticism is necessarily wrong, but I do have that moment of wondering whether we're projecting it backwards in time in a way that isn't fair to Blake.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The main issue with Blake is there's a perception that he wasn't very strong defensively, and he often put himself out of position to make big hits. I've sometimes seen him compared to Ed Jovanovski or Dion Phaneuf (not in terms of ability, but in terms of having very clear strengths and weaknesses).

Maybe I'm forgetting, but I don't think this perception existed during his career. Sure, he wasn't Scott Stevens defensively, but did anyone question his defensive play while he was active? I think a lot of the pushback has arisen because he's one of a small handful of defensemen to win the Norris with a negative plus/minus. And he's been widely criticized - perhaps rightly so - for taking the Norris from Lidstrom 1998.

The other issue is, despite having a long career (20 years, nearly 1,300 games), he was in the conversation for best defenseman for only a short period (pretty much 1998 to 2003). Only Lidstrom got more Norris trophy votes during that five year period. But Blake got surprisingly little support for the Norris outside of that five year window.

One thing that helps his case - after it was apparent LA would trade him in 2001, he was considered a hugely valuable addition to any contender. And he delivered immediately - he was arguably Colorado's 3rd most valuable player that spring as they won the Stanley Cup.

All that being said - still not sure where I'll rank him.

My take on Blake is that he was basically a physically perfect defenseman who had so-so hockey sense. There's a thing called "recall bias," where people tend to remember the unusual more than the mundane. This goes both ways - remembering the big hit, but also remembering the defensive blunders that go into looking for big hits.

But you know what? If Rob Blake had Scott Stevens' hockey sense, he'd basically be Scott Stevens with a better shot, right?

My take of "physically perfect with so-so hockey sense" is consistent with Blake having much better defensive numbers on the PK than at ES, as keeping it simple is the way to PK.


_____

Edit: One mini-point in Blake's favor - he did impress me later in his career with his ability to reinvent himself as a good shut-down defenseman after his physical gifts had declined and he was no longer all-star level. Not every defenseman can do that.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

here are my theories on what happened to blake's reputation:

as HO mentions above, he got lumped into this genre of defenceman that got pillaried over the last 10-15 years. the two specific names that were mentioned are instructive—jovo and mccabe they weren't just two physical toolsy guys with questionable hockey sense. they were also 1/1a dmen on marquee canadian teams who initially were overrated (and compared to a total package guy like... rob blake) but also were glaring in their defensive shortcomings.

to be fair, there is definitely a thing where physical offensive guys with big slapshots who get beaten wide a lot get overrated as scott stevenses, and blake is one of them. but he's so many levels higher than mccabe or jovo or kevin hatcher, who is the king of this genre of player.

blake was certainly overrated early on for various reasons, but then "we" really overcorrected on him. we have posters who talk about him like he was this kevin hatcher who couldn't skate and chew gum at the same time, and those same posters will go to bat for, say, dana murzyn as a guy who because he looked big and clumsy got unnecessarily piled on for being a defensive liability. point is taken with both arguments, but the truth is much closer to the players' reputations than the hyperbolic overcorrect, and obviously the murzyn argument can be made for blake, and vice versa.

/

early blake was interesting. i remember the gretzky quote that went around the league in blake's rookie year. he was marveling at blake always making the short pass on the breakout instead of the junior hockey stretch pass that rookie dmen take years to unlearn. then he compared him to larry robinson and noting his influence, but also went out of his way to point out that blake walked into training camp already knowing how to do that.

i think one of the things about blake's reputation in the long haul is that early on he was, as TDMM says, the "physically perfect defenseman." for so many years, deserving or not, he was considered the best young dman in the league. and the larry robinson comparison followed him around, which both helped and hurt him. as the league was clearly getting bigger and everyone was trying to find their next lindroses, rob blake was going to be the ideal 1D for the 90s. and then at the same time, the other guy who fit this mould, pronger, was slow to develop.

but then pronger obviously surpassed blake and i think blake's reputation suffered for it, in the same way that i think we'd all think differently about kovalchuk if there had never been an ovechkin coming in a few years after him. when we dwell on blake's shortcomings instead of his strengths, i think in large part we're holding it against him that he wasn't pronger.

for ex, if you asked me to choose between blake or shea weber, i'm choosing blake. my team faced blake in the '91, '93, and 2001 playoffs. we also faced weber in 2011. they were very similar players and both guys were what they were: as a 1D he could do everything, though defensively he was not elite. if you asked him to do too much, you could blow by him wide. but in the context of a good team with defensive support, no one would have any complaints.

but blake, especially peak colorado blake, was just better than weber imo.

/

and finally, i think blake also gets crapped on because he was a made guy. walks into the league as a FOG*, established himself as a go to team canada guy and had a great rep in world championships and best on best play, and for those of us in the smythe/pacific division, his entire career refs let him get away with murder. i have NEVER seen a player get the latitude blake got in terms of mauling guys in the corners or cross checking guys in front of the net like he's a WWF guy with a chair, and that goes for rookie LA blake, peak colorado blake, and i don't even want to talk about old man SJ blake. it still pisses me off.

One mini-point in Blake's favor - he did impress me later in his career with his ability to reinvent himself as a good shut-down defenseman after his physical gifts had declined and he was no longer all-star level. Not every defenseman can do that.

what he was allowed to get away with definitely colours this, but yes SJ blake was part of a very good shutdown pair with young vlasic.


* friend of gretzky

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

REPOST OF MY BABE SIEBERT POST FROM THE HOH TOP DEFENSEMEN PROJECT

Albert "Babe" Siebert might have the most unique career of anyone available now. Here's an attempt to try to get a handle on him.

Siebert was one of those few players who could do it all - excelling both as a power forward and an all star defenseman. You don't see that any longer! He was as strong as an ox, making him nearly impossible to stop. In addition he added very good skating abilities with good straight-ahead speed. He was very responsible defensively and though he never had the scoring exploits of his famous "S" Line teammates, he was an underrated shooter and a skillful playmaker

The years as a Left Wing / Utility Player (1925-26 to 1933-34)

Babe Siebert as best known as the Power Forward who helped do the dirty work for his teammate Nels Stewart when Stewart was standing in front of the opponent's net Phil Esposito style or outright cherrypicking:

Stewart was the natural scorer on the line, and Smith was the passer, but Siebert was equally well known for his rushing, his sheer physical strength and his relentless backchecking to get the team possession of the puck

Siebert was the digger, using his physical strength to spring pucks from opponents in the corners, then backchecking relentlessly in order to lug the puck back into the opposing end.

However, Siebert spent a significant amount of time at D even during this time (quotes via Sturminator).

It appears that the Montreal Maroons regularly rotated their players between forward and defense:

There are only two regular defense players, Dunc Munro and Red Dutton, but the Maroons have three others who can fill in on the guard positions when required, namely, Nels Stewart, Hooley Smith and Babe Siebert, all of whom are perfectly at home in front of the net.

Hooley Smith can work in three positions, centre, right wing or defense. Bill Phillips can work at centre and right wing. Nels Stewart can play centre, right wing and defense. Babe Siebert is at home at left wing or defense. Bill Touhey is a centre or left wing player. Oatman plays left wing and a fair defensive game. Ward is a right winger primarily, as is Frank Carson.

With a galaxy of players as mobile as the Maroons, Manager Eddie Gerard should be able to meet any occasion without impairing the effectiveness of his team. In the practices he has tried out all the possible combinations and finds the results are about the same.

The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Siebert appeared to be a regular on defense for the 1927-28 season:

Dunc Munro, who has developed into a fast performer and who has achieved a reputation as a money-maker on the stock market; Red Dutton, the most improved defense player in hockey, and the durable Siebert, help to form a flashy and hard-checking defense.

Ottawa Citizen - Google News Archive Search

Based on what I've seen (didn't save all the articles), it seems that this was the regular formation for most of the season - Siebert on D, Stewart at LW and Smith at center with (Jimmy Ward) on the right wing.

From the playoffs that season:

The Lineup:

The Maroons will have Clint Bendict in their nests (sic) with Babe Siebert and Red Dutton on defense. Hooley Smith at center and Nelson Stewart and Jimmy Ward at the wings.

Siebert also spent siginficant time at D during the 1928-29 season. Here are two game reports that list him at D:

Montreal Gazette - November, 19, 1928: The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
Montreal Gazette - December 10, 1928: The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Conclusion: While Babe Siebert is traditional thought of as a left wing during this period, it would be more accurate to call him a "utility player" who would play either left wing or defense, depending on team needs.

His late career peak as a defenseman (1934-35 to 1938-39)

Having lost a step, Siebert moved back to defense where he not only held his own but actually improved his game, claiming the Hart Trophy as league MVP. Renowned for his offensive rushes and his outstanding defensive coverage, Siebert had eight goals and 20 assists in 44 regular season games.-ourhistory.canadiens.com

Blessed with a powerful body and broad shoulders, Albert "Babe" Siebert played hockey with a great deal of heart and determination. He was certainly not afraid to use his body, and while he racked up penalty minute totals, Siebert was a complete player whose career as a Montreal Canadien included winning the Hart Trophy as the best player in the league

(Quotes via Leafs Forever)

1934-35: Babe Siebert's first full season in Boston. This appears to be a transition year. Despite high point totals, Siebert was not an All-Star, indicating that he probably began the season at forward.

1935-36: Siebert's second and final season in Boston. Siebert is a full time defenseman by this point. He is a 1st Team All-Star at D next to Eddie Shore, but finishes far behind Shore in All-Star voting.

1936-37: Siebert's first season as a Montreal Canadien and the best of his career. He leads all defensemen in All Star voting - Eddie Shore is right behind. And Babe wins the Hart Trophy in a landslide:

1. Babe Siebert, Mtl D 63
2. Lionel Conacher, Mtl M D 43
3. Ebbie Goodfellow, Det D 42
4. Tiny Thompson, Bos G 31
5. Marty Barry, Det C 26

In the context of the 1930s, a 20 point win is a landslide.

1937-38: Siebert is a 1st Team All Star for the 3rd season in a row. He has almost as many votes for the All Star Team as Eddie Shore, and finishes a distant 3rd behind Eddie Shore and forward Paul Thompson for the Hart.

1938-39: Siebert finishes 6th in All Star voting for defensemen at the age of 35. He then retires.

Why you should vote for Babe Siebert this round

• Probably the best peak of any defenseman remaining - Babe was a 1st Team All Star for 3 seasons in a row, before finishing 6th in the 4th season. Only Butch Bouchard has done that among available defensemen, and competition was much stronger when Siebert did it - Eddie Shore and Earl Seibert were at their peak, and so were lesser HHOFers like Ebbie Goodfellow and Art Coulter. Lionel Conacher had a few good years in there, as well. Babe also finished 1st and 3rd in Hart voting.

Why you shouldn't vote for Babe Siebert this round

• Only 4-5 seasons as a pure defenseman. Babe was a utility player for the first 9-10 seasons of his career, switching between LW and D based on team needs. He was only a pure defenseman for the last 4-5 seasons of his career. But his best years (by far) were his final 4 years at D.
• While Siebert was a very useful player outside of his 4 year peak, he was not an All-Star calibre player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

COMBO OF MY 2 CARL BREWER POSTS FROM THE HOH TOP DEFENSEMEN PROJECT

Nobody ever knew what Carl Brewer was going to do next. On the ice, he was a tough but agile defenseman who could stickhandle with a deceptive creativity. He had the ability to cross the opposing blue line and then pause, using dekes to ward off checkers, waiting for a teammate to get into the open for one of his feathery passes. In the defensive zone, he was adept at getting in an opponent's way, using clean tactics and not so clean tactics, such as cutting the palm out of his gloves to facilitate a sneaky kind of holding. Off the ice, he was a scholar and a freethinker who retired several times from hockey, only to turn up later playing on different teams or in different countries.

QUESTION: How do you guys think we should deal with Carl Brewer's missing years?

I think the it's obvious that Brewer was capable of playing All-Star calibre hockey during his 4 year hiatus from the NHL. He was an All Star for several years before leaving, and was an All-Star his first season back. And he made quite an impact in the World Championships in 1967 and playing in Finland in 1969. But how much credit should we give him for the "missing years?"

He was considered a "superstar" in the mid-60s.

Leafs won the Cup in 1962, 1963, and 1964. In 1961, 1962, and 1963 Brewer actually finished a little bit ahead of Tim Horton in both Norris and All-Star voting. Horton finished ahead in 1964 and 1965.

59-60: 9th in Norris voting
60-61: 6th in Norris voting
61-62: 4th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star
62-63: 2nd in Norris voting, 1st Team All Star
63-64: 9th in Norris voting
64-65: 6th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

From the all-star voting, it appears that Carl Brewer had a better defensive reputation than Horton in the regular season for the Toronto's first 2 Cups of the 1960s

In 1961-62, Horton was 3rd in scoring among defensemen, but was not a First or Second Team All Star. First Team was Doug Harvey (6th in scoring among D) and Jean Guy Talbot in his career year (1st in scoring among D). Second team was Pierre Pilote (2nd in scoring among D) and Carl Brewer (9th in scoring among D). Horton outscored his teammate Brewer 38-23, yet Brewer was the 2nd Team All Star.

In 1962-63, Brewer and Horton tied with 25 points, but Brewer was the first team All-Star and Horton was the 2nd Team All Star.

Horton was a 1st Team All-Star for the first time in 1963-64.

Tim Horton's obituary confirms that Brewer was considered a "superstar" and seemingly Toronto's #1 before 1963-64

It wasn't until 1963-64 that Horton made the first all-star team and he did it twice later, taking grip of the Toronto defense in four Stanley Cup years as Carl Brewer went through the change from superstar to free spirit.

Seems like Brewer actually was considered Toronto's #1 at the beginning of the dynasty (though Horton stepped up in the playoffs).

Right to the End Tim Horton Showed How to Play the Game, The Montreal Gazette, Feb 21, 1974

After 1965, Brewer abruptly quit the NHL:

During training camp in 1965, Brewer had an on ice disagreement with teammate Johnny Bower that continued into the dressing room. Imlach sent the defenseman home for a few days "to think about it." Brewer did think about it, and decided to retire from professional hockey. He would stay out of the NHL for four years.

The tandem of Brewer and Baun was one of the best defense tandems the NHL has ever seen, and they always had the Leafs in contention for the Stanley Cup. The Leafs could win many Stanley Cups some believed. But Brewer did not share the same visions as the Leafs and their fans. He shocked the hockey world when he quit the Leafs in 1965, choosing to complete his bachelor of arts degree at the University of Toronto.

That was just the beginning of bizarre career moves, at least in the eyes of the hockey establishment and hockey fans. One of the best defensemen in the game just upped and left to the U of T. He would return to hockey though, struggling to regain his amateur status so he could skate with the Canadian national team for two years. He would then be a player-coach with Muskegon in the International Hockey League before accomplishing the same role with HIFK Helsinki and the Finnish national team! Imagine one of Canada's top defensemen quitting the NHL in the late 1960s to coach in Finland!

Somewhere along the line Brewer's pendulum of disenchantment swung back the other way, as he decided he needed to return to the evils of the NHL and all of his enemies that he once escaped.

Brewer's "time off"

In 1966 and 1967 he played with the Canadian National team, winning a bronze medal at the 1967 world hockey Championships. His brief stint in HIFK made such an impact on Finnish hockey that he was inducted to the Finnish Hockey Hall of Fame in 2003.

Brewer played in the 1967 World Championships and was named an All-Star (Alexander Ragulin of the USSR was the other All-Star. (Vitaly Davydov of the USSR was named best defenseman by the Directorate).

Brewer led HIFK to the championship title as player-coach in 1968/69. This was his only season in Finland, but he left a permanent impact on HIFK, club known ever since for its gritty and physical style of play.

http://www.vapriikki.net/jaakiekkomuseo/english/honoured/brewer_e.htm

The Leafs would win the 1967 Cup without Brewer. An aging Marcel Pronvost replaced him

Brewer returned to the NHL in 1969-70 and was immediately an all-star:

69-70: 3rd in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

Then he started to suffer injury problems and declined.

Punch Imlach seems to have greatly appreciated Brewer's game in retrospect, even in the years Brewer was abroad

1969 Punch Imlach choose his All-Star Leafs team composed of players he coached over the past 10 years. His team:

Frank Mahovlich - Norm Ullman - George Armstrong
Tim Horton - Carl Brewer
Johnny Bower

On Brewer, Imlach said, "As good a skater as I have ever had on my hockey teams. He could afford to make mistakes because he was so fast he could recover."

The newspaper noted that Brewer was "currently playing with the Finnish National Team" so it would appear Imlach picked Brewer even before they had a chance to reconsile.

Punch also coached Allan Stanley and a past his prime but still effective Marcel Pronovost.

Punch Chooses Best with Ullman No. 1, The Montreal Gazette, Jan 3, 1969

 

[ResilientBeast]

REPOST OF MY BABE SIEBERT POST FROM THE HOH TOP DEFENSEMEN PROJECT

Albert "Babe" Siebert might have the most unique career of anyone available now. Here's an attempt to try to get a handle on him.



The years as a Left Wing / Utility Player (1925-26 to 1933-34)

Babe Siebert as best known as the Power Forward who helped do the dirty work for his teammate Nels Stewart when Stewart was standing in front of the opponent's net Phil Esposito style or outright cherrypicking:





However, Siebert spent a significant amount of time at D even during this time (quotes via Sturminator).

It appears that the Montreal Maroons regularly rotated their players between forward and defense:



The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Siebert appeared to be a regular on defense for the 1927-28 season:



Ottawa Citizen - Google News Archive Search



From the playoffs that season:



Siebert also spent siginficant time at D during the 1928-29 season. Here are two game reports that list him at D:

Montreal Gazette - November, 19, 1928: The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
Montreal Gazette - December 10, 1928: The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Conclusion: While Babe Siebert is traditional thought of as a left wing during this period, it would be more accurate to call him a "utility player" who would play either left wing or defense, depending on team needs.

His late career peak as a defenseman (1934-35 to 1938-39)




(Quotes via Leafs Forever)

1934-35: Babe Siebert's first full season in Boston. This appears to be a transition year. Despite high point totals, Siebert was not an All-Star, indicating that he probably began the season at forward.

1935-36: Siebert's second and final season in Boston. Siebert is a full time defenseman by this point. He is a 1st Team All-Star at D next to Eddie Shore, but finishes far behind Shore in All-Star voting.

1936-37: Siebert's first season as a Montreal Canadien and the best of his career. He leads all defensemen in All Star voting - Eddie Shore is right behind. And Babe wins the Hart Trophy in a landslide:

1. Babe Siebert, Mtl D 63
2. Lionel Conacher, Mtl M D 43
3. Ebbie Goodfellow, Det D 42
4. Tiny Thompson, Bos G 31
5. Marty Barry, Det C 26

In the context of the 1930s, a 20 point win is a landslide.

1937-38: Siebert is a 1st Team All Star for the 3rd season in a row. He has almost as many votes for the All Star Team as Eddie Shore, and finishes a distant 3rd behind Eddie Shore and forward Paul Thompson for the Hart.

1938-39: Siebert finishes 6th in All Star voting for defensemen at the age of 35. He then retires.

Why you should vote for Babe Siebert this round

• Probably the best peak of any defenseman remaining - Babe was a 1st Team All Star for 3 seasons in a row, before finishing 6th in the 4th season. Only Butch Bouchard has done that among available defensemen, and competition was much stronger when Siebert did it - Eddie Shore and Earl Seibert were at their peak, and so were lesser HHOFers like Ebbie Goodfellow and Art Coulter. Lionel Conacher had a few good years in there, as well. Babe also finished 1st and 3rd in Hart voting.

Why you shouldn't vote for Babe Siebert this round

• Only 4-5 seasons as a pure defenseman. Babe was a utility player for the first 9-10 seasons of his career, switching between LW and D based on team needs. He was only a pure defenseman for the last 4-5 seasons of his career. But his best years (by far) were his final 4 years at D.
• While Siebert was a very useful player outside of his 4 year peak, he was not an All-Star calibre player.

I never finished the breakdown but here are the positions listed in the Globe and Mail for the Maroons from the perspective of Nels

TLDR
25-26 - Seibert is a LW
26-27 - Seibert is a LW
27-28 - Seibert is mostly a D
28-29 - Seibert is a mostly a D
29-30 - The S Line

1925-26 Season

Date	Nels' Position	Regular Linemates	Notes
26-Jan-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
01-Feb-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
03-Feb-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
10-Feb-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
24-Feb-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
01-Mar-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
03-Mar-26	C	Broadbent (RW)
08-Mar-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
12-Mar-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
17-Mar-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
18-Mar-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
24-Mar-26	D	Noble (D)	Playoff Game
29-Mar-26	D/C	Noble (D)	NHL Finals
31-Mar-26	D	Noble (D)	Cup Finals
02-Apr-26	D	Noble (D)	Cup Finals
05-Apr-26	D	Noble (D)	Cup Finals

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1926-27 Season

Date	Nels' Position	Regular Linemates	Notes
11-Nov-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
17-Nov-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
19-Nov-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
24-Nov-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
26-Nov-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
29-Nov-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
01-Dec-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
15-Dec-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
24-Dec-26	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
07-Jan-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
12-Jan-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
17-Jan-27	Sub	Subs
19-Jan-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
21-Jan-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
24-Jan-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
26-Jan-27	C	Broadbent (RW) + Oatman (LW?)
28-Jan-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
04-Feb-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
09-Feb-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
16-Feb-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
21-Feb-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
25-Feb-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
09-Mar-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)
01-Apr-27	C	Siebert (LW) + Broadbent (RW)	Playoff Game

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1927-28 Season

Date	Nels' Position	Regular Linemates	Notes
16-Nov-27	C	Siebert (LW)	Hooley isn’t listed
18-Nov-27	C	Siebert (LW)	Hooley isn’t listed
21-Nov-27	C	Siebert (LW)	Hooley isn’t listed
23-Nov-27	LW	Smith (c)	Hooley appears
28-Nov-27	C + W (?)	Stewart (?)	Hooley isn’t listed
30-Nov-27	C	Siebert (LW)	Hooley isn’t listed
02-Dec-27	Hooley noted as being out for a while
05-Dec-27	Didn't play
12-Dec-27	Didn't play
16-Dec-27	C	Smith (W) + Siebert (W)
19-Dec-27	C	Siebert (LW)	Hooley as a sub
26-Dec-27	C	Smith (W) + Siebert (W)
29-Dec-27	LW	Oatman (LW) + Smith (C)
30-Dec-27	C	Oatman (LW?) + Smith (RW)
02-Jan-28	C	Oatman (LW?) + Smith (RW)
06-Jan-28	Sub	Smith (C)
16-Jan-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
18-Jan-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
23-Jan-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
27-Jan-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
01-Feb-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
06-Feb-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
08-Feb-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
20-Feb-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
22-Feb-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
05-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
09-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
12-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
14-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
19-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
26-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
28-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)	NHL Playoffs
30-Mar-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)	NHL Playoffs
02-Apr-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)	NHL Playoffs
03-Apr-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)	NHL Playoffs
06-Apr-28	No lineup	Cup Finals
09-Apr-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)	Cup Finals + Lester in net
11-Apr-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)	Cup Finals
16-Apr-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1928-29 Season

16-Nov-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
19-Nov-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
23-Nov-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
26-Nov-28	LW	Ward (W)	Hooley absent
28-Nov-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
30-Nov-28	RW	Smith (C) + Ward (LW)	RW weird
03-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
07-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
12-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
14-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
17-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
19-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (RW)
21-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
26-Dec-28	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (RW)
04-Jan-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
09-Jan-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
14-Jan-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
18-Jan-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
21-Jan-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (RW)
25-Jan-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
28-Jan-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
01-Feb-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
06-Feb-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
11-Feb-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
13-Feb-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
15-Feb-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
18-Feb-29	C	Siebert (LW) + Ward (RW)	Hooley on D
20-Feb-29	C	Smith (C) + Ward (W)
25-Feb-29	LW	Ward (W)	Hooley absent
27-Feb-29	LW	Ward (W)	Hooley absent
01-Mar-29	LW	Ward (W)
11-Mar-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (RW)
15-Mar-29	LW	Smith (C) + Ward (RW)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1929-30 Season

15-Nov-29	C	S Line	The S-Line!!!
18-Nov-29	C	S Line
20-Nov-29	Sub		Hooley on D
25-Nov-29	C	S Line
29-Nov-29	Sub		S-Line are Subs
02-Dec-29	C	S Line
04-Dec-29	Sub		S-Line are Subs
06-Dec-29	C	S Line	S-Line are Subs
13-Dec-29	Sub
18-Dec-29	C	S Line
23-Dec-29	C	S Line
27-Dec-29	C	S Line
30-Dec-29	C	Siebert	Hooley Absent
02-Jan-30	C	Siebert	Hooley Absent
06-Jan-30	C	S Line
10-Jan-30	C	S Line
15-Jan-30	C	S Line
17-Jan-30	C	S Line
20-Jan-30	Sub		S-Line are Subs
24-Jan-30	C	S Line
27-Jan-30	C	S Line
31-Jan-30	C	S Line
03-Feb-30	Sub		S-Line are Subs
07-Feb-30	C	Smith	Siebert on D
10-Feb-30	C	S-Line
12-Feb-30	C	S-Line
14-Feb-30	C	S-Line
17-Feb-30	Sub		S-Line are Subs
19-Feb-30	C	S-Line
21-Feb-30	Sub		S-Line are Subs
26-Feb-30	C	S-Line
05-Mar-30	C	S-Line
07-Mar-30	C	S-Line
10-Mar-30	C	Smith
17-Mar-30	C	Smith
21-Mar-30	C	S-Line	Playoffs
26-Mar-30	C	Northcott + Smith	Playoffs
28-Mar-30	C	Northcott + Smith	Playoffs

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[ted2019]

REPOST OF MY BABE SIEBERT POST FROM THE HOH TOP DEFENSEMEN PROJECT

Albert "Babe" Siebert might have the most unique career of anyone available now. Here's an attempt to try to get a handle on him.



The years as a Left Wing / Utility Player (1925-26 to 1933-34)

Babe Siebert as best known as the Power Forward who helped do the dirty work for his teammate Nels Stewart when Stewart was standing in front of the opponent's net Phil Esposito style or outright cherrypicking:





However, Siebert spent a significant amount of time at D even during this time (quotes via Sturminator).

It appears that the Montreal Maroons regularly rotated their players between forward and defense:



The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Siebert appeared to be a regular on defense for the 1927-28 season:



Ottawa Citizen - Google News Archive Search



From the playoffs that season:



Siebert also spent siginficant time at D during the 1928-29 season. Here are two game reports that list him at D:

Montreal Gazette - November, 19, 1928: The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
Montreal Gazette - December 10, 1928: The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Conclusion: While Babe Siebert is traditional thought of as a left wing during this period, it would be more accurate to call him a "utility player" who would play either left wing or defense, depending on team needs.

His late career peak as a defenseman (1934-35 to 1938-39)




(Quotes via Leafs Forever)

1934-35: Babe Siebert's first full season in Boston. This appears to be a transition year. Despite high point totals, Siebert was not an All-Star, indicating that he probably began the season at forward.

1935-36: Siebert's second and final season in Boston. Siebert is a full time defenseman by this point. He is a 1st Team All-Star at D next to Eddie Shore, but finishes far behind Shore in All-Star voting.

1936-37: Siebert's first season as a Montreal Canadien and the best of his career. He leads all defensemen in All Star voting - Eddie Shore is right behind. And Babe wins the Hart Trophy in a landslide:

1. Babe Siebert, Mtl D 63
2. Lionel Conacher, Mtl M D 43
3. Ebbie Goodfellow, Det D 42
4. Tiny Thompson, Bos G 31
5. Marty Barry, Det C 26

In the context of the 1930s, a 20 point win is a landslide.

1937-38: Siebert is a 1st Team All Star for the 3rd season in a row. He has almost as many votes for the All Star Team as Eddie Shore, and finishes a distant 3rd behind Eddie Shore and forward Paul Thompson for the Hart.

1938-39: Siebert finishes 6th in All Star voting for defensemen at the age of 35. He then retires.

Why you should vote for Babe Siebert this round

• Probably the best peak of any defenseman remaining - Babe was a 1st Team All Star for 3 seasons in a row, before finishing 6th in the 4th season. Only Butch Bouchard has done that among available defensemen, and competition was much stronger when Siebert did it - Eddie Shore and Earl Seibert were at their peak, and so were lesser HHOFers like Ebbie Goodfellow and Art Coulter. Lionel Conacher had a few good years in there, as well. Babe also finished 1st and 3rd in Hart voting.

Why you shouldn't vote for Babe Siebert this round

• Only 4-5 seasons as a pure defenseman. Babe was a utility player for the first 9-10 seasons of his career, switching between LW and D based on team needs. He was only a pure defenseman for the last 4-5 seasons of his career. But his best years (by far) were his final 4 years at D.
• While Siebert was a very useful player outside of his 4 year peak, he was not an All-Star calibre player.

I wonder how many voters will see Babe playing as a utility player as a good thing or a hinderance? It's a shame that he didn't play his entire career as a defenseman. He might be the Dit Clapper of the #101-#200.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wonder how many voters will see Babe playing as a utility player as a good thing or a hinderance? It's a shame that he didn't play his entire career as a defenseman. He might be the Dit Clapper of the #101-#200.

I wonder if playing as a utility player hurt him in terms of getting all-star votes at LW? It very well may have.

On the other hand, he really didn't get any noticeable Hart consideration until he was a defenseman. Edit: That we know of at least. We only have top 5s in Hart voting for the early 1930s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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'm not about to make a detailed comparison at this time, but it is perhaps noteworthy that Igor Larionov was voted Best Player in the Soviet Union in 1987-88. He never came close to winning that award in any other season (overall record: 1st, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 9th, 10th), but that's still a level of recognition that Lemaire couldn't touch.

I'm also starting to wonder how far Larionov should fall behind Kasatonov.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not about to make a detailed comparison at this time, but it is perhaps noteworthy that Igor Larionov was voted Best Player in the Soviet Union in 1987-88. He never came close to winning that award in any other season (overall record: 1st, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 9th, 10th), but that's still a level of recognition that Lemaire couldn't touch.

I'm also starting to wonder how far Larionov should fall behind Kasatonov.

There are a lot of centers already ranked who never came close to that level of recognition.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

A Case for Grant Fuhr

1. Contemporary Opinion

Grant Fuhr is certainly one of the goalies with the biggest gaps between his reputation and the raw stats. Contemporary reporting seems to suggest that he was widely seen as the best goalie in the league from around the time of the Oilers' first Cup until near the end of the decade.

Now, I am a stats guy, and I would never make a case for a goalie entirely based on subjective factors, and it is always important to keep in the mind the strong likelihood of bias in favour of goalies on good teams (always a relevant factor for the starting netminder from a dynasty). But at the same time it is important to note that it is easier to second-guess goalies like Fuhr than those who played prior to the save percentage era, which I think is something to keep in mind in order to avoid possibly holding more recent netminders to a higher standard. I also think that Fuhr was definitely more talented than his stats suggest, and therefore deserving of at least some portion of his reputation gap.

2. The Impact of Injuries

It might not seem that Fuhr was injury-prone, considering that he is well-known for having a few seasons with extremely high GP, but if you want to see something impressive, take a look at Hockeygoalies.org's Grant Fuhr page under the injuries tab, where there are 27 bullet points detailing the various injuries suffered during his career.

Many of these mishaps did not cause Fuhr to miss many games, but nevertheless had a clear impact on his performance. This makes sense, given that he was a goalie that relied heavily on his athleticism. There was a consistent pattern of Fuhr suffering an injury, returning to the lineup (almost definitely too early in nearly every case), struggling for a period of games, and then returning to his usual form. The typical recovery period was 10-15 games, and I chose 12 as a standard just to be consistent.

Here's the list of major injuries:

1. Partially separated right shoulder, Dec 1981, missed 2 games
2. Strained knee ligaments (required surgery), Dec 1984, missed 5 games
3. Separated shoulder, Feb 1985, missed 8 games
4. Bruised shoulder, Nov 1985, missed 10 games
5. Unknown injury, Jan 1987, missed 8 games
6. Cervical neck strain, Jan 1989, missed 1 game
7. Appendectomy, Sep 1989, missed 6 games
8. Reconstructive shoulder surgery, Dec 1989, out 3 months

Here's how Fuhr's looks from the start of his career through the 1991 playoffs, when you divide out those 12 game recovery segments from the rest of his career (playoffs and regular season games combined):

Period	GP	SA	SV	SV%	GSAA
Healthy	18	635	577	0.909	20.7
Shoulder injury	12	368	320	0.870	-2.4
Healthy	77	2364	2082	0.881	14.1
Knee injury	12	406	353	0.869	-1.4
Healthy	62	1913	1715	0.896	42.9
Shoulder injury	12	388	335	0.863	-4.5
Healthy	25	734	658	0.896	16.0
Shoulder injury	12	356	304	0.854	-7.1
Healthy	58	1734	1548	0.893	28.1
Unknown injury	12	306	269	0.879	-0.3
Healthy	146	4009	3538	0.883	11.0
Neck injury	12	354	307	0.867	-4.2
Healthy	23	690	616	0.893	9.5
Appendectomy	12	287	251	0.875	-1.8
Healthy	6	185	165	0.892	2.0
Shoulder injury	4	91	75	0.824	-5.2
Healthy	30	868	778	0.896	9.0
Healthy (total)	445	13132	11677	0.889	153.2
Recovery (total)	88	2556	2214	0.866	-26.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

3. Peak, Healthy, Motivated Grant Fuhr Was an Elite Goalie

You can see that Fuhr was generally .892 or better when healthy, which was very good in that era. I think he actually had a pretty impressive peak, considering that from 1983-84 to midway through the 1987-88 season, excluding injury recovery periods, Fuhr played 234 straight regular season and playoff games at .895, compared to a league average of .876 (an impressive 135.1 GSAA), and he did it while playing in the more offensive conference on a team with an inconsistent defensive effort (and that doesn't even count the 1987 Canada Cup).

Once upon a time, I was among those who questioned Fuhr's 1987-88 Vezina win, but now I think he probably deserved it. His first 45 games that season (.896) are probably in the running for the best 45 game stretch of the entire decade when you adjust for team defence. Fuhr then majorly dropped off in the second half (.853), but this came after the Oilers had long since assured themselves of a playoff spot (and with Fuhr playing far more games than anyone else did in that era). I don't think that playing more games at an average level makes you better than someone who plays fewer games at an elite level, but I'm actually pretty forgiving of someone's game falling off significantly in a bunch of meaningless games while taking on an extremely heavy workload, especially on a team somewhat notorious for chasing offensive stats during the regular season.

All this supports the claim that Fuhr was actually more talented than Andy Moog. If you look at measures of quality of competition (e.g. from Hockeygoalies.org), Fuhr faced significantly tougher opposition from 1981-82 to 1983-84, before the two faced similar competition overall between 1984-85 and 1986-87. There is also another weird split to bring up involving Moog and Fuhr in Edmonton:

1983-87:
Moog: .901 at home, .874 on the road
Fuhr: .879 at home, .884 on the road

This split even held up in the playoffs (Moog was .905/.836, Fuhr was .898/.909). A negative home/road split in that era was quite unusual, and makes you wonder about Edmonton possibly having differing styles of play at home, or whether Fuhr did actually lose some focus in blowout scenarios. I've only really looked at playoff performance-by-score metrics from that era, so I'm not entirely sure about some of these theories, but generally I'm more inclined to trust a goalie that is good on the road over a goalie that is only good at home. All in all I think it is clear that Fuhr's peak level was better than it seems from his performance record, and if I was coaching a team with him and Moog on it I'm pretty sure I'd start Fuhr in the playoffs too.

4. Adjusting for Conference Disparity

One thing that I think often gets overlooked from the 1980s is that it was a big advantage to be playing in the Wales Conference if you were a goalie or defenceman. From 1981-82 to 1989-90, 38 of the 45 teams that finished in the top 5 in the league in GA played in the Wales. Given that the Eastern teams were also better at shot prevention, I think this comes mostly from style of play differences rather than a difference in goaltending talent (the extra team in the Patrick Division forcing tighter competition for playoff spots is another possible factor). As a result, it perhaps shouldn't be too surprising that Wales Conference goalies took 76% of Vezina votes during that stretch. In that context, Fuhr's Vezina record looks quite strong. He had a total of 176 voting points over those 9 seasons, while all of the rest of his Campbell goalie peers combined managed just 232. Fuhr did have the advantage of racking up lots of wins on a talented Oilers team, so you could argue that was a big advantage in Vezina voting, but I think it's still important to note that his team context wasn't doing him a lot of favours otherwise. I think pretty much all the goalies playing out West were a bit better than their numbers suggested in that era, while the goalies out East likely weren't quite as good as they seemed.

In summary, there are good reasons to believe that Grant Fuhr was more talented than his performance record suggests, and his reputation as the best goalie of the 1980s may actually be deserved. I also think that even if you rate the 1980s as relatively weak historically when it comes to goalies (which is entirely justifiable), you should still think twice before voting in too many goalies from other eras that already have much stronger representation. If you're strictly an accomplishments-based voter, some of these arguments may not affect your opinion and I understand that, but these are at least some of the reasons to consider Fuhr here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

My thinking going into the final 48 hours...

Guys I'm likely to rank in my top-10

Rob Blake
Emile "Butch" Bouchard
Carl Brewer
Babe Dye
Grant Fuhr
Harry "Hap" Holmes
Igor Larionov
Denis Savard
Babe Siebert
Lorne "Gump" Worsley

Guys I don't see making it to my ballot this round:
Michel Goulet
Jacques Lemaire
Carey Price
Billy Smith
Brendan Shanahan


Of that bottom group, Shanahan and Price probably have the best shot at sneaking in, if I sour on someone in the top group.

Still trying to figure out an order, though. This is a really good group of candidates but I've had little time to devote to them this week, and it seems I'm not the only one. In particular, it feels like we've barely touched on Bouchard at all, and Gump only got a little bit of attention on Page 1.

Any thoughts on which players should be front runners here? Feels like all of them kind of have an argument within a particular niche.

 

[ted2019]

My thinking going into the final 48 hours...

Guys I'm likely to rank in my top-10

Rob Blake
Emile "Butch" Bouchard
Carl Brewer
Babe Dye
Grant Fuhr
Harry "Hap" Holmes
Igor Larionov
Denis Savard
Babe Siebert
Lorne "Gump" Worsley

Guys I don't see making it to my ballot this round:
Michel Goulet
Jacques Lemaire
Carey Price
Billy Smith
Brendan Shanahan


Of that bottom group, Shanahan and Price probably have the best shot at sneaking in, if I sour on someone in the top group.

Still trying to figure out an order, though. This is a really good group of candidates but I've had little time to devote to them this week, and it seems I'm not the only one. In particular, it feels like we've barely touched on Bouchard at all, and Gump only got a little bit of attention on Page 1.

Any thoughts on which players should be front runners here? Feels like all of them kind of have an argument within a particular niche.

I just don't see Blake going in this early. Seemed like a complete version of Dion Phaneuf, but didn't have the skills positionally to be a truly elite defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Current thoughts:

Among forwards, I like Denis Savard and Igor Larionov. Savard hasn't been talked about much, but statistically, he's the best offensive creator among this round by a decent margin, and the man had tons of star power. I think we may have overcorrected for Larionov's overratedness in some circles by leaving him until now. I'm not certain Kasatonov was really a better player, despite me ranking him higher just like the group. I considered Dye due to his goal scoring, but the man was just so bad (for an all-time great) at everything else.

I like Rob Blake and Babe Siebert most among defensemen - both have really good awards records at this point, both were known as leaders and winners. Carl Brewer a little bit back but not much. Butch Bouchard's peak as an all-star just looks a little too WW2-dependant for me to have him quite as high as the others, though I would likely vote for him in another round or two.

Among goaltenders, I'm leaning towards Fuhr and Price for their "best in the world for a bit" mojo. And I think maybe it's time for them. I'm surprised nobody has made the case for Billy Smith yet - based on the HOH list, he should be the next goalie added, but I always have him just a bit behind Fuhr. There are a couple of unavailable goalies I'd have over Worsley or Holmes, so I will probably NR those two.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A Case for Grant Fuhr

1. Contemporary Opinion

Grant Fuhr is certainly one of the goalies with the biggest gaps between his reputation and the raw stats. Contemporary reporting seems to suggest that he was widely seen as the best goalie in the league from around the time of the Oilers' first Cup until near the end of the decade.

Now, I am a stats guy, and I would never make a case for a goalie entirely based on subjective factors, and it is always important to keep in the mind the strong likelihood of bias in favour of goalies on good teams (always a relevant factor for the starting netminder from a dynasty). But at the same time it is important to note that it is easier to second-guess goalies like Fuhr than those who played prior to the save percentage era, which I think is something to keep in mind in order to avoid possibly holding more recent netminders to a higher standard. I also think that Fuhr was definitely more talented than his stats suggest, and therefore deserving of at least some portion of his reputation gap.

2. The Impact of Injuries

It might not seem that Fuhr was injury-prone, considering that he is well-known for having a few seasons with extremely high GP, but if you want to see something impressive, take a look at Hockeygoalies.org's Grant Fuhr page under the injuries tab, where there are 27 bullet points detailing the various injuries suffered during his career.

Many of these mishaps did not cause Fuhr to miss many games, but nevertheless had a clear impact on his performance. This makes sense, given that he was a goalie that relied heavily on his athleticism. There was a consistent pattern of Fuhr suffering an injury, returning to the lineup (almost definitely too early in nearly every case), struggling for a period of games, and then returning to his usual form. The typical recovery period was 10-15 games, and I chose 12 as a standard just to be consistent.

Here's the list of major injuries:

1. Partially separated right shoulder, Dec 1981, missed 2 games
2. Strained knee ligaments (required surgery), Dec 1984, missed 5 games
3. Separated shoulder, Feb 1985, missed 8 games
4. Bruised shoulder, Nov 1985, missed 10 games
5. Unknown injury, Jan 1987, missed 8 games
6. Cervical neck strain, Jan 1989, missed 1 game
7. Appendectomy, Sep 1989, missed 6 games
8. Reconstructive shoulder surgery, Dec 1989, out 3 months

Here's how Fuhr's looks from the start of his career through the 1991 playoffs, when you divide out those 12 game recovery segments from the rest of his career (playoffs and regular season games combined):

Period	GP	SA	SV	SV%	GSAA
Healthy	18	635	577	0.909	20.7
Shoulder injury	12	368	320	0.870	-2.4
Healthy	77	2364	2082	0.881	14.1
Knee injury	12	406	353	0.869	-1.4
Healthy	62	1913	1715	0.896	42.9
Shoulder injury	12	388	335	0.863	-4.5
Healthy	25	734	658	0.896	16.0
Shoulder injury	12	356	304	0.854	-7.1
Healthy	58	1734	1548	0.893	28.1
Unknown injury	12	306	269	0.879	-0.3
Healthy	146	4009	3538	0.883	11.0
Neck injury	12	354	307	0.867	-4.2
Healthy	23	690	616	0.893	9.5
Appendectomy	12	287	251	0.875	-1.8
Healthy	6	185	165	0.892	2.0
Shoulder injury	4	91	75	0.824	-5.2
Healthy	30	868	778	0.896	9.0
Healthy (total)	445	13132	11677	0.889	153.2
Recovery (total)	88	2556	2214	0.866	-26.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

3. Peak, Healthy, Motivated Grant Fuhr Was an Elite Goalie

You can see that Fuhr was generally .892 or better when healthy, which was very good in that era. I think he actually had a pretty impressive peak, considering that from 1983-84 to midway through the 1987-88 season, excluding injury recovery periods, Fuhr played 234 straight regular season and playoff games at .895, compared to a league average of .876 (an impressive 135.1 GSAA), and he did it while playing in the more offensive conference on a team with an inconsistent defensive effort (and that doesn't even count the 1987 Canada Cup).

Once upon a time, I was among those who questioned Fuhr's 1987-88 Vezina win, but now I think he probably deserved it. His first 45 games that season (.896) are probably in the running for the best 45 game stretch of the entire decade when you adjust for team defence. Fuhr then majorly dropped off in the second half (.853), but this came after the Oilers had long since assured themselves of a playoff spot (and with Fuhr playing far more games than anyone else did in that era). I don't think that playing more games at an average level makes you better than someone who plays fewer games at an elite level, but I'm actually pretty forgiving of someone's game falling off significantly in a bunch of meaningless games while taking on an extremely heavy workload, especially on a team somewhat notorious for chasing offensive stats during the regular season.

All this supports the claim that Fuhr was actually more talented than Andy Moog. If you look at measures of quality of competition (e.g. from Hockeygoalies.org), Fuhr faced significantly tougher opposition from 1981-82 to 1983-84, before the two faced similar competition overall between 1984-85 and 1986-87. There is also another weird split to bring up involving Moog and Fuhr in Edmonton:

1983-87:
Moog: .901 at home, .874 on the road
Fuhr: .879 at home, .884 on the road

This split even held up in the playoffs (Moog was .905/.836, Fuhr was .898/.909). A negative home/road split in that era was quite unusual, and makes you wonder about Edmonton possibly having differing styles of play at home, or whether Fuhr did actually lose some focus in blowout scenarios. I've only really looked at playoff performance-by-score metrics from that era, so I'm not entirely sure about some of these theories, but generally I'm more inclined to trust a goalie that is good on the road over a goalie that is only good at home. All in all I think it is clear that Fuhr's peak level was better than it seems from his performance record, and if I was coaching a team with him and Moog on it I'm pretty sure I'd start Fuhr in the playoffs too.

4. Adjusting for Conference Disparity

One thing that I think often gets overlooked from the 1980s is that it was a big advantage to be playing in the Wales Conference if you were a goalie or defenceman. From 1981-82 to 1989-90, 38 of the 45 teams that finished in the top 5 in the league in GA played in the Wales. Given that the Eastern teams were also better at shot prevention, I think this comes mostly from style of play differences rather than a difference in goaltending talent (the extra team in the Patrick Division forcing tighter competition for playoff spots is another possible factor). As a result, it perhaps shouldn't be too surprising that Wales Conference goalies took 76% of Vezina votes during that stretch. In that context, Fuhr's Vezina record looks quite strong. He had a total of 176 voting points over those 9 seasons, while all of the rest of his Campbell goalie peers combined managed just 232. Fuhr did have the advantage of racking up lots of wins on a talented Oilers team, so you could argue that was a big advantage in Vezina voting, but I think it's still important to note that his team context wasn't doing him a lot of favours otherwise. I think pretty much all the goalies playing out West were a bit better than their numbers suggested in that era, while the goalies out East likely weren't quite as good as they seemed.

In summary, there are good reasons to believe that Grant Fuhr was more talented than his performance record suggests, and his reputation as the best goalie of the 1980s may actually be deserved. I also think that even if you rate the 1980s as relatively weak historically when it comes to goalies (which is entirely justifiable), you should still think twice before voting in too many goalies from other eras that already have much stronger representation. If you're strictly an accomplishments-based voter, some of these arguments may not affect your opinion and I understand that, but these are at least some of the reasons to consider Fuhr here.

Thanks for the post.

As perhaps the biggest booster of recent goalies in this project, I hope you'll be able to post a bit about Carey Price before this round is over.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just don't see Blake going in this early. Seemed like a complete version of Dion Phaneuf, but didn't have the skills positionally to be a truly elite defenseman.

I don't know, man. I didn't watch much of him in LA, but I thought the Colorado version of Blake was an excellent two-way defenseman, even after Bourque retired

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I just don't see Blake going in this early. Seemed like a complete version of Dion Phaneuf, but didn't have the skills positionally to be a truly elite defenseman.

i went to bat for blake upthread, but i don't really see him as the peer of babe siebert, butch bouchard, or denis savard and at least a couple others in this round either.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I feel that Dye and Lemaire are most overdue.

To me Brewer is the best of defensemen, easily. Of course, I understand his issues will downgrade him for some posters.

For a small, non-physical player, Denis Savard sure racked up a lot penalty minutes (1336). Liked to use that stick.

 

[wetcoast]

I just don't see Blake going in this early. Seemed like a complete version of Dion Phaneuf, but didn't have the skills positionally to be a truly elite defenseman.

Either this is a real slight towards Blake or you think more of Phaneuf than most.

 

[ted2019]

Either this is a real slight towards Blake or you think more of Phaneuf than most.

Slight to Blake.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i went to bat for blake upthread, but i don't really see him as the peer of babe siebert, butch bouchard, or denis savard and at least a couple others in this round either.

Blake accomplished what he did against such greater competition than Bouchard.

 

[Elvis P]

Blake accomplished what he did against such greater competition than Bouchard.

44	4	Rob Blake	6'4"	220	1969		1990-2010	Canada
45	3	Emile "Butch" Bouchard	6'2"	205	1919		1941-1956	Canada
46	2	Carl Brewer	5'9"	180	1938	2001	1958-1980	Canada
47	1	Albert "Babe" Siebert	5'10"	182	1904	1939	1925-1939	Canada
48		Georges "Buck" Boucher	5'9	169	1896	1960	1915-1932	Canada

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I think TDMM meant "much". It's interesting how different some perceptions of Blake are from the dmen project. idk how many members were on both committees.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I didn't have the chance to get involved in last week's thread, where there was a lot of discussion on Carey Price. However, I'm going to structure this post as a response to some of the common objections to the idea of Price being the best goalie of his generation and a possible Top 200 player. I'm not specifically attributing these to any individual poster, so if you feel misrepresented from something you posted don't get offended. I can assure you that these sentiments all reflect opinions which have been voiced many times by hockey fans.

"Isn't Carey Price a one season wonder?"

There probably isn't a single opinion that more fundamentally shows an inability to evaluate goaltending in the modern era than thinking that Carey Price had only one good season.

Best goaltenders, 2013-14 to 2016-17 (min. 100 GP):

Goalie	GP	SV%
Price	199	0.928
Talbot	186	0.922
Gibson	118	0.922
Bobrovsky	209	0.922
Holtby	250	0.921
Crawford	229	0.921
Rask	257	0.921
Bishop	225	0.920

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Yes, Price had one season where he won the Hart/Vezina double and nothing that approached that in terms of awards recognition. But the problem with over-emphasizing high Vezina finishes in a 30-team league is that you often end up sorting all non-Vezina nominated goalies into the same bucket, when in fact there is a clear gap between a consistent top-5ish goalie and an average starter, and that value becomes massive over the course of a full career. If you look at someone like Roberto Luongo, for example, 60% of his career GSAA came in seasons where he was not a Vezina nominee.

Until very recently, Price absolutely had the elite consistency that you want to see out of a great goalie.

"Why do hockey people think Price is so great when his stats aren't that impressive?"

The recent controversy over Price's continued high ranking in player polls is amusing to me, because I find it interesting how everyone gets so offended the one time that a goalie gets reputational credit in the way that defencemen have had pretty much forever.

Among people who are very into analyzing goalie technique, it is not an uncommon opinion that Carey Price is the best technical goalie to ever play hockey. Not by the standard of performance relative to era, of course, just in a vacuum. That is an unfair standard when comparing directly against historical goalies, but it still says something about Price that he is widely seen as the platonic ideal of a modern goalie.

As far as stats vs. reputation, just like I already argued for Grant Fuhr there are hidden injury-related factors that have significantly impacted Price's career. It is noticeable in Price's statistical record that he has a number of periods of extremely terrible play, way worse than you would expect just from random variance given his overall performance level, and they pretty much all have clear links to injuries. There's the ankle injury in December 2008 that derailed Price's initially very promising sophomore season, whatever lower body problem he had in March/April 2013 when observers were widely speculating about his health status and he later wasn't able to finish the postseason, the famous injury in 2015-16 that cost him most of the season and ended one of the greatest goaltending runs of all-time, and the double whammy of his disastrous 2017-18 season (a nagging lower body injury early on and a concussion later on in February).

Period	Start	End	GP	SV%	GSAA
Healthy	Oct-07	Dec-08	77	0.918	21.9
Injury recovery	Dec-08	Feb-09	12	0.870	-12.0
Probably injured	Feb-09	Apr-09	19	0.899	-6.1
Healthy	Oct-09	Feb-13	205	0.919	36.7
Probably injured	Mar-13	Apr-13	27	0.892	-14.7
Healthy	Oct-13	Oct-15	158	0.929	69.0
Injury recovery	Nov-15	Nov-15	3	0.927	1.0
Healthy	Oct-16	Apr-17	68	0.924	21.7
Probably injured	Oct-17	Nov-17	11	0.877	-11.1
Probably healthy	Nov-17	Feb-18	32	0.913	1.2
Injury recovery	Mar-18	Apr-18	6	0.874	-7.2
Healthy	Oct-18	Aug-20	134	0.915	20.6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From 2010-11 to 2016-17 (his age 23 to 29 seasons), a healthy Price had 384 straight regular season and playoff GP at .925, which definitely stands out from the crowd, even in the competitive current era. If it was just a matter of who was the most talented goalie in their extended primes, I'd take Carey Price over every goalie currently available for voting.

There's actually a pretty obvious comparable for Carey Price, a goalie already voted onto this list who did the following from age 23 to 32:

Goalie	Age	GP	SV%	GSAA	GSAA/GP
Healthy Price	23-32	505	0.921	128.6	0.25
Healthy Lundqvist	23-32	727	0.921	226.2	0.31

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

To be fair, I knocked out the only period I know of where Lundqvist was significantly injured (when he had a hip flexor injury at the end of 2006, which was a key factor in him getting ventilated in the playoffs). Lundqvist is ahead, but the gap is a lot closer than I think most people have them based on reputation. I also think the GSAA number likely flatters Lundqvist a bit (I don't quite trust league average numbers from 2006 and 2007, as it seems clear that some teams adapted much more quickly than others to the new rules environment). To me, Carey Price is pretty much a more injury-prone version of Henrik Lundqvist, with a bit less longevity because he is still mid-career.

And just as a quick aside, if you don't think Price's Vezina record is all that impressive, welcome to the reality of playing on a non-elite team in the 30+ team, salary cap era. Fuhr and Smith don't really have better awards records anyway, and they certainly had weaker competition. The talent pool consideration is fairly important here, considering that Price's Vezina record against other Canadian goalies is 1-1-2-2-3-4-4, making him competitive against any historical Canadian goalies he would be up against from here on out in this project.

"Why should international play be considered when Canada is stacked and being the Canadian starting goalie can be kind of random?"

International tournaments can be a small sample size, of course, but the most important thing (particularly when it comes to goalies) is being selected to play in the first place. Starting for Canada at a best-on-best tournament is actually a pretty big deal. Ten out of the 14 starters were guys who made the Top 40 HOH goalies list, leaving just Pete Peeters in 1984, Bill Ranford in 1991, and Price in 2014 and 2016. The early '80s were a down period for Canadian goalies, while without Roy being injured and Fuhr coming off of a suspension it's questionable whether Ranford would have even made the team, much less been the starter. The length of Price's reign as presumptive Canadian international starting goalie is also very competitive against historical goalies, although of course you have to take talent pool into account.

"What about the playoffs? I want to see some signature runs!"

There are two things to note about Carey Price's playoffs:

1. Virtually all of his "underperformance" came during his age 20-22 seasons, when nearly every goalie of his generation would not be starting games in the springtime:

Age 23-32 in the playoffs:
Carey Price: 51 GP, .924
Henrik Lundqvist: 111 GP, .923

2. Playoff team success in the salary cap era is far more dependent on luck than in previous eras

We aren't that far into the salary cap era, but I think it's fair to say that there is a trend developing of elite goalies being much less likely to change teams. The last 12 consecutive Stanley Cup winning goalies all never played a single game for another team prior to their Cup wins. Compare that to 17 of 36 Cup-winning goalies having previously played for another NHL franchise from 1968 to 2004.

If you look at the elite group of goalies in the post-2005 period, Luongo and Bobrovsky are pretty much the only ones to change teams before the age of 33 since the lockout. Guys like Lundqvist, Fleury, Miller, Price, Rinne, Quick and Rask either never changed teams or only did so in their later careers. My money is on that pattern continuing, given that Vasilevskiy and Gibson are already signed through their age 33 seasons. In the past, teams were able to fairly easily go out and get an elite goalie in their prime as the missing piece. Patrick Roy was 30 when he went to Colorado, Ed Belfour was 32 when he went to Dallas, etc. Now, they probably don't have enough salary cap room to do so. In the past, if you're a great goalie on a terrible team (Gump Worsley is both a good and relevant example here), then over a long career you'll still probably get a chance at some point to move to a good team and show what you can do. In the modern era, lots of guys won't ever get that opportunity (or they might get one or two shots at +1000 odds or something like that, whereas in the past an elite team might start the year as +300 Cup favourites). As a result, I think it's very unfair to give somebody no playoff credit just because they don't have any SCF appearances.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Blake accomplished what he did against such greater competition than Bouchard.

you might be right—i’ve never done a deep dive into butch bouchard.

i’ll also admit that being a longtime captain of the habs holds a lot of weight with me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Quick rundown of my thinking with these "B list" defensemen.

Babe Siebert

- Much more versatile than your average player. He could play LW and D effectively, and within the scope of those positions he had the ability to play a speed game or a power game. Clearly he was defensively capable as an LW, or offensively skilled as a D, however you want to look at it.

- Siebert is one of the last Hart winners available who isn't a one-hit wonder. In the context of seeing our ballots dominated by elite support players rather than stars, his multi-1AS/multi-Hart finalist peak is very high compared to the available players. Note that when Siebert won the 1937 Hart, the rest of the top-5 competition were all players already inducted to our list.



Rob Blake

- Blake had a six-year run ('98 to '03) where he was around the 5th best defenseman in the world. Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Pronger were obviously at a different level. Blake was in the next tier with MacInnis, Stevens, Gonchar. Considering we are talking about an integrated, globalized league with a high level of competition due to crossover between the aging 1990s guys (Chelios, Bourque, even Leetch were very good during this period) and the 2000s guys, credit is due for being a consistent AS contender for a decently long stretch of time.

- While Blake's legacy benefitted from playing with the Avs in 2001, he also spent a lot of years on dreadful Kings teams which would be a very challenging environment to look good as a defenseman.



Butch Bouchard

- Literally twice as many Bs in his initials as the other guys.

- Clearly, the challenge with Bouchard is trying to estimate how good he was in the WWII context. In his defense, consider: Bouchard was a talented 6'2", 205lb defenseman in his athletic prime in the 1940s. Is there really a reasonable scenario where he's not a star player in a peacetime context? It's not like he didn't hit the highest marks available to him during this timeframe... it's not like his teams didn't deliver the most dominant seasons imaginable. It's not like Bouchard cheated the game to get his points, and it's not like he couldn't score on the weakened competition. When talent began to trickle back into the league in 1946 and 1947, Bouchard remained a fixture at 1AS. Even if we assume it would have been harder for him to achieve those heights in an earlier or later era, can we imagine him being less than a star defenseman during any era?

- The second half of his career should be taken in context of a severe knee injury in early 1948 that cost him most of that season and slowed him down for the rest of his career. Bear in mind that Bouchard captained the Habs for nearly a decade from 1948 to 1956, leading them to six consecutive Finals and 2 Cups during that period (would almost certainly have been 3 if not for the Richard riot) in addition to the two war-era Cups. While he may not have been an All-Star any more, Bouchard was one of the great captains... that has to count for something.



Carl Brewer

- One of the hardest players to rank, and the decision comes down largely to how much you value a player's ability/talent relative to his on-paper achievements. Brewer was without question one of the most talented D of his generation, and that translated to a key role on a dynasty that featured one of the best D units of all time. Note that in the years where Brewer got Norris votes, a teammate finished ahead of him only once -- Tim Horton in '65, and it was close.

- The Detroit Red Wings were a 78-point team in 1969. They held Brewer's rights while he was out of the NHL, so when he returned they added him to the roster. In 1970 the Wings were a 95-point team and Brewer was a Norris finalist. That fall, Brewer wandered off to pursue other interests; the Wings instantly tanked into a 55-point season. I'm not saying there weren't other things going on with that team, but gaining and then losing Brewer was surely a big part of that "blip" season.



Inclined to rank them as follows:
1. Siebert
2. Brewer
3. Bouchard
4. Blake