Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18

[Professor What]

IMO, a goalie playing in a number of different situations allows us to see that whether he is actually any good or whether he's benefiting from a strong team in front of him. I mean, who's it harder to get a read on, Joseph or Smith?

While readily acknowledging that I might be an oddball here, for me, it's Joseph. Like I said, I just find him unusually difficult to nail down personally. But yeah, I tend to have unusual thought processes, so that's likely just me.

 

[overpass]

Elias obviously had more success in the playoffs at a team level, but it would be unfair to Alfredsson to pin the blame for the Sens' playoff failures on him -- considering he did show up unlike some of his key teammates.

Eh, there's more to Alfredsson's playoff career than 2007. It's the one everyone remembers because they went to the finals, but the Sens were better from 2003-2006 and had some big playoff failures in that time. Alfredsson deserves a lot of the blame for the Sens loss to the Devils in 2003, which might have been their best shot at the Cup. 0 goals and 1 assist in 7 games. (Elias wasn't much better with just 1 goal and 1 assist). He struggled in first round losses in 2001 and 2004. And in 2006 he was the goat on Jason Pominville's series-winning OT goal.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just pointing out that Cournoyer and Smith are the players in this group who have a Conn Smythe. We could conceivably still run into a Nieuwendyk or Hextall, but given only a few rounds left, these may also be the last guys we see who have a Smythe.

We know that Kucherov was a distant 3rd in 2020, and we can reasonably assume similar finishes for Elias and Lemaire in certain seasons. I'm not aware of the non-NHL players winning a major tournament MVP, but please do correct me if I'm missing something there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Eh, there's more to Alfredsson's playoff career than 2007. It's the one everyone remembers because they went to the finals, but the Sens were better from 2003-2006 and had some big playoff failures in that time. Alfredsson deserves a lot of the blame for the Sens loss to the Devils in 2003, which might have been their best shot at the Cup. 0 goals and 1 assist in 7 games. (Elias wasn't much better with just 1 goal and 1 assist). He struggled in first round losses in 2001 and 2004. And in 2006 he was the goat on Jason Pominville's series-winning OT goal.

FWIW, Alfredsson was also good in '97, '98, '02, and '13. I would argue he was fine in 2006 -- not outstanding, but not problematic. To me this is a pretty typical playoff career. Some ups, some downs.

Elias has a similar profile with some really strong years interspersed with some much weaker years.

They were both the kind of guy you want on your team in the playoffs, and neither of them was dominant enough to crush it consistently without some down-years. I don't see a noteworthy gap there, unless we're talking about length of playoff runs (i.e. differences in team context).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

IMO, a goalie playing in a number of different situations allows us to see that whether he is actually any good or whether he's benefiting from a strong team in front of him. I mean, who's it harder to get a read on, Joseph or Smith?

a round or two ago, i pointed out the oddity of an islanders goalie finishing as a postseason all-star in the pre-vezina era or a vezina finalist five times in smith’s fifteen year career but only once was that smith himself.

on the one hand, that suggests that playing for arbour is advantageous to goalies, assuming we don’t naturally think of resch, melanson, and hrudey as top three in the league guys.

on the other, what does it say that no matter how well the other guy was doing, they always went back to smith in the playoffs?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Alfredsson and Elias played very closely overlapping careers, which is helpful. Alfredsson's first season was 95-96 at age 23, while Elias' first full season was 97-98 at age 21. The played their last full seasons in 2014 and 2015, respectively. That makes it easy to just line up their career achievements side-by-side, since the era context is a non-factor.

	GP	G	A	P	PPG	VsX 7/10	Peak	Awards	Playoffs
Alfredsson	1246	444	713	1157	0.93	82.3/77.4	43-60-103*	1x 2AS (RW) 1x "3AS"	124GP 51-49-100
Elias	1240	408	617	1025	0.83	78.9/73.6	40-56-96*	1x 1AS (LW) 1x "3AS"	162GP 45-80-125

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* Alfredsson's peak was in 2006 while Elias' was in 2001, so Elias actually has the edge here when adjusted for scoring rates

I don't see any exacerbating factors (positional effects, competition-related factors) in their awards voting, so we can take that at face value.

Both of these players are heavy on defense and intangibles. I don't see much to separate them in that respect.

Perhaps we could split hairs and find that Elias' lower scoring is partially offset by team effects or something. But I think it's fair to say Alfredsson had a little more offensive "pop" across the whole of his career, while Elias had a very slightly higher peak. Elias obviously had more success in the playoffs at a team level, but it would be unfair to Alfredsson to pin the blame for the Sens' playoff failures on him -- considering he did show up unlike some of his key teammates.

I'm leaning toward Alfredsson here, but it's extremely close and there probably shouldn't be a big gap between them.

i think one mark in elias’ favour is versatility. if you need a playmaking winger to set up arnott and sykora, he’s got you. if you need more of a sniper to finish for gomez? he’s your dude. if you need a center to pair with langenbrunner, u know his steez. and throughout he (like alfredsson) carried a disproportionate defensive load.

i think, like a minor version of the total luxury of having marty brodeur handling the puckback there for two decades, having a patrik elias to run any kind of first line that suited your personnel was franchise-enabling.

 

[tarheelhockey]

i think one mark in elias’ favour is versatility. if you need a playmaking winger to set up arnott and sykora, he’s got you. if you need more of a sniper to finish for gomez? he’s your dude. if you need a center to pair with langenbrunner, u know his steez. and throughout he (like alfredsson) carried a disproportionate defensive load.

i think, like a minor version of the total luxury of having marty brodeur handling the puckback there for two decades, having a patrik elias to run any kind of first line that suited your personnel was franchise-enabling.

The C/W thing is particularly important for my vote. Being able to slide a winger over to C makes a world of difference in 4-on-4 and PK play (especially if that winger is a good 200-foot player like Elias). And with the inevitability of inopportune injuries and penalties during a playoff run, it can potentially be a season-saving attribute.

 

[blogofmike]

Alfredsson has a hugely impressive international resume next to Elias

1998 OLY	Age	GP	PTS	+/-
Alfredsson	25	4	5	3
2002 OLY
Alfredsson	29	4	5	4
Elias	25	4	2	3
2004 WC
Alfredsson	31	4	6	1
Elias	28	5	5	2
2005 Worlds
Alfredsson	32	9	9	6
2006 OLY
Alfredsson	33	8	10	2
Elias	29	1	0	0
2010 OLY
Alfredsson	37	4	3	3
Elias	33	5	4	-1
2014 OLY
Alfredsson	41	6	4	0
Elias	37	3	1	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Elias has 12 points in 18 games of Best on best. Alfredsson pretty much matches that with the 10 point Gold Medal run from 2006 where he led the Swedes in scoring.

 

[trentmccleary]

Eh, there's more to Alfredsson's playoff career than 2007. It's the one everyone remembers because they went to the finals, but the Sens were better from 2003-2006 and had some big playoff failures in that time. Alfredsson deserves a lot of the blame for the Sens loss to the Devils in 2003, which might have been their best shot at the Cup. 0 goals and 1 assist in 7 games. (Elias wasn't much better with just 1 goal and 1 assist). He struggled in first round losses in 2001 and 2004. And in 2006 he was the goat on Jason Pominville's series-winning OT goal.

2003 was an injury. The team played 18 games and Alfredsson's ice time crashed between games 4 to 15.
Ray Emery was the goat of 2006, posting an .864 SV% in the second round against Buffalo and allowing 3 OT goals on 4 total shots.

These are the playoff ratios for two time periods in Alfredsson's career. His first 10 playoff series and 11 more after the lockout (he played 24 playoff series total).

1997 - 2003 at the end of the 2nd round (min 35 GP, avg 5 games per postseason)

Rank	Player	GP	PPG	Rank	Player	GP	GPG
1	Forsberg	94	1.23	1	Alfredsson	55	0.47
2	Jagr	53	1.21	2	Jagr	53	0.47
3	Sakic	108	1.04	3	Forsberg	94	0.44
4	Kamensky	36	0.96	4	Sakic	108	0.43
5	Modano	91	0.91	5	Guerin	38	0.42
6	Fedorov	94	0.89	6	S.Kozlov	66	0.39
7	Yzerman	88	0.87	7	Kamensky	36	0.39
8	Sundin	55	0.86	8	S.Young	71	0.38
9	Weight	56	0.86	9	Recchi	62	0.37
10	Turgeon	55	0.84	10	Hull	98	0.37
11	Recchi	62	0.82	11	Sundin	55	0.36
12	Hull	98	0.82	12	Brind'Amour	59	0.36
13	Straka	52	0.81	13	Audette	51	0.35
14	Alfredsson	55	0.80	14	Shanahan	88	0.35
15	Audette	51	0.80	15	Modano	76	0.34

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Ottawa averaged 2.02 GPG during those 55 games. Alfredsson was just about the only player producing anything.

2006-2013 (min 40 GP, avg 5 games per postseason)

Rank	Player	GP	PPG	Rank	Player	GP	GPG
1	Crosby	82	1.28	1	Ovechkin	58	0.53
2	Malkin	83	1.17	2	Crosby	82	0.49
3	Giroux	50	1.10	3	Zetterberg	107	0.49
4	Ovechkin	58	1.05	4	Briere	102	0.47
5	Briere	102	1.04	5	Alfredsson	52	0.46
6	Zetterberg	107	1.03	6	Staal	43	0.44
7	Alfredsson	52	1.00	7	Iginla	41	0.44
8	Spezza	50	1.00	8	Malkin	83	0.43
9	Staal	43	1.00	9	Gionta	60	0.43
10	Kane	74	0.96	10	Marleau	89	0.43

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That leaves only 3 series left.
2003 vs NJ, likely injured during that postseason based on TOI.
2004 vs Toronto
2014 with Detroit. When he was 41 yo and only played 3 of 5 games due to a back injury.

 

[trentmccleary]

Alfredsson has a hugely impressive international resume next to Elias

1998 OLY	Age	GP	PTS	+/-
Alfredsson	25	4	5	3
2002 OLY
Alfredsson	29	4	5	4
Elias	25	4	2	3
2004 WC
Alfredsson	31	4	6	1
Elias	28	5	5	2
2005 Worlds
Alfredsson	32	9	9	6
2006 OLY
Alfredsson	33	8	10	2
Elias	29	1	0	0
2010 OLY
Alfredsson	37	4	3	3
Elias	33	5	4	-1
2014 OLY
Alfredsson	41	6	4	0
Elias	37	3	1	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Elias has 12 points in 18 games of Best on best. Alfredsson pretty much matches that with the 10 point Gold Medal run from 2006 where he led the Swedes in scoring.

I have a full table of high scoring players drafted (or draft eligible) from 1991-2000:

Olympics	GP	G	Pts	GPG	PPG
Hossa	19	14	28	0.74	1.47
Alfredsson	26	13	27	0.50	1.04
Forsberg	22	3	20	0.14	0.91
Datsyuk	23	5	20	0.22	0.87
Lindros	20	8	17	0.40	0.85
Kariya	14	6	11	0.43	0.79
Naslund	4	2	3	0.50	0.75
Iginla	19	10	14	0.53	0.74
Marleau	13	2	9	0.15	0.69
D.Sedin	18	3	12	0.17	0.67
B.Richards	6	2	4	0.33	0.67
Kovalev	22	8	13	0.36	0.59
Elias	13	3	7	0.23	0.54
Zetterberg	17	5	9	0.29	0.53
Lecavalier	6	0	3	0.00	0.50
Doan	6	2	3	0.33	0.50
H.Sedin	12	3	6	0.25	0.50
Thornton	13	2	5	0.15	0.38
St.Louis	11	2	3	0.18	0.27
Arnott	0	0	0	0.00	0.00
Whitney	0	0	0	0.00	0.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[blueandgoldguy]

At first, I was surprised to see Kucherov on the list given how short his career has been to this point. However, it's hard to argue against his nomination at this point looking at his domination over the past 4 years - hart, art ross, 4 first and second team all star selections, 4 top-10 point finishes.

I was surprised to see how long it took for Denis Savard's name to appear on the nomination list a few weeks ago. I'm equally surprised to see Darryl Sittler excluded from the nomination list up to this point. Good chance he won't even make the top-200. That would be shocking given his placing on the top-60 centre list a few years ago.

 

[Sadekuuro]

A losing playoff record doesn't reflect Joseph's playoff prowess. Joseph was hanging on to a .500 playoff record before going to the powerhouse Red Wings. He posted a .931 and 1.64 GAA over two seasons. Those chumps scored so few goals that Joseph went 4-8, including ending his Wings run on a pair of 1-0 losses.

FWIW, the fan perspective: he was not very strong in 2003 despite decent stats, facing minimal scoring chances but giving up weak goals -- not a ton, but enough to turn a series that was super tight at least on the scoreboard. Whereas he was really good in 2004, got little offensive support again, and yep, definitely deserved a better fate.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I am unexcited about Worsley, who played very well in Montreal, but it still has the feel of a situation where Insert Habs Goalie would have succeeded.

I feel the need to defend Gump Worsley at this juncture. "Insert Habs goalie" would have gone 29-7, .931, 1.92? I mean, maybe, I obviously don't object to taking team factors into account, but then why exactly are we giving any credit at all to any goalie on an Original Six dynasty team? Did the available Stanley Cup bonus points for goalies run out as soon as Fuhr got voted in or something?

I honestly don't understand how people can think that Johnny Bower was amazing in the playoffs while Worsley was completely replaceable in Montreal. Just how much better do you think the 1960s Habs were defensively than the 1960s Leafs?

While Joseph had multiple runs where he was keeping his offensively challenged teams alive or pulling off an upset, Worsley played down to his team and was pretty mediocre for the Rangers, even against the 58 Bruins when New York was #2 and Boston #4. Worsley did okay in Minnesota, especially considering his age, but he was relatively well protected, with all but one of his games coming against an average-scoring St. Louis Blues team and only one game against Montreal (with predictable results).

OK, so winning in Montreal doesn't count for him, but then losing to much better teams in New York does count against him? That seems like a double standard.

Cujo had some great upsets for sure, and he deserves credit for that, but at the same time none of them are comparable to the Rangers up against the dynasty Habs or Leafs. Hockey Reference measures the team strength gaps through SRS rating between NY and Montreal in 1956 and 1957 at 1.07 and 1.17, and the gap with Toronto in 1962 at 0.76. For comparison, in 1993, 1997 and 1998, Joseph won series against Chicago, Dallas and Colorado teams that were 0.52, 0.61 and 0.40 better than his own, which is roughly half the talent gap Worsley was dealing with (other than Boston in 1958, where the Rangers were actually underdogs for reasons that I will get into shortly).

Fun fact: There were 25 goalies that recorded at least one decision for New York in the entire Original Six era (1942-43 to 1966-67). None of them had a winning record. Twenty-four of them had a losing record, and Dan Olesivich had 1 tie in 1 GP against the non-playoff-qualifying Red Wings in 1962. That includes Hall of Famers such as Rayner, Plante, Bower and Giacomin, as well as long-time NHL starting goalies like Henry, Maniago, Rollins and Simmons. In addition, the only one of those named goalies to win even a single playoff game for the Rangers in that period was Rayner.

Since the playoffs were so rare for the Rangers, they faced an unusual situation every spring when they did qualify: The circus at Madison Square Garden. Even though every other playoff series followed the standard 2-2-1-1-1 format, New York's schedule was routinely screwed up, with the following adjustments:

1957: Games 3-5 were all played in Montreal
1958: Games 1-2 in New York, games 3-7 all scheduled in Boston
1962: Games 1-2 in Toronto, 3-4 in New York, 5-6 in Toronto (the Rangers had to make special arrangements to make sure they could play their third home game of the series in game 7 if necessary)

As a result of this weirdness, Worsley faced 65% of his playoffs shots against as a Ranger on the road, in an era where home/road splits were generally massive. So no, I don't think Worsley "played down" to his teams, I think he was key for them getting there in the first place and then he held them in as long as possible against clearly superior opponents. Not only did they play more road games than they should have, they also suffered a number of blowout losses on the road that really killed Worsley's stats. There's a 7-1 loss in 1956 (plus another 7-0 loss with another goalie in net for the Rangers), there's an 8-3 loss in 1957 (where the Rangers were outshot 20-8 in the third period despite trailing by multiple goals), there are 5-0, 6-1 and 8-2 losses in 1958 (in that 8-2 one, the Rangers were down three after two and proceeded to get outshot 19-7 in the 3rd, with their season on the line), and there's a 7-1 loss in 1962. In those types of games, if your goalie makes a couple extra saves the final score looks better, but the result is never in doubt either way.

I also don't quite see why Worsley shouldn't get lots of credit for a Cujo-quality performance as a big underdog in 1962. In game 5, with the series tied 2-2, Worsley made 56 saves to take the game to 2OT, before the Leafs won (giving Worsley a .935 save percentage through 5 games against the eventual Cup champs). Then they stayed in Toronto instead of going back to New York, and the Rangers got blown out in an elimination game, and nearly 60 years later that makes Worsley's series look pretty average statistically, even though it seems very reminiscent of Joseph against the Leafs in 1993.

As someone who has spent a lot of time online defending Curtis Joseph, I'm getting a lot of deja vu from your arguments here against Worsley, because they are also very popular among people who don't rate Cujo. Let's cherry-pick his worst series (for Joseph it's usually the 1999 ECF) and use that to define him as unable to carry his team when given the opportunity. Let's give him no credit for playing well on a good team, and say he should have played better on big underdogs. Let's look at how he did in the playoffs well past his prime, and nitpick about whether he should have done a little more. Let's just say I didn't buy those arguments against Joseph either.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone ranking Joseph or Smith above Worsley, I think I actually did that on my last list (although if you ask me right now I might be tempted to go Joseph-Worsley-Smith). But this panel seems to be a lot higher on Bower and a bit lower on post-1980 goalies than I am, so I'm not sure that's actually consistent with the rest of the top 200. Either way, I don't really see the reason why Worsley seems to be getting continually overlooked here.

 

[blogofmike]

I feel the need to defend Gump Worsley at this juncture. "Insert Habs goalie" would have gone 29-7, .931, 1.92? I mean, maybe, I obviously don't object to taking team factors into account, but then why exactly are we giving any credit at all to any goalie on an Original Six dynasty team? Did the available Stanley Cup bonus points for goalies run out as soon as Fuhr got voted in or something?

I honestly don't understand how people can think that Johnny Bower was amazing in the playoffs while Worsley was completely replaceable in Montreal. Just how much better do you think the 1960s Habs were defensively than the 1960s Leafs?



OK, so winning in Montreal doesn't count for him, but then losing to much better teams in New York does count against him? That seems like a double standard.

Cujo had some great upsets for sure, and he deserves credit for that, but at the same time none of them are comparable to the Rangers up against the dynasty Habs or Leafs. Hockey Reference measures the team strength gaps through SRS rating between NY and Montreal in 1956 and 1957 at 1.07 and 1.17, and the gap with Toronto in 1962 at 0.76. For comparison, in 1993, 1997 and 1998, Joseph won series against Chicago, Dallas and Colorado teams that were 0.52, 0.61 and 0.40 better than his own, which is roughly half the talent gap Worsley was dealing with (other than Boston in 1958, where the Rangers were actually underdogs for reasons that I will get into shortly).

Fun fact: There were 25 goalies that recorded at least one decision for New York in the entire Original Six era (1942-43 to 1966-67). None of them had a winning record. Twenty-four of them had a losing record, and Dan Olesivich had 1 tie in 1 GP against the non-playoff-qualifying Red Wings in 1962. That includes Hall of Famers such as Rayner, Plante, Bower and Giacomin, as well as long-time NHL starting goalies like Henry, Maniago, Rollins and Simmons. In addition, the only one of those named goalies to win even a single playoff game for the Rangers in that period was Rayner.

Since the playoffs were so rare for the Rangers, they faced an unusual situation every spring when they did qualify: The circus at Madison Square Garden. Even though every other playoff series followed the standard 2-2-1-1-1 format, New York's schedule was routinely screwed up, with the following adjustments:

1957: Games 3-5 were all played in Montreal
1958: Games 1-2 in New York, games 3-7 all scheduled in Boston
1962: Games 1-2 in Toronto, 3-4 in New York, 5-6 in Toronto (the Rangers had to make special arrangements to make sure they could play their third home game of the series in game 7 if necessary)

As a result of this weirdness, Worsley faced 65% of his playoffs shots against as a Ranger on the road, in an era where home/road splits were generally massive. So no, I don't think Worsley "played down" to his teams, I think he was key for them getting there in the first place and then he held them in as long as possible against clearly superior opponents. Not only did they play more road games than they should have, they also suffered a number of blowout losses on the road that really killed Worsley's stats. There's a 7-1 loss in 1956 (plus another 7-0 loss with another goalie in net for the Rangers), there's an 8-3 loss in 1957 (where the Rangers were outshot 20-8 in the third period despite trailing by multiple goals), there are 5-0, 6-1 and 8-2 losses in 1958 (in that 8-2 one, the Rangers were down three after two and proceeded to get outshot 19-7 in the 3rd, with their season on the line), and there's a 7-1 loss in 1962. In those types of games, if your goalie makes a couple extra saves the final score looks better, but the result is never in doubt either way.

I also don't quite see why Worsley shouldn't get lots of credit for a Cujo-quality performance as a big underdog in 1962. In game 5, with the series tied 2-2, Worsley made 56 saves to take the game to 2OT, before the Leafs won (giving Worsley a .935 save percentage through 5 games against the eventual Cup champs). Then they stayed in Toronto instead of going back to New York, and the Rangers got blown out in an elimination game, and nearly 60 years later that makes Worsley's series look pretty average statistically, even though it seems very reminiscent of Joseph against the Leafs in 1993.

As someone who has spent a lot of time online defending Curtis Joseph, I'm getting a lot of deja vu from your arguments here against Worsley, because they are also very popular among people who don't rate Cujo. Let's cherry-pick his worst series (for Joseph it's usually the 1999 ECF) and use that to define him as unable to carry his team when given the opportunity. Let's give him no credit for playing well on a good team, and say he should have played better on big underdogs. Let's look at how he did in the playoffs well past his prime, and nitpick about whether he should have done a little more. Let's just say I didn't buy those arguments against Joseph either.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone ranking Joseph or Smith above Worsley, I think I actually did that on my last list (although if you ask me right now I might be tempted to go Joseph-Worsley-Smith). But this panel seems to be a lot higher on Bower and a bit lower on post-1980 goalies than I am, so I'm not sure that's actually consistent with the rest of the top 200. Either way, I don't really see the reason why Worsley seems to be getting continually overlooked here.

I probably should have gone further than saying Worsley played "very well" for Montreal then. But I guess didn't want to oversell his individual impact, and still don't. Yes, the other guys were pretty good, but from 1964-69 Vachon had a .938 to Worsley's .931, while Charlie Hodge was a .926 in the playoffs. That's a lot of good numbers on the Habs and those other guys aren't on the list.

As for the Rangers days, the MSG circus thing doesn't help, but his playoffs for the Rangers aren't great at home. Road games are harder for everyone in this era and Gump's at .902 at home when the 1956-62 league average is .905 for everyone else on the road (the field is .925 at home with 6 goalies being .919 or better). A balanced schedule could have seen the Rangers win a few more, but wouldn't have seen Worsley stealing wins for the Rangers in any year except 1962.

Worsley in 1962 is not akin to Joseph in 1993. Yes Joseph got rocked in Game 7, but his series save percentage remained at .930 (keep in mind that apex Patrick Roy is at .929 in these playoffs), because Joseph was really good in the other games so it doesn't ruin is save percentage. If Worsley's numbers don't hold up after a bad game (in a far lower scoring year with lower shooting %) it might mean his performance wasn't as good.

Of 182 goaltender performances in the 1993 playoffs, Curtis Joseph delivered 4 of the 9 highest save percentage games.

Of 37 1962 goaltender performances in the 1962 playoffs, Gump delivered 1 of the top 10. He had 3 games in the top third (9th, 12th, 12th), 3 games in the bottom third (26, 27, 36) with none in the middle. So 60 years later, maybe we should think his best NYR run was average because below average performances offset above average ones.

Looking at Joseph, it seems you and I get the impression CuJo's performance was very often crucial to winning games for his team. Looking at Worsley, do you get the same feeling?

 

[tarheelhockey]

In defense of John LeClair:

2x 1AS, 3x 2AS, 1x 3AS = 6 year prime where he was a top-3 left winger in the game

• His prime ran from 1995-2000, one of the most competitive eras in history and a period when power forwards were especially valuable.
• All three years that LeClair was a 2AS, the 1AS was Paul Kariya, a top-150 player according to our list.
• When LeClair was a 1AS, he beat out Keith Tkachuk (not the chubby 2000s version, but the scary late-90s version)
• His 3AS had him behind a very good year from Brendan Shanahan, and Kariya again.
• Kariya/Shanahan/Tkachuk/Robitaille is very good LW competition... some of the best ever. During his prime, Leclair never finished behind anyone but top-200 players in their primes.

Leclair's 4-year peak is up there with Kucherov as the best available in this group

• From 95-98, Leclair was an annual 50-goal threat who peaked out with consecutive 97-point seasons (those are top-5 scoring finishes, not weak early-90s points).
• The only other player in this round who has any 50-goal season to his name is Shanahan, who did it next to Adam Oates Craig Janney (also an elite playmaker at his peak) in scoring-inflated 92 and 94.
• LeClair was the second-most important player on the most feared line in hockey at this time. This compares favorably to the roles played by a Lemaire or Cournoyer. There are strong parallels to the Pizza Line (Alfredsson) and A-Line (Elias), and those players are getting a lot more discussion for their roles on those lines than LeClair has for his role on LOD.
• For what it's worth, Kucherov is the only player with a clearly stronger peak/prime but also the only player with worse longevity.

LeClair sustained this level of play regardless whether Lindros was in the lineup or not

• This has been covered in detail in prior threads and projects, so no need to belabor the point. Simply, he was legitimately a scoring threat who led the Flyers in Lindros' absence.

His playoffs aren't great, but they're not quite as bad as they look superficially

• The 90s Flyers were a rolling disaster in the playoffs, and LeClair rightfully carries a share of that legacy.
• However, it's worth noting that during the 6-season period where you'd have expected him to be a driving factor for his team, LeClair was the Flyers' leading goal scorer (or tied for same) in 3 of those years, and fell one goal short of the lead in 2 others. Only once, 1997, was he substantially off the team lead -- finishing 3rd with 9 goals in 19 games, to Brind'amour's 13 and Lindros' 12.
• In other words, LeClair's personal contributions in the playoffs mirrored those in the regular season. His ups and downs reflect similar effects experienced across the entire Flyers team.

He has a couple of pretty big feathers in his cap internationally

• LeClair came up huge in the showcase environment of the 1996 World Cup, finishing only one point behind Brett Hull for the overall tournament scoring lead. That ranked him above a large list of HHOF'ers, and included 3 goals and an assist in the 3-game final victory over Canada.
• A past-prime LeClair also came up big in the 2002 Olympics, again finishing only a point short of Hull for the USA team lead, and 3rd overall in the tournament behind Hull and a god-mode Mats Sundin. This included a hat trick over Finland on the way to a silver medal.

LeClair does carry some significant negatives -- primarily, a lack of relevance outside his prime -- but I don't think he's wildly out of place in this group. I'll probably have him behind Shanahan as a generational peer at the same position, but both of them have a decent shot of being in my top-10.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i'm not averse to leclair whatsoever, but just a few fine points:

Kariya/Shanahan/Tkachuk/Robitaille is very good LW competition... some of the best ever. During his prime, Leclair never finished behind anyone but top-200 players in their primes.

i think it's very true that during the leclair era, there were four relevant LWs: kariya, shanahan, tkachuk, and him. kariya was the clear best one, leclair was the most consistent. tkachuk and shanahan were both more often in the 3/4 spot, but then shanahan has relevant seasons pre-'95 and post-2000. i think leclair was clearly better than tkachuk, but for longevity, and the AST voting bears that out.

which is another way of saying that robitaille wasn't really relevant during that time. robitaille's '95, '99, and 2000 seasons weren't bad, but robitaille's prime ended in '94 and his only great late prime season was 2001. when we talk about competition at the LW position being a joke, seasons like that being in the top five are why we say it's a joke.

The only other player in this round who has any 50-goal season to his name is Shanahan, who did it next to Adam Oates in scoring-inflated 92 and 94.

shanahan was centered by craig janney in his 50 goal seasons, '93 and '94, to the detriment of janney's personal life.

LeClair was the second-most important player on the most feared line in hockey at this time. This compares favorably to the roles played by a Lemaire or Cournoyer. There are strong parallels to the Pizza Line (Alfredsson) and A-Line (Elias), and those players are getting a lot more discussion for their roles on those lines than LeClair has for his role on LOD.

would anyone argue that alfredsson and elias weren't the top guys on their lines though?

 

[tarheelhockey]

i think it's very true that during the leclair era, there were four relevant LWs: kariya, shanahan, tkachuk, and him. kariya was the clear best one, leclair was the most consistent. tkachuk and shanahan were both more often in the 3/4 spot, but then shanahan has relevant seasons pre-'95 and post-2000. i think leclair was clearly better than tkachuk, but for longevity, and the AST voting bears that out.

which is another way of saying that robitaille wasn't really relevant during that time. robitaille's '95, '99, and 2000 seasons weren't bad, but robitaille's prime ended in '94 and his only great late prime season was 2001. when we talk about competition at the LW position being a joke, seasons like that being in the top five are why we say it's a joke.

Agreed with all of the above. I'm mainly drawing a distinction between this group (Kariya/Leclair/Shanahan/Tkachuk/aging Robitalle) being at least reasonably competitive, versus most eras when it's basically 1 or 2 guys scooping up awards.

For example, we just inducted Goulet last round. The guys who finished 3rd in LW AS voting during Goulet's prime were:
Al Secord
John Ogrodnick
Goulet himself, behind Ogrodnick and John Tonelli
Glenn Anderson
Esa Tikkanen
Mats Naslund

So Goulet, in a given year, was not really competing with top-200 players for those AS spots. That doesn't mean he wasn't still a top player in the league... but he needed to have a bit of a crap season to not win one of those awards in his peak. Not every era was that bad at LW, but a lot of them were. The late 90s were an exception, with several very strong players peaking at the same time.

Also, really important in comparison with other eras: the late 90s was a fully consolidated league with a massive global talent pool. I believe the NHL talent pool in 1995 was at its absolute historic peak, so pulling down AS votes (even at a weaker position) during that era is somewhat more formidable than doing it in the WHA era or even the Original Six era IMO.

shanahan was centered by craig janney in his 50 goal seasons, '93 and '94, to the detriment of janney's personal life.

would anyone argue that alfredsson and elias weren't the top guys on their lines though?

Career-wise Alfredsson was the best on the Pizza Line, but at the time I don't think I perceived him as the top guy. Spezza and Heatley were dominant in their own right, even though their reputations have suffered as the years roll on.

Elias was the best player on the A-line, but I don't think of that line being as scary to play against as LOD or Pizza. They were good, of course. But LOD was one of those lines that gave you a knot in your stomach when you saw them come over the boards. They're regulars on "best lines of all time" lists and would probably have an even greater reputation if they hadn't run into a buzzsaw in the '97 Finals.

 

[MXD]

would anyone argue that alfredsson and elias weren't the top guys on their lines though?

Alfredsson wasn't really perceived as better than Heatley or Spezza. At least contemporaneously to the Pizza Line (of course career-wise he was, but that's a bit pointless when talking specifically about that line). Was perceived as the better rounded, not that it means much, but not necessarily better.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

So Goulet, in a given year, was not really competing with top-200 players for those AS spots. That doesn't mean he wasn't still a top player in the league... but he needed to have a bit of a crap season to not win one of those awards in his peak. Not every era was that bad at LW, but a lot of them were. The late 90s were an exception, with several very strong players peaking at the same time.

the bolded is a really nice way of putting it. i agree with this, and would just add that the LW spot post-lockout also should not be thought of as weak, relative to that whole long period from gillies to robitaille.

Career-wise Alfredsson was the best on the Pizza Line, but at the time I don't think I perceived him as the top guy. Spezza and Heatley were dominant in their own right, even though their reputations have suffered as the years roll on.

Elias was the best player on the A-line, but I don't think of that line being as scary to play against as LOD or Pizza. They were good, of course. But LOD was one of those lines that gave you a knot in your stomach when you saw them come over the boards. They're regulars on "best lines of all time" lists and would probably have an even greater reputation if they hadn't run into a buzzsaw in the '97 Finals.

Alfredsson wasn't really perceived as better than Heatley or Spezza. At least contemporaneously to the Pizza Line (of course career-wise he was, but that's a bit pointless when talking specifically about that line). Was perceived as the better rounded, not that it means much, but not necessarily better.

i guess i'd take alfredsson's hart votes in 2006 as evidence that he was generally understood to be the main guy.

i tend to see the pizza line as similar to the propp/poulin/kerr line, where kerr might have scored the most, but propp was the main guy. younger spezza and poulin aren't great comparables, but i think both are kind of the third guy at center.

but the larger point is i don't think alfredsson or elias' role on their respective lines are really analogous to leclair's on the LOD.

 

[MXD]

i guess i'd take alfredsson's hart votes in 2006 as evidence that he was generally understood to be the main guy.

Name reck on one side, infamy on the other, Spezza missing quite a few games.

There are some voting results that can't quite be taken at face value. This is one of them.

 

[Professor What]

Speaking as a Senators fan, I always felt like Alfredsson was the best player on that line. Not only could he do more, but he had the glue feeling to him. Taking him away from the line would have hurt it more than taking away either Spezza or Heatley.

 

[ted2019]

Agreed with all of the above. I'm mainly drawing a distinction between this group (Kariya/Leclair/Shanahan/Tkachuk/aging Robitalle) being at least reasonably competitive, versus most eras when it's basically 1 or 2 guys scooping up awards.

For example, we just inducted Goulet last round. The guys who finished 3rd in LW AS voting during Goulet's prime were:
Al Secord
John Ogrodnick
Goulet himself, behind Ogrodnick and John Tonelli
Glenn Anderson
Esa Tikkanen
Mats Naslund

So Goulet, in a given year, was not really competing with top-200 players for those AS spots. That doesn't mean he wasn't still a top player in the league... but he needed to have a bit of a crap season to not win one of those awards in his peak. Not every era was that bad at LW, but a lot of them were. The late 90s were an exception, with several very strong players peaking at the same time.

Also, really important in comparison with other eras: the late 90s was a fully consolidated league with a massive global talent pool. I believe the NHL talent pool in 1995 was at its absolute historic peak, so pulling down AS votes (even at a weaker position) during that era is somewhat more formidable than doing it in the WHA era or even the Original Six era IMO.








Career-wise Alfredsson was the best on the Pizza Line, but at the time I don't think I perceived him as the top guy. Spezza and Heatley were dominant in their own right, even though their reputations have suffered as the years roll on.

Elias was the best player on the A-line, but I don't think of that line being as scary to play against as LOD or Pizza. They were good, of course. But LOD was one of those lines that gave you a knot in your stomach when you saw them come over the boards. They're regulars on "best lines of all time" lists and would probably have an even greater reputation if they hadn't run into a buzzsaw in the '97 Finals.

Tonelli was on my list during my first copy of this list.

 

[ted2019]

A few things about an offensive comparison between Elias and Alfredsson:

- Alfredsson played his career in a neutral environment for offense - Ottawa went through a few stages in 19 years of course, but as a whole you could not say it was a conservative or a run-and-gun franchise. He comes out exactly average: 1.00. Elias, on the other hand, was in a 9% more conservative environment.

- One thing that has always stood out about Elias is the percentage of points he participates in while on the ice. In his career, 77.9% of the time a goal was scored, he was in on it. This is in the range of super elite players like Sidney Crosby (77.6%). Alfredsson is considerably behind at 71.1%, in the range of players like Recchi (70.5%) and Robitaille (69.2%). This really seems to suggest that he was more key to his team's offense and suggests that with a team that spent another 5M on forwards and 5M less on defense, he'd have more eye popping stats.

- Career collaboration scores: Elias 1.44, Alfredsson 1.50. I am surprised to see Alfredsson higher, in light of the above numbers, but this is so close that it hardly matters. Alfie posted six seasons with a 1.74 or higher - 97, 98, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2010. Elias posted six seasons at 1.59 or higher: 04, 09, 11, 12, 13 and 14. In both their cases, their seemingly most impressive seasons lose a lot of luster when you see the numbers show they had more help than they did in other seasons. Not saying they weren't the catalysts - they were - but these were just consistently excellent players who probably had their most impressive couple of seasons when situations were more favourable and were just short of that many other times.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

 

[ted2019]

I keep on seeing that LeClair is/was the 2nd best player on his line and that may be true, but he really wasn't behind Lindros in importance at all. Hell, Lindros has said this many times in the past when talking about the LOD line and LeClair's importance holding it together when Lindros would miss time. A bad back finished LeClair's dominance and I see LeClair being a poorer version of Cam Neely in regards of how injury shortened once career.

Coach Terry Murray via NHL.com:

“I never expected John to score the way he did,” said Murray, now a Flyers assistant coach. “That was a great bonus. When I put that line together, I thought LeClair would help win the battles down low and create some room for Lindros and Renberg.”

Murray didn’t let LeClair’s work go unacknowledged, either.

“The way LeClair gets the cycle game going for our club, he can just wear down the other team. He’s incredibly strong and he adds another dimension when he’s around the net,” said Murray.

“They had chemistry almost immediately in two or three games,” Murray recalled. “They dominated with their confidence. They literally carried us on their backs at times.”

They were big forwards. Power forwards with LeClair and Lindros doing the heavy lifting while the Swede, Renberg, gave them the speed and skill on the wing to create.

Once they caught the opponent in their deadly forechecking and cycling game, there was little the defense could do but take a penalty or ice the puck. Lindros presented a deadly combination of freight-train force and subtle finesse, with a sizeable mean streak. LeClair was almost impossible to take off the puck or move from in front of the net and also possessed a rocket of a slap shot. Renberg's speed on the off-wing and willingness to cover up high when the defense pinched added yet another dimension to the assault.

“They made passes and Lindros would throw a seven- or eight-foot harder than anyone I ever saw,” Murray said. “LeClair would handle it like most people would take a 30-foot pass. His hands were so soft. He could get that quick shot under the crossbar in one motion.”

Ron Hextall was the Flyers' goaltender during much of their span.

“They were power players in tandem,” Hextall said. “I think about being a defense pairing and going up against Lindros and LeClair. Talk about a challenge. It was huge, and they were both great players.

“Straight-line players, but power, power players. You look at power duos. Maybe [they are] the greatest of all time, in terms of power forwards as a tandem.”

On Feb. 6, 1997 against Montreal at what was then called the CoreStates Center, the Legion of Doom had 16 points with LeClair scoring a career-high four goals and amassing six points. Renberg had five points that night after earning just four points during the entire month of January.

“John had a great slap shot,” Hextall said. “He had an absolute cannon. … I don’t know how many [slap shots] you get away with these days. But he was still that big brute in front of the net that could bang rebounds home and tip pucks.

At one point in Game 5, Buffalo coach John Muckler called timeout in order to plead with his players not to be spectators while Lindros and his linemates did as they pleased.

“They sure are something to see when they get going out there. The three of them can just take over a game,” said Hextall in the victorious locker room after the game.

Was Eric Lindros Right? Does Flyers legend John LeClair Deserve to be in the Hockey Hall of Fame? - PHILLY SPORTS NETWORK

​

 

[The Macho King]

Just pointing out that Cournoyer and Smith are the players in this group who have a Conn Smythe. We could conceivably still run into a Nieuwendyk or Hextall, but given only a few rounds left, these may also be the last guys we see who have a Smythe.

We know that Kucherov was a distant 3rd in 2020, and we can reasonably assume similar finishes for Elias and Lemaire in certain seasons. I'm not aware of the non-NHL players winning a major tournament MVP, but please do correct me if I'm missing something there.

Distant third for the way the top 4 players of Tampa played in those playoffs is kind of... I don't know, tough. He led the team in scoring by a decent amount, but Kucherov is a subtle player while Point "looks" more dominant because of the way he plays (carries the puck a lot, low center of gravity, etc.). I thought ignoring Kucherov's accomplishments last postseason was odd. I agree Hedman was the winner, but Kucherov got disrespected when compared to Point (as did Vasilevskiy).

That's the thing with Kuch though - he plays such a slow game and he isn't a dangler a la Kane, so he doesn't look flashy. You just blink and realize that he had 1g 2a at the end of the game where you feel like you didn't notice him much.

I'll say this - he may be the best PP player in the league right now. His vision and smarts are off the charts and Tampa missed him in a huge way on the RW side of the PP this year. And I think a little "value" can be added by looking at the fact that Point and Stamkos both finished sub PPG in a season he was gone.