Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 20

[seventieslord]

Procedure

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

Eligible Voters

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

Guidelines

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

House Rules

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

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, May 28th at midnight and continue through Sunday, May 30th at 8:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, May 31st.


Vote 9 Candidates

• Chuck Rayner
• Darryl Sittler
• Didier Pitre
• Frank Foyston
• Harry Cameron
• Harry "Hap" Holmes
• Harry Lumley
• John LeClair
• Larry Murphy
• Lester Patrick
• Roy Conacher
• Ryan Getzlaf
• Tom Barrasso
• Vyacheslav Starshinov
• Yvan Cournoyer

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

A large, eclectic bunch of players to choose from!

- I feel like Worsley's getting in for sure. He was painfully close last round.
- This list would be really incomplete without Lester Patrick (and Worsley).
- Other than that.... this is tough. I think I really want to see LeClair make it. Murphy has warts but a surprisingly long, complete and consistent resume. I may vote him highly.
- Harry Cameron, are we even sure he's the next best defenseman of his era? Was he better than Joe Hall?
- Rayner, Holmes and Lumley don't seem to have the support to get over the finish line. Barrasso starts a round later than them, I wonder if he has more juice?
- I found Foyston's numbers to be pretty underwhelming when comparing his merits to those of Frederickson and Keats. Doesn't mean he doesn't belong at this stage, but I'll have to take another look.
- Getzlaf vs. Sittler, eh? I'm listening...

 

[BenchBrawl]

A large, eclectic bunch of players to choose from!

- I feel like Worsley's getting in for sure. He was painfully close last round.
- This list would be really incomplete without Lester Patrick (and Worsley).
- Other than that.... this is tough. I think I really want to see LeClair make it. Murphy has warts but a surprisingly long, complete and consistent resume. I may vote him highly.
- Harry Cameron, are we even sure he's the next best defenseman of his era? Was he better than Joe Hall?
- Rayner, Holmes and Lumley don't seem to have the support to get over the finish line. Barrasso starts a round later than them, I wonder if he has more juice?
- I found Foyston's numbers to be pretty underwhelming when comparing his merits to those of Frederickson and Keats. Doesn't mean he doesn't belong at this stage, but I'll have to take another look.
- Getzlaf vs. Sittler, eh? I'm listening...

Yes. Joe Hall never peaked that high.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Biographies of Harry Cameron:

2016 ATD Bio Thread
ATD 2014 - the Bios Thread

 

[BenchBrawl]

Some highlights from the bios:

• In 1913 (Cameron's first season in the NHA), he and Frank Nighbor were the two Toronto players selected to the NHA All-Star team that would play the PCHA All-Stars in the second annual All-Star Game between the two of them (Source). Given the fact that each team only carried 2-3 defensemen, this is as close as we have to the equivalent of a First Team NHA All-Star.
• The Montreal Daily Mail polled readers to create a 1914 All Star Team. Cameron was selected All-Star Point (12 votes at point, 5 at coverpoint). Cleghorn was All-Star Coverpoint (10 votes at coverpoint, 6 votes at point) Source
• Harry Cameron was the highest paid player on Toronto's 1918 Cup winning team at $900. The rest of the players' salaries ranged from $450 to $750. (Source).
• 3/21/1919 (Calgary Herald): "Who is the greatest defense player in professional hockey today? Pacific Coast students of the puck chasing game would name Rowe, Johnson or Duncan, but according to eastern critics, Harry Cameron of the Ottawa team carries off the crown. The Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal press rate Cameron as the best in the game today. In the world's series a year ago he was one of the big stars, and Vancouver attributes its defeat chiefly to his wonderful work."

Researching Toronto in that era is annoying, but on memory Cameron played strong hockey as a core player in all three cups (1914, 1918, 1922). In 1919, when traded to Ottawa, he was a starter, despite Gerard and Cleghorn being there. As written above, Cameron was considered the best defenseman in the East in 1919. He is a strong contender as the best offensive defenseman of the pre-consolidation era, without sucking defensively. His longevity is pretty good, his prime lasting roughly from 1913 to 1923.

Harry Cameron strikes me as a Paul Coffey type player, with excellent skating and great skills, plus a strong shot from the point.

Edit:

More information backing up the above info, from my old files:

Harry Cameron was the highest paid player in the NHL in 1918-1919:

 

[ted2019]

How come there's 16 candidates this round?

 

[Professor What]

Well, whoever's going on the list goes on here. No pressure, right?

 

[ted2019]

A large, eclectic bunch of players to choose from!

- I feel like Worsley's getting in for sure. He was painfully close last round.
- This list would be really incomplete without Lester Patrick (and Worsley).
- Other than that.... this is tough. I think I really want to see LeClair make it. Murphy has warts but a surprisingly long, complete and consistent resume. I may vote him highly.
- Harry Cameron, are we even sure he's the next best defenseman of his era? Was he better than Joe Hall?
- Rayner, Holmes and Lumley don't seem to have the support to get over the finish line. Barrasso starts a round later than them, I wonder if he has more juice?
- I found Foyston's numbers to be pretty underwhelming when comparing his merits to those of Frederickson and Keats. Doesn't mean he doesn't belong at this stage, but I'll have to take another look.
- Getzlaf vs. Sittler, eh? I'm listening...

I agree with Patrick but really not sold on Gump.
LeClair will be in my top 3 and Murphy could be a solid add.
Barrasso had some strong advanced stats in the Goaltender posts I think that HO Posted.
Career Adjusted-Save-Percentage
Goalies-Adjusted-Playoff-Save-Percentage-1984-2020
Calculating Adjusted-Stats Through Era's
Special-Teams-Adjusted-Goaltending-Statistics
Goaltender-game-by-game-logs-1965-66-to-present

 

[Professor What]

Not really feeling Barrasso, Getzlaf, or Sittler immediately. I'm not saying I can't be convinced, but it's probably steep. I can't say that I feel informed enough on Pitre or Foyston to make an accurate assessment for their chances on my ballot this round. I feel like I've picked up a bit more about Cameron than them, and he feels like a reasonably good option. Top 5 though? I don't know, honestly.

Everyone else has something of a decent shot with me if the right arguments are presented though I will say that the next five from the previous vote look pretty good even if I'm having some difficulty separating the returning goalies.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Harry Cameron will be my #1.

He is long overdue. He has everything: key player on three Stanley Cups, big star (highest paid player in the NHL), dominant and exciting offensive player, longevity, etc.

The only knocks on him would be his post-career recognition, which isn't as great as you'd like. But everything from inside his career points to a real impact player, a big star who delivered the goods several times. He was considered undisciplined and hard to coach, which might explain why he wasn't as beloved as other players. Go figure.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Neither of the Sedin's up at even this point. Not saying it is wrong, I agree actually, but it is a little strange considering both have an Art Ross as well as a Hart or Pearson. That era was weird and weak looking back. Freakin' Jamie Benn winning an Art Ross?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Starshinov is my number 1 at this point.

 

[seventieslord]

How come there's 16 candidates this round?

It's just where qpq drew the line.

 

[MXD]

Sittler, WTF?
Holmes and Rayner will both top my ballot. It's otherwise quite open.

Gump too, of course, but I don't think he should be a candidate.

 

[ted2019]

Sittler, WTF?
Holmes and Rayner will both top my ballot. It's otherwise quite open.

Gump too, of course, but I don't think he should be a candidate.

Shocked to see Sittler as well. He didn't even make my top 250.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Looking at it strictly from the point of a view of a fan following their career from a distance, I don't see any significant difference between Kopitar and Getzlaf. If anything, I would probably favor Getzlaf if I could pick one or the other at 18 years old.

I know once you unpack their careers Kopitar looks better, but that's something to keep in mind in terms of star power. They're same caliber players.

 

[Professor What]

Brent Leroy: Curse you, Darryl Sittler!

[scene shifts]

Darryl Sittler: I feel like I've been shunned.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I have the same feeling for Yvan Cournoyer, as I had for Johnny Bucyk earlier in the project. Cournoyer felt more important to his era than any of the wingers left, and arguably more or just as important as any center available, his stats be damned!

 

[ted2019]

Looking at it strictly from the point of a view of a fan following their career from a distance, I don't see any significant difference between Kopitar and Getzlaf. If anything, I would probably favor Getzlaf if I could pick one or the other at 18 years old.

I know once you unpack their careers Kopitar looks better, but that's something to keep in mind in terms of star power. They're same caliber players.

Kopitar >>>>>>>>>>>Getzlaf.

 

[plusandminus]

Nice to see Larry Murphy on the list. Norris 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 (many votes), 10 (one vote), 14
4 Stanley Cups (for those who value such things), 3 times the +/- leader on those teams, twice for DET and once for PIT.
7 points in 8 games in Canada Cup 1987.

LeClair has AST finishes 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 in the only 6 seasons he got any votes whatsoever. All those seasons he had Lindros and often Renberg/Recchi (didn't he?). Sort of like Steve Shutt.
But I know Leclair was good internationally, and I've also read/heard in the 1990s that he was at times as good as Lindros, so..?

I think left wing is generally the position with the weakest competition.
So left wing AST 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 is probably similar to Norris 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11.

 

[ted2019]

Neither of the Sedin's up at even this point. Not saying it is wrong, I agree actually, but it is a little strange considering both have an Art Ross as well as a Hart or Pearson. That era was weird and weak looking back. Freakin' Jamie Benn winning an Art Ross?

Hence on why neither player are on. There were apart of several of my lists, but eventually I found better candidates.

 

[ted2019]

Nice to see Larry Murphy on the list. Norris 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 (many votes), 10 (one vote), 14
4 Stanley Cups (for those who value such things), 3 times the +/- leader on those teams, twice for DET and once for PIT.
7 points in 8 games in Canada Cup 1987.

LeClair has AST finishes 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 in the only 6 seasons he got any votes whatsoever. All those seasons he had Lindros and often Renberg/Recchi (didn't he?). Sort of like Steve Shutt.
But I know Leclair was good internationally, and I've also read/heard in the 1990s that he was at times as good as Lindros, so..?

I think left wing is generally the position with the weakest competition.
So left wing AST 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 is probably similar to Norris 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11.

LeClair was a lot of times Lindros' equal if not better. Renberg won't even be on a top 1000 list and I really don't remember Recchi ever playing on a line with LeClair. Sometimes Brind A'mour or Dale Hawerchuk would overlap for a few seconds or the occasional shift. Also Shutt could not dominate a game down low like LeClair could. At times LeClair would dominate the line to get Lindros going, did Shutt do that for Lafleur?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Brent Leroy: Curse you, Darryl Sittler!

[scene shifts]

Darryl Sittler: I feel like I've been shunned.

Mr. Butt?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Didier Pitre:

Was 34 years old when the NHL began. End of the road for most players at that time. But he was still a star.

First 4 years he scored 61 goals in 82 games. Led the league in game winning goals the first 2 seasons. Was top 10 in goals, assists and points 3 times each.

 

[tarheelhockey]

One of the big items in Pitre's favor is the way he was regarded by his peers and team managers. He was a very hot commodity in his day, to the point of sparking legal action for his services (which isn't necessarily relevant to this thread).

In that respect he compares well to guys like Cameron, Murphy, and Barrasso -- guys who were viewed for various reasons as being disposable or problematic.