Who is the 5th best NHL player of all time?

[pdd]

And in 87-88?

1. Patrick Roy .900
2. Pete Peeters .898
3. Brian Hayward .896
4. Greg Stefan .896
t5. Tom Barrasso .896
t5. Kelly Hrudey .896

How about 86-87?

1. Ron Hextall .902
2. Bob Sauve .894
3. Brian Hayward .894
4. Glen Hanlon .893
5. Patrick Roy .892

Hextall was a beast that year, this is true.

Maybe the year before?

1. Bob Froese .909
2. Kelly Hrudey .906
3. Clint Malarchuk .895
4. Rick Wamsley .894
5. Don Beaupre .892
- Patrick Roy .875

Are you getting the picture? You're trying to cherry-pick Roy's outlier season of the decade and use it as a baseline. Funny how Bob Froese's .909 in 85-86 isn't any different from Roy's .908 in 88-89.

If you'll go back and read my post, I did say LATE 80s. That would exclude 85-86 and 86-87 (which are mid-80s). And, if you do that, you get this for the three season average from 87-88 through 89-90, for goalies with at least 60 GP (average 20 per season):

1. Roy: .906
2. Casey: .896
10. Moog .887
11. Vanbiesbrouck: 886
12. Ranford: .885

Roy is as far ahead of second place (Casey) as Casey is of TWELFTH. Casey was closer to being an average NHL goalie than he was to being Roy. And this is ignoring playoffs completely.

But the fact that so many people were able to compete and still be effective later in their career means players today aren't "automatically" better by virtue of playing today. You can try to dismiss all those guys as being legendary for their staying power, but isn't that the entire point we're discussing? That's not even including guys like Jagr, Selanne, or 40 yr old Mario coming out of retirement for the 17th time and still being good.

And on the other end, we can look at guys like Guy Lafleur, who retired at 33 after his decline from greatness, and then made a comeback attempt and looked terrible in doing so. Or any number of short lived, bright-burning offensive stars. Alexei Zhamnov is a good example. Or Jeremy Roenick. Dany Heatley is a more recent one. Todd Bertuzzi is a good example. And Vincent Lecavalier. Plus, of course, the quintessential "burning so bright he melts the ice" star who suddenly just declines when he should be improving, Alexander Ovechkin. Bryan Trottier is another good example of a declined star. Paul Coffey certainly didn't have the staying power the other defensemen I mentioned did, despite being better than all but Bourque and Chelios among guys in his age range.

As I said; those guys were legendary for their staying power. And even then, Stevens wasn't able to play at an elite level anymore past 1994, except in spurts. He had one more big year where he finished a distant third for the Norris (barely edging out Blake), but he lost to Blake in All-Star voting and was mentioned on significantly fewer ballots (Blake almost beat Bourque for the first-team spot).

Stevens, when he was younger, was a very physical offensive defenseman who was reliable defensively but by no means a shutdown guy; think of a better version of Dion Phaneuf and you have Stevens. Under Lemaire, he turned into a key shutdown guy while the offensive responsibilities were handed over to a young Scott Niedermayer. Similar to what Brent Sutter did with Bouwmeester and Giordano, except Lemaire actually had the right kind of players for the style he wanted to play. Sutter was trying to play gritty, physical hockey with guys like Olli Jokinen and Alex Tanguay.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you'll go back and read my post, I did say LATE 80s. That would exclude 85-86 and 86-87 (which are mid-80s). And, if you do that, you get this for the three season average from 87-88 through 89-90, for goalies with at least 60 GP (average 20 per season):

1. Roy: .906
2. Casey: .896
10. Moog .887
11. Vanbiesbrouck: 886
12. Ranford: .885

Roy is as far ahead of second place (Casey) as Casey is of TWELFTH. Casey was closer to being an average NHL goalie than he was to being Roy. And this is ignoring playoffs completely.

Trying to get this thing back on topic - right here is one reason why many of us think Patrick Roy is the best goalie of all time. When I made Top 120 list for the 2009 Top 100 (now 70) project, I had Patrick Roy 5th on my list. I probably wouldn't do that now, but I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

If you'll go back and read my post, I did say LATE 80s. That would exclude 85-86 and 86-87 (which are mid-80s). And, if you do that, you get this for the three season average from 87-88 through 89-90, for goalies with at least 60 GP (average 20 per season):

In other words your trying to limit the sample size so you can use Roy's ONE outlier season as your standard. Sorry Charlie, not playing that game.

Let's look at the save % leaders for the whole decade, minimum 30 games played:

79-80 Phil Esposito .903
80-81 Richard Sevigney .908
81-82 Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr .898
82-83 Roland Melanson .910
83-84 Roland Melanson .903
84-85 Pelle Lindbergh .899
85-86 Bob Froese .909 (Patrick Roy .875)
86-87 Ron Hextall .902 (Patrick Roy .892)
87-88 Patrick Roy .900
88-89 Patrick Roy .908

^^^^^ How are Roy's peak any seasons in the decade any different from other peak seasons in the decade. They aren't!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

^^^^^ How are Roy's peak any seasons in the decade any different from other peak seasons in the decade. They aren't!

Aren't Roy's peak seasons further above the league average?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Aren't Roy's peak seasons further above the league average?

Let's take a look.....just give me a few minutes to dig up the info

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Aren't Roy's peak seasons further above the league average?

Here we go:

79-80 Phil Esposito .903, League Average .883, +.020
80-81 Richard Sevigney .908, League Average .876, +.032
81-82 Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr .898, League Average .874, +.024
82-83 Roland Melanson .910, League Average .876, +.034
83-84 Roland Melanson .903, League Average .875, +.028
84-85 Pelle Lindbergh .899, League Average .875, +.024
85-86 Bob Froese .909 (Patrick Roy .875), League Average .876, +.034 (Patrick Roy -.001)
86-87 Ron Hextall .902 (Patrick Roy .892), League Average .882, +.020 (Patrick Roy +.010)
87-88 Patrick Roy .900, League Average .879, +.021
88-89 Patrick Roy .908, League Average .881, +.027

At .021 and .027 above league average for his two peak seasons he is actually at the bottom half of the margin above league average for the ten leaders......for one anyway.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess it wasn't uncommon for guys to have a single season way above league average. Makes sense with the hot and cold nature of goaltending. What made Roy and Hasek special was that they each had a string of seasons like that.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I guess it wasn't uncommon for guys to have a single season way above league average. Makes sense with the hot and cold nature of goaltending. What made Roy and Hasek special was that they each had a string of seasons like that.

Exactly. It's one of the things that set the best of the best apart from the rest.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I guess it wasn't uncommon for guys to have a single season way above league average. Makes sense with the hot and cold nature of goaltending. What made Roy and Hasek special was that they each had a string of seasons like that.

Speaking of consistency, it's interesting to note that Billy Smith finished second in both 82-83 and 83-84, third in 80-81 and tied for third in 79-80.

 

[Theokritos]

And on the other end, we can look at guys like Guy Lafleur, who retired at 33 after his decline from greatness, and then made a comeback attempt and looked terrible in doing so. Or any number of short lived, bright-burning offensive stars. Alexei Zhamnov is a good example. Or Jeremy Roenick. Dany Heatley is a more recent one. Todd Bertuzzi is a good example. And Vincent Lecavalier. Plus, of course, the quintessential "burning so bright he melts the ice" star who suddenly just declines when he should be improving, Alexander Ovechkin. Bryan Trottier is another good example of a declined star. Paul Coffey certainly didn't have the staying power the other defensemen I mentioned did, despite being better than all but Bourque and Chelios among guys in his age range.

Wait, are you suggesting Ovechkin is not as dominant anymore because the league has improved so much from 2009 to 2011 that more players have caught up with Ovechkin's level? And not because Ovechkin got worse?

 

[GuineaPig]

I think the habit of separating playoff and regular season performance results in people simultaneously underrating and overrating Roy. I have a hard time buying, for example, that Roy was a less-than-average goalie in 1985-86 when his save percentage over both the regular season and playoffs was 0.889. Or that 1992-93, for example, was that big an off-year for him; the drop-off in his regular season save percentage from 0.914 to 0.894 seems extreme, but if you include playoffs it's really a drop from 0.913 to 0.903, still well above league average (and would've seen him finish 4th in that category).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Across Eras

Without commenting on defensemen, the goalies (in general) are better. Significantly. You don't see a guy come down the wing on a breakaway and take an unscreened slapshot and just plain beat the goalie. It doesn't happen. It used to happen ALL THE TIME. As someone who started watching hockey in the 80s, I can't say I watched 70s goalies and can't tell you how they compare as far as the eye test. But 80s goalies were crap compared to goalies of nowadays. One way to tell? Compare Roy's save percentage in the late 80s to other goalies. The gap is ridiculous. Nowadays, the leaders are all close together. Hasek was way in front in his prime. Roy was way in front in his prime. But I would probably take a guy like Joey MacDonald over most 80s goalies. Why? He may not be as good as a lot of his peers, but he's better than the guys who played in the 80s. Mainly because goaltending technique was so far behind... those guys either made amazing saves or looked like idiots out there. There was no in between.

But your comparison is flawed. Depth forwards in the 80s were the primary driver for the increased scoring of the era; elite scorers did not actually score significantly more (aside from Gretzky and Lemieux) so the "era" argument is flawed when used against top 80s players like Yzerman and Messier. Unless you're looking at a season like 92-93, where there were tons of top scorers scoring unusually high amounts. Even in 88-89, there were only nine 100-point scorers. It's why adjusted stats must always be used in context (if you adjust from the 7.5GPG from 88-89 to the 5.5GPG during the DPE, and use that as a coefficient for player point adjustment, then 2000-01 had 50 players with a 100-point pace had they played in 88-89. Including reigning Selke winner Steve Yzerman. Mario Lemieux would adjust to pace for 193 points over 80 games (104 in the 40 he played). So either player quality simply increased that much (but defense and goaltending had improved enough that scoring was far more limited) or the argument that player quality has not increased is correct and if so, that's probably why scoring dropped and has stayed low. After all, Teemu Selanne was a top scorer in 1993 and was a top scorer in 2011. Defensemen score far fewer points now than we used to see (Orr, Potvin, Bourque, MacInnis, etc.), so they must be less skilled right?

Which seems more reasonable? A feeder system that has developed over the years becomes more refined, a 21-team league with 17 teams' worth of Canadian players gains access to Europe's pool of skilled players, which is regularly enough to fill another 6-7 teams. The US improves its hockey program dramatically. The minor leagues (AHL, IHL, etc.) become far more aligned with the league and teams develop much more focused prospect development systems, often with full control of the minor league teams. Players now have nutritionists, trainers, and full-year training regimens when they used to see the league as a "season only" job and training camp was literally for getting in shape, rather than a warmup for the season and a tryout for rookies.

And we'll also ignore the increase in population and youth hockey in general.

But yes, it's probable that talent level has remained stagnant, despite all of that. That second-line and even some third-line depth players nowadays wouldn't be stars if they were suddenly transported to the 70s or 80s.

Your goalie comparison does not hold. Outside of Martin Brodeur not one can play the east-west game properly. Create east-west movement and they start flopping like a fish out of water. Unable to protect the other side or cut-off passes across the crease.

Your slapshot analogy does not hold either. Today you see slapshots from the point going in that were stopped previously by goalies that knew how to get across the crease from side to side.

Your population/youth position has been shown to be false previously. Montreal alone - 1963, over 11,000 registered youngsters playing hockey, 2012 over 5,000. Does not look like an increase. Youth hockey today has a high profile but unlike generations ago lower participation in the traditional areas.If your population position was valid, the GMA - allowing for population shifts to the suburbs, should have 50,000 - 60,000(conservative estimate) youngsters playing hockey.

Your development comments require serious examination. O6 era when players would enter an NHL team's development system by age 16 they would play the team's "game" thru junior and the minors until they were NHL ready or retire in the minors. Integrating an NHL team was easier as a result. Today you have the draft. Player is drafted at 18, so already we have lost at least two years of development in the NHL team's system. Then they stay with their junior, school, European team except for mini camps until they turn pro. Effectively if an NHL team drafts seven 18 year olds per season, they will take seven different developmental paths to the team. How is this more aligned with the NHL team then the old system was? How is having multiple different training regimes, nutritionists, etc better than one? Look at the Soviet system from the fifties thru the eighties. One systematic approach produced better hockey players than the multiple approaches that we see in Russia today.

Your defensemen analogy, Orr, Bourque, Potvin. MacInnis is seriously flawed. Such players new how to get open on offence and were playing with players(3-4 lines) who knew how to get the puck to them when they were open.

Today defensemen produce gimmick offence. Few know how to get open and rely on gimmicks - Canadiens flip Subban and Markov on the PP to get favourable shooting angles but this narrows the offence for the rest of the power play making defence easier.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ok. Name me five players who entered the league among the best at their position, played two decades, and left as one of the best at said position.

Only Bourque.

What's the point? That Bourque is the best player ever because of his unique career?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Here's some 'splainin' for you.

No. That is the same point you already made, and the same point that is beside the point.

If the league were getting so much better over time, please explain how players like Howe, Sakic, Francis, Jagr, Bourque, Lidstrom, Selanne etc. were all still capable of upper level seasons 15-20 years after their first season.

The reason you can't is because your theory is false.

Human beings haven't changed that much and, besides better nutrition and more focused training, human limits are roughly the same.

Wait, are you suggesting Ovechkin is not as dominant anymore because the league has improved so much from 2009 to 2011 that more players have caught up with Ovechkin's level? And not because Ovechkin got worse?

 

[thom]

After 4yrs out of Hockey Lafleur had close to 50 pts playing 68 games including a hat trick against the kings Esposito was offered a 1st round draft pick for lafleur a trading deadline.Lafleur went to Quebec and was 2nd leading scorer despite playing only 39 games.His comeback was a success proving how poor hockey had become.As for Edmonton Oilers why does no one want to talk about the cocaine rumours among many of the great oilers?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

After 4yrs out of Hockey Lafleur had close to 50 pts playing 68 games including a hat trick against the kings Esposito was offered a 1st round draft pick for lafleur a trading deadline.Lafleur went to Quebec and was 2nd leading scorer despite playing only 39 games.His comeback was a success proving how poor hockey had become.As for Edmonton Oilers why does no one want to talk about the cocaine rumours among many of the great oilers?

After 4 years out of the NHL Jaromir Jagr makes a successful comeback thereby proving how poor hockey had become?

 

[Killion]

As for Edmonton Oilers why does no one want to talk about the cocaine rumours among many of the great oilers?

So what are you implying thom? The Oilers Trainers included lines of blow yards long for pre-game & in-between period refreshment next to the orange slices, Gatorade & water bottles? Help yourself Boys, whatever turns your crank?....

1986 SI published a story denied vociferously by Sather that not only did Grant Fuhr have a problem with Coke, but so too did 5 other un-named Oilers. Apparently Sather contacted the reporter, was interviewed, Gretzky as well, both utterly refuting the accusations, that they'd be aware of it if indeed any team mate had a problem of that nature. Sather never asked the reporter who the other 5 players were, and had he, as I recall the reporter said he wouldnt tell him anyway. As we know, Fuhr's "problem" became such that he could no longer deny it. And it was beyond bad. Mortgage payments & utility bills missed so Id imagine he was dropping a bundle in deviating his septum but good for quite some length of time.

Thing is, cocaine combined with serious physical exertion would actually be a handicap, as theres just no way it could be sustained, couldnt handle it, central nervous system shot to Hell in no time flat, after effects including deep depression, violent mood swings, difficulties focusing, physiological damage, vision a mess, all of the senses screwed. Sure its probable that like Salming with the Leafs a generation earlier a few may have experimented with it, but I dont believe any of them beyond Fuhr developed a dependency on it. Your game (and life) would absolutely fall apart if you wandered down that road too far. Just ask Derek Sanderson about that one. Any kind of substance abuse, even nicotine, inhibiting & detrimental to performance.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So what are you implying thom? The Oilers Trainers included lines of blow yards long for pre-game & in-between period refreshment next to the orange slices, Gatorade & water bottles? Help yourself Boys, whatever turns your crank?....

1986 SI published a story denied vociferously by Sather that not only did Grant Fuhr have a problem with Coke, but so too did 5 other un-named Oilers. Apparently Sather contacted the reporter, was interviewed, Gretzky as well, both utterly refuting the accusations, that they'd be aware of it if indeed any team mate had a problem of that nature. Sather never asked the reporter who the other 5 players were, and had he, as I recall the reporter said he wouldnt tell him anyway. As we know, Fuhr's "problem" became such that he could no longer deny it. And it was beyond bad. Mortgage payments & utility bills missed so Id imagine he was dropping a bundle in deviating his septum but good for quite some length of time.

Thing is, cocaine combined with serious physical exertion would actually be a handicap, as theres just no way it could be sustained, couldnt handle it, central nervous system shot to Hell in no time flat, after effects including deep depression, violent mood swings, difficulties focusing, physiological damage, vision a mess, all of the senses screwed. Sure its probable that like Salming with the Leafs a generation earlier a few may have experimented with it, but I dont believe any of them beyond Fuhr developed a dependency on it. Your game (and life) would absolutely fall apart if you wandered down that road too far. Just ask Derek Sanderson about that one. Any kind of substance abuse, even nicotine, inhibiting & detrimental to performance.

Gee, I wonder if any of the Rangers in the early 80s ever came across any Coke?

OO-LA-LA

 

[Epsilon]

After 4yrs out of Hockey Lafleur had close to 50 pts playing 68 games including a hat trick against the kings Esposito was offered a 1st round draft pick for lafleur a trading deadline.Lafleur went to Quebec and was 2nd leading scorer despite playing only 39 games.His comeback was a success proving how poor hockey had become.As for Edmonton Oilers why does no one want to talk about the cocaine rumours among many of the great oilers?

How on earth does that have any relevance to this thread?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

To echo what others have said (but with additional moderator weight )

As for Edmonton Oilers why does no one want to talk about the cocaine rumours among many of the great oilers?

What does it have to do with "who is the 5th best NHL player of all time"?

 

[Killion]

How on earth does that have any relevance to this thread?

What does it have to do with "who is the 5th best NHL player of all time"?

Yes, Echoes, wonderful piece of music, and I like the way thoms' thinkin here. Conscious stream of thought; starts with Guy Lafleur, his known & rumoured PartyBoy proclivities. Ergo it just follows that perhaps the 3rd, 5th, 7th or whatever ranked player may well have been playing out of his mind, because he was, fuelled on 90% pure Columbian Snow. Smuggled up from Bogota in a decommissioned Soviet era nuclear sub acquired from middle eastern black market arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, but I digress... and not seeing it, fatigue & nausea, all manner of difficulties. Cant play Coach. Someone get me a bucket. Fast.

 

[Epsilon]

Does anybody out there seriously think cocaine is a performance-enhancing drug?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Does anybody out there seriously think cocaine is a performance-enhancing drug?

In boxing, but not in hockey.....

 

[bambamcam4ever]

No. That is the same point you already made, and the same point that is beside the point.

If the league were getting so much better over time, please explain how players like Howe, Sakic, Francis, Jagr, Bourque, Lidstrom, Selanne etc. were all still capable of upper level seasons 15-20 years after their first season.

The reason you can't is because your theory is false.

Human beings haven't changed that much and, besides better nutrition and more focused training, human limits are roughly the same.

Sure, they have hardly evolved genetically, but the top athletes of today are incomparably greater and better trained than those in the past. You used the example of Howe, who started his career in the mid-40s, as someone who had great longevity. To view the difference between the athletes currently and those 50+ years ago, we can look at 100m dash times, as a runner's performance in track does not depend on his competition like in hockey and their performances are easily quantifiable. Up until 1956 the world record was 10.2 seconds. In the present, that would only be good enough to be invited to the US trials while the world record has dropped substantially to 9.58s. I'm sorry if the facts don't fit your preconceived narrative that the legends of the past would still dominate today, but it is indisputable that both the average and the elite athletes of today are superior to their counterparts of the past.

 

[thom]

Very simple reason child cocaine can be used as a stimulant which can make someone aggressive and less timid.As for steroids it was documented in Igor larinov book which he said in late 70's russian players were given shots to take before big tournaments.Many of the russian players were on drugs.