HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[MXD]

Well of course. That goes without saying haha.

With that being said I think there is a difference between voting on a guy who has a partial playoff run to his name and a guy who has actually completed the gauntlet 2 times in a row (first of cap era and first time in 19 years), with 2 playoff MVP's in a row (only 3rd player ever). Both of those occurrences are quite rare and ultimately significant to the debate.

Would Crosby not have come up in an earlier round of voting had this started a bit later? I think so and most others likely put his name up earlier as well.

Crosby would've had to be ranked 4 spots higher by everyone to appear a round earlier, and wasn't even that close to make it when he appeared (in V5, which was a very strong group).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Crosby would've had to be ranked 4 spots higher by everyone to appear a round earlier, and wasn't even that close to make it when he appeared (in V5, which was a very strong group).

Yeah, Vote 5 is quite the group (Robinson, Dryden, Lidstrom, Trottier, and Geoffrion). I don't know that three games vaults a player from being tied with Serge Savard to being Larry Robinson and Ken Dryden.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Yeah, those 3 games were the difference between voting on a guy with 2 Cups vs 3 and 1 Smythe (pretty weak win) vs 2 (with the 2nd being much more significant). Not to mention he has another 2 significant runs to his name (08 and 09). It's easy to say "3 games" when you ignore the greater context of what winning that final series meant.

Peter Forsberg being ranked above Crosby at this point is hilarious (Forsberg as high as he is, happens to be one of the most glaring problems anyway).

Fewer Cups, no Smythe(s), AND the Avs won it all despite not having Forsberg down the stretch in 2001. Whereas take Crosby off the Pens in 2011, and they're out in round 1. The Pens don't have a #1 D (Letang), or really a #2/3, this past season, and they still win it all with Crosby having a major hand it them repeating. We can go deeper in regards to other players, but come on. Forsberg significantly higher on this list is flat out wrong IMHO.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, Vote 5 is quite the group (Robinson, Dryden, Lidstrom, Trottier, and Geoffrion). I don't know that three games vaults a player from being tied with Serge Savard to being Larry Robinson and Ken Dryden.

Seriously, if I'd start the whole thing again, Robinson would probably be the first D-Men appearing on my list.

Yeah, those 3 games were the difference between voting on a guy with 2 Cups vs 3 and 1 Smythe (pretty weak win) vs 2 (with the 2nd being much more significant). Not to mention he has another 2 significant runs to his name (08 and 09). It's easy to say "3 games" when you ignore the greater context of what winning that final series meant.

Peter Forsberg being ranked above Crosby at this point is hilarious (Forsberg as high as he is, happens to be one of the most glaring problems anyway).

Fewer Cups, no Smythe(s), AND the Avs won it all despite not having Forsberg down the stretch in 2001. Whereas take Crosby off the Pens in 2011, and they're out in round 1. The Pens don't have a #1 D (Letang), or really a #2/3, this past season, and they still win it all with Crosby having a major hand it them repeating. We can go deeper in regards to other players, but come on. Forsberg significantly higher on this list is flat out wrong IMHO.

First, Forsberg playoffs achievements and clutch scoring are... really impressive though. He went a tad too high for my tastes as well, and no one he saying that he's a better player either. But as far as playoff accomplishments are concerned, it's in the same territory.

Second, it's not like Crosby earning the Smythe was a huge surprise to anyone who actually paid attention.

 

[ImporterExporter]

First, Forsberg playoffs achievements and clutch scoring are... really impressive though. He went a tad too high for my tastes as well, and no one he saying that he's a better player either. But as far as playoff accomplishments are concerned, it's in the same territory.

Second, it's not like Crosby earning the Smythe was a huge surprise to anyone who actually paid attention.

I think Forsberg's clutch scoring is a wonderful feather in his cap. But a broad look at the Avs and his performances certainly don't paint a top 20 player of all time, in the postseason. If anything, as of right now, you can pretty much flip Foppa and Sid and it'd be more realistic.

1. Both times he led the playoffs in scoring, his team was out in the Conference finals. I give him big marks for scoring a great deal through 3 rounds, but at least some luster comes off as the Avs didn't even make the finals either time. Crosby leading the playoffs in points in 2008 means more as they at least made the Cup finals and drove the mighty Red Wings 6 games.

2. Again, the 2001 run is significant to me. Forsberg was playing well enough, goes down to injury and yet the team was still able to soldier on and win everything. Look at a year where Crosby isn't available to injury (2011) and you see a team that loses in 7 games. In round 1.

3. In the other Cup winning year (96), Forsberg was 3rd on the team in scoring, well behind Sakic. Ozolinsh and Roy were also very good that in that run.

Forsberg, at best, has 3 significant runs (01 doesn't count as he only played 11 games), and 2 of them, in my eyes were in years the Avs were bounced in the 3rd round.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Again, the 2001 run is significant to me. Forsberg was playing well enough, goes down to injury and yet the team was still able to soldier on and win everything. Look at a year where Crosby isn't available to injury (2011) and you see a team that loses in 7 games. In round 1.

The Penguins were also missing Malkin. And they got knocked out in Round 1 the next year too.

Also Peter Forsberg was their leading scorer in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, and up to that very point in 2001; he was clearly the best playoff performer at that time (points, plus-minus, game-winning points all back this up), and one of the few players in the Western Conference who could consistently produce against Detroit and Dallas. That Colorado can win a Stanley Cup while getting statistically the 2nd best Round 2-4 goaltending since the four-round era began does not invalidate what Peter Forsberg did in his career.

That's why we have the discussion threads. So that we can go through all of this, and evaluate if a player who landed 25th on the aggregate list is better than what we had originally perceived him to be, largely based on narratives like two rounds in 2001 that mean less than the entirety of 1995-2004.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My .02 (probably only worth a penny)

This is probably the "worst" HoH top 40 project done to date judging by the final rankigns. I've got my issues to one degree or another with the previous installments of the HoH but this list has some serious question marks IMHO.

The biggest problem I have with the entire project is it was started mid-season (of the just completed NHL campaign).

Why don't we use the off season for something like this? Say from June through September?

I'm sure some will bring up doing it during the season because people are more active, vs the summer when you have vacations popping up and such, but I don't really buy that argument. The die hard posters that log hundreds or thousands of posts every year aren't going MIA for weeks or months on end, especially considering most if not all are adults, with full time jobs. I'm sure some will be gone for a few days or a week for some vacation between Memorial day and Labor day, but by and large i think the regulars that comprise the voting blocks are still going to be active most days.


Most of this list was compiled in late winter, early spring 2017, before the season was completed and you have a player who had yet another significant postseason (Crosby winning a Cup and Conn Smythe) that would easily vault him up a number of spots from the 27th spot he finished at, not to mention his teammate (Malkin) had another Conn Smythe worthy run as well. I don't think Malkin would be in the top 25 or 30, but to not even get brought up in the last round of discussions for consideration seems wrong now. People were only going to view the list after the 2017 season was completed so why not allow the season to play out, simply to ensure you don't miss big happenings (namely Crosby going back to back with the CS's)


But to the list overall:


Personally, IMHO, Pat Roy is the greatest playoff/money hockey player ever.

No offense to Gretzky, his numbers are unreal across the board, but those Oilers teams were absolutely loaded. Not only with HOF talent (their were up to 6 HOF players on the 4 Cup winning teams that Gretzky played on) as well as very solid roles players. I've got zero issue with most people going Gretzky #1. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment, I just feel that Roy did as much on an individual level, with less talent around him (especially in Montreal) compared to the Oilers dynasty.

Roy led both Habs teams (85-86 and 92-93 neither of whom won their division) on amazing Cup runs. One only has to look at the sheer numbers or Adjusted Playoff Saves project and Playoff Save % vs Average Opponent Shooting % breakdown to see how dominant Roy really was. There is no one that would ever convince me either of those teams win a Cup without Roy playing out of his mind, especially considering the ridiculous scoring numbers being put up in the mid 80's and early 90's. Hell, even in a Cup loss in 89 he was unbelievably good. Absolutely Conn Smythe good.

Obviously he got a pair of Smythe wins there and another towards the end of his career with Colorado, making him the only 3 time winner in league history, despite plenty of superstars playing on teams that won the Cup 3 or more times since its introduction. And I think seeing Roy win multiple Cups and Smythe's across multiple eras is that much more impressive.



Doug Harvey has to be overrated right? He looks great with Cup counting and certainly is one of the 3-4 greatest Dmen ever to play but how much did he actually do to drive those absolutely loaded Habs teams during the postseason?

In 52-53? Tom Johnson produced as much offense (and had 2 goals to Harvey's 0) from the blue line and you had Boom Boom leading the team in scoring with 10 points. Now, I'm certain Harvey provided elite play in his own end, but how SIGNIFICANT was his performance on a HOF laden team?

53-54? Lost in Cup finals to Detroit and Harvey played at best average here and I'd wager below expectations. 2 assists in 10 games? 3 other D produced more.

55-56? Next Cup win for Montreal saw Beliveau dominate in one of the best Cup playoff performances to date in NHL history. It would certainly seem like Harvey was quite good, but how good?

56-57? Same thing this time Boom Boom with a very high end performance. Outscored the next closest player by 6 points and Harvey by 11 overall. Assuming Harvey was fantastic defensively, it still doesn't overcome a very significant run by Geoffrion. By Conn Smythe standards this is almost a guaranteed win for Bernie.

57-58? Hard to look past aging (36 years old) Maurice Richard's 11 goals in 10 games as the high mark for the Habs.

59-60? Gotta be Plante. Gave up 11 goals in 8 games. That's unreal, regardless of era.

I find it really hard to look at any of the Cup winning years as a definite Conn Smythe for Harvey. He was an integral part, no doubt, but those teams were absolutely stacked (as much as or more than any in history) and it's hard to say he went to another level relative to his peers and regular season play. Lots of Cups but doesn't scream like the 6th greatest playoff performer. Certainly not better than Messier.



Speaking of Messier. 6th? Not a chance. Needs to be top 5 (I have him 3rd). 6 Cups, well past expansion is as impressive as anyone from the 06 era, who had 7-10. Sure, he rode shotgun to Gretzky for the first 4 (where Messier was amazing as it was), but then showed he could take the reigns in 89-90, and once again in 94 with the Rangers. If it wasn't for Leetch going bonkers, Messier easily wins a Conn Smythe that year as well and you could have just as easily given it to him anyway.

2nd all time in playoff points.

4th all time in playoff PPG (really 3rd, nobody counts Pederson), despite having an extremely long career/number of games played.

2nd all time in multi point games in the postseason.

1st all time in career playoff short handed goals (14).

2nd all time in career playoff goals at ES (71) and goals overall (109).

6 Cups.

Conn Smythe in 90.

Scored double digit points in 14 straight years from 83-97 (with 7 times exceeding 20 points and 3 hitting 30 or more).



Flip Beliveau and Richard. Beliveau didn't have the luxury of starting his playoff career during WWII and JB's brilliance stretched a slightly longer arc in the postseason. At least IMHO.


Sakic is too high (Trottier was nearly as good IMO and how is Sakic 12th all time but his contemporary Yzerman left completely out of the top 40). Forsberg is too high as well. But this site overrates him considerably, at least on a ranking basis.


Crosby is way to low, but again, his place on this list was determined before his 3rd Cup and 2nd Smythe. Shame.


Would have liked to see more 60's Leafs players brought up for discussion a bit earlier like Horton especially as well as Keon.


Patty Kane should have been in the low to mid 30's. Not a huge deal, but he's got a hellova resume already amassed and some big time heroics as a playoff performer.




There are some other things you could nitpick but the above represents where I disagree with the list the most.

Agree.

Agree.

Disagree.

90 Smythe = Ranford

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The two major points I want to respond to:

Well of course he landed above the big 4. He's quite a bit better than them when you look at ONLY postseason accolades and accomplishments. It seems to me that some people are allowing other aspects of career resumes sneak into their objectivity.

Why does it seem high in regards to Messier? He might be in the 15-25 range all time OVERALL, but how can one look at his ridiculous peaks AND longevity as a postseason player and not have him even higher?

Even considering his first 4 Cups came with Gretzky leading the charge, it wasn't like he wasn't extremely impressive in his own right. And I don't believe that Messier and Gretzky played very much together at ES anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

The biggest factor for me is that Messier did what Gretzky couldn't. Take over a team (without the other present) and lead them to championships. Messier did that brilliantly in Edmonton AND New York.

You can look at the raw numbers, adjusted numbers, per game totals, and overall sheer volume of work Messier has to his name and it should be incredibly difficult to put more than 2-3 people above him. IMHO.


The second part, in regards to the Crosby ranking is this:

Crosby would have absolutely ranked higher had the project started directly after the end of the hockey season. The results CAN be changed (for the better/more accuracy mind you) if they are done from June onward. That way you don't short change active players who are doing great things. So honestly I don't agree, that there is nothing that can be done, especially considering active players always seem to get short changed as it is.

He only has more accomplishments than Orr & Lemieux because of more opportunity. Messier had 6 Cups and 1 Conn Smythe. Both Lemieux and Orr had 2 Cups and 2 Conn Smythe Trophies. So that's Messier and 39 other Smythe winners. Orr and Lemieux with 4 other multiple winners.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Agree.

Agree.

Disagree.

90 Smythe = Ranford

Good catch! I got my years mixed up.

He only has more accomplishments than Orr & Lemieux because of more opportunity. Messier had 6 Cups and 1 Conn Smythe. Both Lemieux and Orr had 2 Cups and 2 Conn Smythe Trophies. So that's Messier and 39 other Smythe winners. Orr and Lemieux with 4 other multiple winners.

In a simplistic view, sure you can use opportunity to argue one way or the other. But injuries are a part of a players legacy. Unfortunately Orr and Lemieux dealt with a lot of those.

Messier has both peak and longevity dominance as a postseason player. I don't think that can even be argued. And my biggest selling point is that he did what Gretzky couldn't and that was win without the other around in Edmonton and then again in NY. And both those years Messier was flat out dominant.

There is no way you'll convince me that Doug Harvey was a more dominant playoff performer. The numbers don't bare that out. You can't Cup count your way to Harvey being better and quite frankly 6 Cups in the 80's and 90's is more impressive than 6 in the O6 era where Montreal dominated, in large part because they had first dibs on many of the provinces best players.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Messier has both peak and longevity dominance as a postseason player. I don't think that can even be argued.

In terms of peak... I don't know. Obviously anyone who is 25+ points on six champions in 11 seasons while bringing extra elements to the table is going to get a strong look, but there are players who peaked higher. Had he had better Finals in 1988 and 1990, I think he's fighting for position with Beliveau in this project, but he let two Conn Smythe Trophies slip away.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Half Truths

Good catch! I got my years mixed up.



In a simplistic view, sure you can use opportunity to argue one way or the other. But injuries are a part of a players legacy. Unfortunately Orr and Lemieux dealt with a lot of those.

Messier has both peak and longevity dominance as a postseason player. I don't think that can even be argued. And my biggest selling point is that he did what Gretzky couldn't and that was win without the other around in Edmonton and then again in NY. And both those years Messier was flat out dominant.

There is no way you'll convince me that Doug Harvey was a more dominant playoff performer. The numbers don't bare that out. You can't Cup count your way to Harvey being better and quite frankly 6 Cups in the 80's and 90's is more impressive than 6 in the O6 era where Montreal dominated, in large part because they had first dibs on many of the provinces best players.

Your position is based on half truths and misinformation.

Shore vs Morenz. 1950 CP Poll, writers who actually saw both play or followed their career voted Morenz the best ice hockey player of the half century. Other than Shore's knack for losing his cool come playoff time, his Bruins seriously underperformed throughout his career in the playoffs.Two reasons. Shore taking costly penalties and opposing defencemen outplaying him.

The Canadiens never had first dibs on the provinces best players. This has been illustrated on numerous occassions in the HOH.

Doug Harvey vs Mark Messier. Difference is that with Harvey the Canadiens went to the SC finals ten consecutive seasons with Harvey assuming specific roles every year. Similar to Crosby the last two seasons. Messier had to be surrounded by a bit of an entourage. If the coach and teammates did not suite him, he was rather useless - see Roger Neilson with the Rangers.

 

[ImporterExporter]

In terms of peak... I don't know. Obviously anyone who is 25+ points on six champions in 11 seasons while bringing extra elements to the table is going to get a strong look, but there are players who peaked higher. Had he had better Finals in 1988 and 1990, I think he's fighting for position with Beliveau in this project, but he let two Conn Smythe Trophies slip away.

Well to be fair, it wasn't like Messier's overall body of work in 88 and 90 were lacking. 34 points in 19 games is fantastic production, almost Gretzky level good and in 90 he led the playoffs in assists and points. Again without 99 on the team to boot.

The 1 Smythe could easily be 3 or 4 in Messier's case.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Your position is based on half truths and misinformation.

Shore vs Morenz. 1950 CP Poll, writers who actually saw both play or followed their career voted Morenz the best ice hockey player of the half century. Other than Shore's knack for losing his cool come playoff time, his Bruins seriously underperformed throughout his career in the playoffs.Two reasons. Shore taking costly penalties and opposing defencemen outplaying him.

The Canadiens never had first dibs on the provinces best players. This has been illustrated on numerous occassions in the HOH.

Doug Harvey vs Mark Messier. Difference is that with Harvey the Canadiens went to the SC finals ten consecutive seasons with Harvey assuming specific roles every year. Similar to Crosby the last two seasons. Messier had to be surrounded by a bit of an entourage. If the coach and teammates did not suite him, he was rather useless - see Roger Neilson with the Rangers.

Shore vs Morenz:

If Morenz was THAT dominant, where are the numbers (raw or adjusted) to back it up? Why doesn't he have twice the Cups? He was on some incredibly talented Montreal clubs and only managed 3? Despite Shore and the Bruins underwhelming a few times, they still managed 2 Cups themselves over (more or less) the same time period.

Shore was flat out the most dominant hockey player in the 30's. There is plenty of contemporary evidence of this not to mention the people voting on how valuable a player was on a yearly basis, back up my assertion. One poll doesn't change my view on this debate. Shore dominated offensively from the blue line (VsX bares this out) and could single handedly shut down opposing superstars through skill or shear physical dominance.

As for Harvey vs Messier.

Harvey was surrounded by arguably the greatest collection of players ever assembled in hockey history, for the duration of his career. That isn't even debatable. Look at any top 50-75 hockey list of all time worth a damn and how many Habs are on it, that all overlapped Harvey. Beliveau, Richard, Plante, Boom Boom, H Richard, Dickie Moore, etc.

The 56-57 Habs had 8 HOF'ers (not including Harvey). 8. That's nearly half the playing group.

I'm not impressed by O6 Cup counting/appearances. It is nearly as useless as +/- for me, especially comparing it to post expansion. Dominating in a 6 team league, where 4 of the teams made the playoffs every year is not the same thing as say the Red Wings making the postseason 25 straight times and coming away with 4 titles in 11 years. At least not to me. Context matters.

Messier had multiple, significant runs, while surrounded by similar types in Edmonton and then also proved he could lead 2 different teams as THE GUY (90 and 94) to Cup wins. How important was that win in NY? Him guaranteeing victory and ending decades of misery for the Rangers?

Harvey is an amazing player. He's a top 10 player all time. I just don't see what singles him out, INDIVIDUALLY vs a guy like Messier.

 

[MXD]

Shore vs Morenz:

If Morenz was THAT dominant, where are the numbers (raw or adjusted) to back it up? Why doesn't he have twice the Cups? He was on some incredibly talented Montreal clubs and only managed 3? Despite Shore and the Bruins underwhelming a few times, they still managed 2 Cups themselves over (more or less) the same time period.

Shore was flat out the most dominant hockey player in the 30's. There is plenty of contemporary evidence of this not to mention the people voting on how valuable a player was on a yearly basis, back up my assertion. One poll doesn't change my view on this debate. Shore dominated offensively from the blue line (VsX bares this out) and could single handedly shut down opposing superstars through skill or shear physical dominance.

You might have confused Howie Morenz with someone else, because he wasn't on incredibly talented Montreal teams by any stretch (post consolidation) if you do the right thing and simply take him out of the equation.

 

[MXD]

Actually, the incredibly talented team was the Bruins (and also the Leafs once the Kid Line established itself), not the Canadiens. You could probabably throw the Rangers amongst the teams who were more generally talented as well.

 

[ImporterExporter]

OK, incredibly talented is probably an overstatement, but again, those Habs teams still featured some serious players outside Howie.

Joliat, Mantha, Herb Gardiner (in the late 20's), Pit Lepine, and George Hainsworth was one of the best goalies of that period. Then rolling into the 30's you had some really good 2nd tier players like Johnny Gagnon and Georges Mantha adding depth. By the mid 30's Toe Blake and Babe Siebert also showed up.

Montreal was hardly void of supporting stars or depth players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shore vs Morenz:

If Morenz was THAT dominant, where are the numbers (raw or adjusted) to back it up? Why doesn't he have twice the Cups? He was on some incredibly talented Montreal clubs and only managed 3? Despite Shore and the Bruins underwhelming a few times, they still managed 2 Cups themselves over (more or less) the same time period.

Shore was flat out the most dominant hockey player in the 30's. There is plenty of contemporary evidence of this not to mention the people voting on how valuable a player was on a yearly basis, back up my assertion. One poll doesn't change my view on this debate. Shore dominated offensively from the blue line (VsX bares this out) and could single handedly shut down opposing superstars through skill or shear physical dominance.

As for Harvey vs Messier.

Harvey was surrounded by arguably the greatest collection of players ever assembled in hockey history, for the duration of his career. That isn't even debatable. Look at any top 50-75 hockey list of all time worth a damn and how many Habs are on it, that all overlapped Harvey. Beliveau, Richard, Plante, Boom Boom, H Richard, Dickie Moore, etc.

The 56-57 Habs had 8 HOF'ers (not including Harvey). 8. That's nearly half the playing group.

I'm not impressed by O6 Cup counting/appearances. It is nearly as useless as +/- for me, especially comparing it to post expansion. Dominating in a 6 team league, where 4 of the teams made the playoffs every year is not the same thing as say the Red Wings making the postseason 25 straight times and coming away with 4 titles in 11 years. At least not to me. Context matters.

Messier had multiple, significant runs, while surrounded by similar types in Edmonton and then also proved he could lead 2 different teams as THE GUY (90 and 94) to Cup wins. How important was that win in NY? Him guaranteeing victory and ending decades of misery for the Rangers?

Harvey is an amazing player. He's a top 10 player all time. I just don't see what singles him out, INDIVIDUALLY vs a guy like Messier.

Morenz and the Canadiens beat the Senators dynasty, Shore and the Bruins lost to the remnants of the Senators dynasty. Morenz and the Canadiens lost a Cup to the western finalists once. Shore and the Bruins never had to face a western finalist.

Canadiens and the Maroons were the teams most impacted by the depression, having to move players for salary reasons.

Shore with the Bruins led the league in GAA in 5 of 13 seasons, hardly shutdown. Morenz and the Canadiens led the league in GAA in 5 of his first 6 season, suggesting Morenz was more of a shutdown center than Shore was a shut down d-man - which he wasn't. Harvey and the Canadians did it for five consecutivge seasons from 1956-60.

Doug Harvey was the centerpiece of Frank Selke's rebuild of the Canadiens. The anchor. He was the first key addition after Selke replaced Gorman as GM.Maurice Richard lasted thru 1960, Blake, Lach, Durnan, Bouchard left over the years replaced by the new crew starting with Tom Johnson. From 1948 thru 1953 the team hung on barely, a 500 team, missing the playoffs once. Still with Harvey, starting in 1951 they made the finals thru 1960.

1961 Leafs had 10 HHOFers. Did not win the cup. So your selective counting - HHOFers is good counting, SC finals appearances is bad counting? Did I get it right? Does not fly.

Harvey did not run his mouth, he simply produced. So Messier ran his mouth a bit, worked out once.

Still does not explain how he missed the playoffs in 1993 and barely made them in 1995. Substance matters.

What separates Harvey individually? Redefining how the defencemen played. Shutdown abilities, especially on the road. Transition game, running the PP. See Bernie Geoffrion and his derived benefits as the shooter on the Canadiens PP. 7 Norris Trophies in 8 seasons while contributing to five consecutive Vezina and SC victories. Must be good counting since you attribute phantom Norris Trophies to Shore. Messier never did anything that dominated the NHL for 7 out of 8 seasons, nor did he ever contribute to any team success for more than two seasons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Age

OK, incredibly talented is probably an overstatement, but again, those Habs teams still featured some serious players outside Howie.

Joliat, Mantha, Herb Gardiner (in the late 20's), Pit Lepine, and George Hainsworth was one of the best goalies of that period. Then rolling into the 30's you had some really good 2nd tier players like Johnny Gagnon and Georges Mantha adding depth. By the mid 30's Toe Blake and Babe Siebert also showed up.

Montreal was hardly void of supporting stars or depth players.

Gardiner at age 45 played a season and a half winning a Hart. Hainsworth was the first casualty of the original 1933 Salary Cap.

Blake played 11 1935-36 games before Morenz returned for the 1936-37 season after stints with Chicago and NYR. Siebert joined Blake on the 1936-37 Canadiens.

 

[ImporterExporter]

4 Hart trophies in 6 years (all over the age of 30 to boot) as a Dman is more impressive than anything Morenz did on an individual basis.

Better AS record, even if you give Morenz credit for possible AS nods before the award existed.

We can go round and round, but most folks who have studied early hockey history and gone through the painstaking hours of reading google archives and other historical documents rate Shore as a superior player in an all time light and rank them accordingly.

Morenz was such a dominant player he managed 1 Rocket Richard and 2 Art Ross trophies. Bill Cook (3 Rockets and 2 Art Ross'), Frank Boucher (led league in assists 3 times) and Nels Stewart were very close to Morenz as point getters in the late 20's through the early to mid 30's, relative to their peers. VsX proves as much.

Also Herb Gardiner was 35 not 45.

Doug Harvey, again, played his entire career surrounded by a plethora of HOF talent, not to mention having incredible coaching behind the bench. And again, 6 teams vs 20+ when Messier played. No NHL entry draft, vs NHL entry draft. These things make a big difference.

The Leafs didn't win the Cup in 61 but they did manage 4 victories between 62 and 67.

Also point me out a single playoff year where Doug Harvey, decisively, drove the Habs to victory and would have been a clear cut Conn Smythe winner by today's standards. I want contemporary evidence because stats won't do the trick.

Messier ranks 2nd all time in points, ES goals and goals overall so on and so forth. He has the most SH goals in the entire history of the league in the postseason. PPG totals are elite. 6 Cups and a CS with 2 other years where he could very easily have won the award (90 and 94). He led teams that had far less talent (90 and 94) to Cup wins, relative to anything Harvey did on absolutely stacked rosters. Plus Messier is regarded as one of greatest captains and leaders in hockey history, the last few years with Vancouver not withstanding. I have Beliveau #1, but I believe Harvey was captain for only 1 year IIRC. How much was he relied on to be THE guy on those Habs teams.

And Messier produced (or flat out dominated) in the postseason, basically every year from 83 to 97 (last year in the playoffs). His dominance and consistency spans a greater length of time and he won as many Cups in a league with far more teams and greater odds stacked against him because of that alone.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously

4 Hart trophies in 6 years (all over the age of 30 to boot) as a Dman is more impressive than anything Morenz did on an individual basis.

Better AS record, even if you give Morenz credit for possible AS nods before the award existed.

We can go round and round, but most folks who have studied early hockey history and gone through the painstaking hours of reading google archives and other historical documents rate Shore as a superior player in an all time light and rank them accordingly.

Morenz was such a dominant player he managed 1 Rocket Richard and 2 Art Ross trophies. Bill Cook (3 Rockets and 2 Art Ross'), Frank Boucher (led league in assists 3 times) and Nels Stewart were very close to Morenz as point getters in the late 20's through the early to mid 30's, relative to their peers. VsX proves as much.

Also Herb Gardiner was 35 not 45.

Doug Harvey, again, played his entire career surrounded by a plethora of HOF talent, not to mention having incredible coaching behind the bench. And again, 6 teams vs 20+ when Messier played. No NHL entry draft, vs NHL entry draft. These things make a big difference.

The Leafs didn't win the Cup in 61 but they did manage 4 victories between 62 and 67.

Also point me out a single playoff year where Doug Harvey, decisively, drove the Habs to victory and would have been a clear cut Conn Smythe winner by today's standards. I want contemporary evidence because stats won't do the trick.

Messier ranks 2nd all time in points, ES goals and goals overall so on and so forth. He has the most SH goals in the entire history of the league in the postseason. PPG totals are elite. 6 Cups and a CS with 2 other years where he could very easily have won the award (90 and 94). He led teams that had far less talent (90 and 94) to Cup wins, relative to anything Harvey did on absolutely stacked rosters. Plus Messier is regarded as one of greatest captains and leaders in hockey history, the last few years with Vancouver not withstanding. I have Beliveau #1, but I believe Harvey was captain for only 1 year IIRC. How much was he relied on to be THE guy on those Habs teams.

And Messier produced (or flat out dominated) in the postseason, basically every year from 83 to 97 (last year in the playoffs). His dominance and consistency spans a greater length of time and he won as many Cups in a league with far more teams and greater odds stacked against him because of that alone.

Let's not make issues out of typos.

As for research - you failed to find the the data about the Canadiens and acces to Quebec born players. Now you misrepresent various scoring achievements.

Specifically anyone who did the research should recognize the the post consolidation era thru the O6 era saw individual scoring defined by whether the team rolled an extra line or not late 1920s, after seeing how Victoria neutralized Morenz and Joliat by rolling lines in winning the SC

1926-27
Rangers
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1927.html
Canadiens
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1927.html

As you can see the Canadiens second line was more prolific. VsX fails to take this factor into account. Leafs won multiple SCs since 1938 without a player winning a scoring championship. So you have to view scoring not as an absolute but in the context of ice time and how many lines the team used.

The Maroons often used the minimum number of players allowed. Stewart and Siebert, would drop back to play defence instead of being replaced. Again neither your research of VsX shows this.

Most folks rate Shore above Morenz. Unsupported claim, no evidence similar to the CP poll. Seems like most may be singular in this case.

Until Toe Blake arrived, Harvey had weak coaching. Irvin wasted Richard's early 1950s by encouraging him to fight. Great coaching does not encourage a star player to burn energy in a non-productive fashion that reduces ice time, finally getting him suspended for the 1955 playoffs.

1958 to 1960 SC playoffs, Harvey dominated. 1958 took over the Bruins series when it was tied at two. 1959 pulled the team together when Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau were lost in the semi-finals. Critical in game 6 in Chicago.. 1960 defensive leader + 13, playing with Albert Langlois in a 8 game sweep, 3 road shutouts.
Any of those seasons were Smythe worthy.

Harvey's teammates through 1953 were mainly aging or post major injury HHOFers or youngters. The young future HHOFers were not regulars until 19541953 was a transition team. Aging Lach, Bouchard, Maurice Richard and pre prime youngsters.

Messier's numbers are a function of games played that translate into ice time. Sadly when you introduce the size of the league position your claim becomes very vulnerable because it is rather obvious that he did not play every series against a top four team in the league like Harvey faced each playoff during the O6 era. Cannot have it both ways. So Messier is the SHG leader, all-time in the playoffs. Function of improved record keeping and team usage. Toe Blake used his fifth center and fifth defenceman to kill penalties. So his stars could be rested at ES while avoiding unnecessary injuries. Having Bob Turner, later Jean-Guy Talbot or Jim Roberts blocking shots from the shooter like Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita was more efficient since they were defencemen who knew how to block shots. Not star forwards trying to block shots.

 

[bobholly39]

My .02 (probably only worth a penny)

This is probably the "worst" HoH top 40 project done to date judging by the final rankigns. I've got my issues to one degree or another with the previous installments of the HoH but this list has some serious question marks IMHO.

The biggest problem I have with the entire project is it was started mid-season (of the just completed NHL campaign).

Why don't we use the off season for something like this? Say from June through September?

I'm sure some will bring up doing it during the season because people are more active, vs the summer when you have vacations popping up and such, but I don't really buy that argument. The die hard posters that log hundreds or thousands of posts every year aren't going MIA for weeks or months on end, especially considering most if not all are adults, with full time jobs. I'm sure some will be gone for a few days or a week for some vacation between Memorial day and Labor day, but by and large i think the regulars that comprise the voting blocks are still going to be active most days.


Most of this list was compiled in late winter, early spring 2017, before the season was completed and you have a player who had yet another significant postseason (Crosby winning a Cup and Conn Smythe) that would easily vault him up a number of spots from the 27th spot he finished at, not to mention his teammate (Malkin) had another Conn Smythe worthy run as well. I don't think Malkin would be in the top 25 or 30, but to not even get brought up in the last round of discussions for consideration seems wrong now. People were only going to view the list after the 2017 season was completed so why not allow the season to play out, simply to ensure you don't miss big happenings (namely Crosby going back to back with the CS's)


But to the list overall:


Personally, IMHO, Pat Roy is the greatest playoff/money hockey player ever.

No offense to Gretzky, his numbers are unreal across the board, but those Oilers teams were absolutely loaded. Not only with HOF talent (their were up to 6 HOF players on the 4 Cup winning teams that Gretzky played on) as well as very solid roles players. I've got zero issue with most people going Gretzky #1. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment, I just feel that Roy did as much on an individual level, with less talent around him (especially in Montreal) compared to the Oilers dynasty.

Roy led both Habs teams (85-86 and 92-93 neither of whom won their division) on amazing Cup runs. One only has to look at the sheer numbers or Adjusted Playoff Saves project and Playoff Save % vs Average Opponent Shooting % breakdown to see how dominant Roy really was. There is no one that would ever convince me either of those teams win a Cup without Roy playing out of his mind, especially considering the ridiculous scoring numbers being put up in the mid 80's and early 90's. Hell, even in a Cup loss in 89 he was unbelievably good. Absolutely Conn Smythe good.

Obviously he got a pair of Smythe wins there and another towards the end of his career with Colorado, making him the only 3 time winner in league history, despite plenty of superstars playing on teams that won the Cup 3 or more times since its introduction. And I think seeing Roy win multiple Cups and Smythe's across multiple eras is that much more impressive.



Doug Harvey has to be overrated right? He looks great with Cup counting and certainly is one of the 3-4 greatest Dmen ever to play but how much did he actually do to drive those absolutely loaded Habs teams during the postseason?

In 52-53? Tom Johnson produced as much offense (and had 2 goals to Harvey's 0) from the blue line and you had Boom Boom leading the team in scoring with 10 points. Now, I'm certain Harvey provided elite play in his own end, but how SIGNIFICANT was his performance on a HOF laden team?

53-54? Lost in Cup finals to Detroit and Harvey played at best average here and I'd wager below expectations. 2 assists in 10 games? 3 other D produced more.

55-56? Next Cup win for Montreal saw Beliveau dominate in one of the best Cup playoff performances to date in NHL history. It would certainly seem like Harvey was quite good, but how good?

56-57? Same thing this time Boom Boom with a very high end performance. Outscored the next closest player by 6 points and Harvey by 11 overall. Assuming Harvey was fantastic defensively, it still doesn't overcome a very significant run by Geoffrion. By Conn Smythe standards this is almost a guaranteed win for Bernie.

57-58? Hard to look past aging (36 years old) Maurice Richard's 11 goals in 10 games as the high mark for the Habs.

59-60? Gotta be Plante. Gave up 11 goals in 8 games. That's unreal, regardless of era.

I find it really hard to look at any of the Cup winning years as a definite Conn Smythe for Harvey. He was an integral part, no doubt, but those teams were absolutely stacked (as much as or more than any in history) and it's hard to say he went to another level relative to his peers and regular season play. Lots of Cups but doesn't scream like the 6th greatest playoff performer. Certainly not better than Messier.



Speaking of Messier. 6th? Not a chance. Needs to be top 5 (I have him 3rd). 6 Cups, well past expansion is as impressive as anyone from the 06 era, who had 7-10. Sure, he rode shotgun to Gretzky for the first 4 (where Messier was amazing as it was), but then showed he could take the reigns in 89-90, and once again in 94 with the Rangers. If it wasn't for Leetch going bonkers, Messier easily wins a Conn Smythe that year as well and you could have just as easily given it to him anyway.

2nd all time in playoff points.

4th all time in playoff PPG (really 3rd, nobody counts Pederson), despite having an extremely long career/number of games played.

2nd all time in multi point games in the postseason.

1st all time in career playoff short handed goals (14).

2nd all time in career playoff goals at ES (71) and goals overall (109).

6 Cups.

Conn Smythe in 90.

Scored double digit points in 14 straight years from 83-97 (with 7 times exceeding 20 points and 3 hitting 30 or more).



Flip Beliveau and Richard. Beliveau didn't have the luxury of starting his playoff career during WWII and JB's brilliance stretched a slightly longer arc in the postseason. At least IMHO.


Sakic is too high (Trottier was nearly as good IMO and how is Sakic 12th all time but his contemporary Yzerman left completely out of the top 40). Forsberg is too high as well. But this site overrates him considerably, at least on a ranking basis.


Crosby is way to low, but again, his place on this list was determined before his 3rd Cup and 2nd Smythe. Shame.


Would have liked to see more 60's Leafs players brought up for discussion a bit earlier like Horton especially as well as Keon.


Patty Kane should have been in the low to mid 30's. Not a huge deal, but he's got a hellova resume already amassed and some big time heroics as a playoff performer.




There are some other things you could nitpick but the above represents where I disagree with the list the most.

I don't get your obsession about Crosby and his current season. Who cares? I agree that if this list was done today Crosby would go quite a bit higher. Conn Smythes count. But all of these all time lists that include active players always have to be taken with a grain of salt in the sense that the active player in question is likely to still add to his accolades and climb the rankings.

Roy vs Gretzky. I disagree. I love Roy and can see an argument maybe but Gretzky in playoffs is ridiculous. You almost make it sound like he's unworthy - and he's not

Messier vs Lemieux (a big 4 you mention in another reply). Lemieux's best 2 playoff runs imo are substantially better than any of Messiers and among the 2 greatest individual runs of all time. Messier does not have that peak.

Sakic has some incredible numbers for overtime and clutch scoring. Go back and read some of the first 2 threads he looks really great in that regards. I myself was quite high on Yzerman at first too but throughout the project in comparison with others I soured a bit more on him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Good catch! I got my years mixed up.



In a simplistic view, sure you can use opportunity to argue one way or the other. But injuries are a part of a players legacy. Unfortunately Orr and Lemieux dealt with a lot of those.

Messier has both peak and longevity dominance as a postseason player. I don't think that can even be argued. And my biggest selling point is that he did what Gretzky couldn't and that was win without the other around in Edmonton and then again in NY. And both those years Messier was flat out dominant.

There is no way you'll convince me that Doug Harvey was a more dominant playoff performer. The numbers don't bare that out. You can't Cup count your way to Harvey being better and quite frankly 6 Cups in the 80's and 90's is more impressive than 6 in the O6 era where Montreal dominated, in large part because they had first dibs on many of the provinces best players.

I agree with you. To me Harvey is being overrated here.

 

[bobholly39]

The biggest problem I have with this list - and something I feel we should maybe spend more time on in preparation should we ever attempt to do it again - is that we didn't really discuss criteria. Every one has their own opinions on what matters most:

- Winning
- offense
- peak
- longevity
- # of strong runs
- defense
Etc


When doing a regular all time list - those criteria matter less. Because they tend to even out. Even with Orr and Lemieux who both have half their careers cut - half a career is still more than enough a sample size to rank high because they have enough combined seasons to showcase peak ability, to have some longevity, to have some playoff success, etc.

With playoffs - it's more particular. A 20 year career of 2 players can look VASTLY different for playoffs. I was a bit unsure on how to vote some rounds. I really wanted to reward Lemieux for peak play - but wasn't sure if that should count more than prime/# of runs of Messier. Do bad performances matter? If so Lafleur should suffer quite a lot - but if not he has an argument for placing higher than he even did. Lemieux missed the playoffs many seasons - should that matter here? Do we penalize him for not making the playoffs - or do we only penalize him for longevity - or neither/nor if he has enough runs for some semblance of longevity?

I feel as though not enough of these discussions happened at the start - which led to everyone having their own way of ranking. If some time had been spent discussion the merits of different ideas at the start - I think the list may have been stronger

 

[daver]

The biggest problem I have with this list - and something I feel we should maybe spend more time on in preparation should we ever attempt to do it again - is that we didn't really discuss criteria. Every one has their own opinions on what matters most:

- Winning
- offense
- peak
- longevity
- # of strong runs
- defense
Etc


When doing a regular all time list - those criteria matter less. Because they tend to even out. Even with Orr and Lemieux who both have half their careers cut - half a career is still more than enough a sample size to rank high because they have enough combined seasons to showcase peak ability, to have some longevity, to have some playoff success, etc.

With playoffs - it's more particular. A 20 year career of 2 players can look VASTLY different for playoffs. I was a bit unsure on how to vote some rounds. I really wanted to reward Lemieux for peak play - but wasn't sure if that should count more than prime/# of runs of Messier. Do bad performances matter? If so Lafleur should suffer quite a lot - but if not he has an argument for placing higher than he even did. Lemieux missed the playoffs many seasons - should that matter here? Do we penalize him for not making the playoffs - or do we only penalize him for longevity - or neither/nor if he has enough runs for some semblance of longevity?

I feel as though not enough of these discussions happened at the start - which led to everyone having their own way of ranking. If some time had been spent discussion the merits of different ideas at the start - I think the list may have been stronger

I think a list of "Who would you pick for a playoff run" would look a bit different than the list.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Let's not make issues out of typos.

As for research - you failed to find the the data about the Canadiens and acces to Quebec born players. Now you misrepresent various scoring achievements.

Specifically anyone who did the research should recognize the the post consolidation era thru the O6 era saw individual scoring defined by whether the team rolled an extra line or not late 1920s, after seeing how Victoria neutralized Morenz and Joliat by rolling lines in winning the SC

1926-27
Rangers
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1927.html
Canadiens
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1927.html

As you can see the Canadiens second line was more prolific. VsX fails to take this factor into account. Leafs won multiple SCs since 1938 without a player winning a scoring championship. So you have to view scoring not as an absolute but in the context of ice time and how many lines the team used.

The Maroons often used the minimum number of players allowed. Stewart and Siebert, would drop back to play defence instead of being replaced. Again neither your research of VsX shows this.

Most folks rate Shore above Morenz. Unsupported claim, no evidence similar to the CP poll. Seems like most may be singular in this case.

Until Toe Blake arrived, Harvey had weak coaching. Irvin wasted Richard's early 1950s by encouraging him to fight. Great coaching does not encourage a star player to burn energy in a non-productive fashion that reduces ice time, finally getting him suspended for the 1955 playoffs.

1958 to 1960 SC playoffs, Harvey dominated. 1958 took over the Bruins series when it was tied at two. 1959 pulled the team together when Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau were lost in the semi-finals. Critical in game 6 in Chicago.. 1960 defensive leader + 13, playing with Albert Langlois in a 8 game sweep, 3 road shutouts.
Any of those seasons were Smythe worthy.

Harvey's teammates through 1953 were mainly aging or post major injury HHOFers or youngters. The young future HHOFers were not regulars until 19541953 was a transition team. Aging Lach, Bouchard, Maurice Richard and pre prime youngsters.

Messier's numbers are a function of games played that translate into ice time. Sadly when you introduce the size of the league position your claim becomes very vulnerable because it is rather obvious that he did not play every series against a top four team in the league like Harvey faced each playoff during the O6 era. Cannot have it both ways. So Messier is the SHG leader, all-time in the playoffs. Function of improved record keeping and team usage. Toe Blake used his fifth center and fifth defenceman to kill penalties. So his stars could be rested at ES while avoiding unnecessary injuries. Having Bob Turner, later Jean-Guy Talbot or Jim Roberts blocking shots from the shooter like Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita was more efficient since they were defencemen who knew how to block shots. Not star forwards trying to block shots.

I never said they had exclusive rights or that the NHL gave them first crack, but the fact remains Frank Selke (who was a brilliant hockey man) built up a minor league (or feeder system) empire in the hottest hockey hot bed at the time were discussing (Quebec)

http://thehockeywriters.com/lies-their-fathers-told-them/

What I find funny is that article basically tries to debunk the notion that Montreal had a major advantage in recruiting hockey talent (in the 40's, 50's and early 60's before the NHL draft was established) but more or less confirms it anyway:

Here’s what really happened. In 1946, Frank Selke became General Manager of the Montreal Canadiens, a team nicknamed “The Flying Frenchmen†long before the formation of the National Hockey League. He was a man of extraordinary foresight and Mr. Selke had a vision.

He upgraded the Montreal Forum to attract more fans. More fans meant more revenue. With these additional funds, Selke started sponsoring minor and junior league teams across North America, especially in the province of Quebec. In turn, talented players from sponsored teams naturally migrated to the Canadiens if they were deemed to be NHL material. At one point, there were 10,000 players on 750 teams across the continent that were considered a part of the Canadiens’ farm system, a stable of future prospects larger than that of the five other NHL teams combined.

Most French Canadian players, especially those from Quebec, dreamed of one day dressing up for le bleu, blanc et rouge. However, there were plenty of exceptions. Hall-of-Famer Marcel Pronovost who hailed from Lac-de-Tortue, Quebec, was scouted by the Detroit Red Wings in the late 1940’s and never played a game for the Montreal Canadiens in his long, illustrious career. He was never owned by the Canadiens’ organization in any way.

Plenty of exceptions? He goes on to name one from the 40's and a few others later on that came along in the 60's onward. Hardly "plenty".

Montreal OWNED hockey and hockey development in large part because of money. And we're talking the most influential years that saw them bring in a ridiculous number of Quebec provincial players in the 40's, 50's, and early 60's. There was no dispersal draft to even out the talent. There was no expansion to "water down" the teams. No salary cap.

Harvey - Quebec - top 10 player ever
Richard - Quebec - borderline top 10 player ever (he's 10th in my book)
Beliveau - Quebec - borderline top 10 player ever (i have him in there at 7)
Plante - Quebec - borderline top 15 player ever (i have him just outside)
Geoffrion - Quebec - top 50 player of all time
H Richard - Quebec - top 75 player of all time
Moore - Quebec - top 75 player of all time

Then you can go on and on with other guys like Jacques Laperriere, JC Tremblay, Butch Bouchard, Yvan Cournoyer, etc.

Those are just the top dogs that hailed from Quebec and were brought up anywhere from the early 40's through the end of the 50's.




This very forum rated Shore higher in both the HoH top 100 and top 70 exercises. He gets drafted higher than Morenz ever single year in the ATD by very knowledgeable folks.

Here's an incredible bio done by Dreakmur (very respected HoH and ATD member) over in the ATD bio master thread:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=66642795&postcount=270

And once again, Shore dominated over more seasons, was MVP more times, was recognized as one of the best players at his position more than Morenz.





Isn't it interesting that Harvey didn't start getting recognized for AS nods and Norris wins until the early and mid 50's when the next wave of superstars were coming into their own? Hmmmm.

In 51, a 34 year old Lach lead the team in points, by A LOT. Geoffrion, in his first full season at age 20, was 2nd. Rocket wasn't yet a grizzled old man at 30. Aging, but hardly in the twilight at that point. You had guys like Floyd Curry and Bert Olmstead in their mid 20's, and very important secondary cogs. Ken Mosdell as well.

By 54-55, Beliveau as a full fledged star, Maurice Richard was still an elite scorer. You had an elite netminder in Plante.

Then by the late 50's guys like Dickie Moore were elite, as were Beliveau, Boom Boom, etc. Henri Richard was coming into his own. You had incredible secondary stars like Tom Johnson, Marcel Bonin, Ralph Backstrom, Claude Provost, Don Marshall, Jean Guy Talbot, etc, etc. Christ, its basically a damn all star team.





OK. Let me put it like this.

In the O6 era (42 to 67) you had 3 peat (or greater) champions with the Leafs from 47 to 49. Montreal 5 times in a row from 56 to 60. And then again the Leafs from 62 to 64. Plus a couple of back to back winners in there as well.

Teams had to win 8 games vs 15 games for a Cup victory by the 1980's. Today that number stands at 16. The seasons are longer, and the playoff gauntlet is more grueling simply because by the end of the year you're looking at champions getting to or exceeding 100 games played.

Since the end of the Oilers dynasty (which never 3 peated btw), you've had no 3 peat, only back to back champions 3 times (Pens twice and Red Wings once) and the salary cap era just crowned its first back to back champion this past June.

If that doesn't tell you it's much harder to win Championships today, and really over the past 30 years in general, i don't what else there is to say.