HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[seventieslord]

Hasek is still playing by the way.
His team currently leads 2-0 in the finals of Czech Extraliga and Hasek just got shutout yesterday and his team won 1:0

Incredible.

Is he just enjoying team success, or was he great individually? By that I mean, is he an award finalist? Is he in the sv% leaders?

 

[Reds4Life]

Incredible.

Is he just enjoying team success, or was he great individually? By that I mean, is he an award finalist? Is he in the sv% leaders?

11 games, 10 wins, 1 loss

Playoff numbers:
GAA: 1.63
SV%: .9396
280 saves
18 goals

2nd best in SV% (Stepanek has SV% of .9439)
best GAA

In regular season he was 5th in both GAA and SV% categories, though he played more games than some of the guys with better numbers.

If Vokoun was not available, he would be no.1 for Czech team in the upcoming WC, but that's not the case so Hasek stays at home (better take younger guys to serve as a backups and get some experience).

 

[seventieslord]

11 games, 10 wins, 1 loss

Playoff numbers:
GAA: 1.63
SV%: .9396
280 saves
18 goals

2nd best in SV% (Stepanek has SV% of .9439)
best GAA

In regular season he was 5th in both GAA and SV% categories, though he played more games than some of the guys with better numbers.

If Vokoun was not available, he would be no.1 for Czech team in the upcoming WC, but that's not the case so Hasek stays at home (better take younger guys to serve as a backups and get some experience).

Those are some good numbers. I mean, putting them into context is difficult because of competition, but the guy is 46 and excelling in a top professional men's league.

I think he was clearly in over his head in his last NHL season (Detroit boosted him up like they do for Osgood) but I hoped he would have a good season in the Czech league and make it to the Olympics as a backup. I know that was his plan. How come that didn't happen?

 

[Reds4Life]

Those are some good numbers. I mean, putting them into context is difficult because of competition, but the guy is 46 and excelling in a top professional men's league.

I think he was clearly in over his head in his last NHL season (Detroit boosted him up like they do for Osgood) but I hoped he would have a good season in the Czech league and make it to the Olympics as a backup. I know that was his plan. How come that didn't happen?

Because he did not have great first half of the season and was not really close to being the best goalie in Czech league, plus he had some problems with injuries.
Vokoun was named clear cut number 1 goalie beforehand and coach once again prefered Pavelec and Stepanek as backups.
But in playoffs, Hasek has been unbeliveable, shades of Nagano.

Though, there is no way he could play full NHL season at his age. Czech league only has 52 RS games and 3 playoff rounds (best of 7), so he can handle that.

 

[seventieslord]

Ok, makes sense.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[unknown33]

I have serious troubles understanding why Howie Morenz is above nearly all players from #12 - #25.

1) His playoff numbers other than the first 2 years were HORRIBLE.
During his playing career (1923 - 1937) he had the best PPG (0.86) in the NHL other than Charlie Conacher with similar games played.
In the playoffs his PPG drops down to 0.56 (#17 1923 - 1937 among players with more than 15 games).

2) Peak: judging from Hart voting and number he was the best player (forward?) in the NHL for 2 - 3 seasons.
But in comparison to some players placed behind hime like Hasek (94 - 99), Roy (88 - 92), Lafleur (76 - 78), Jagr (98 - 00) or Esposito (70 - 75) he had only ONE season (1927 - 1928) where he dominated his competition. I'm sure you're all aware of how often the previously named players blew their competition away.

3) Some scoring finishes
Morenz: 2 x 1st and 3 x 3rd 1 x 4th 1x 5th
Mikita: 4 x 1st 1x 2nd 3 x 3rd 1x 4th
Jagr: 5 x 1st 2 x 2nd 1 x 5th
....

I'll stop here and I hope you kind of get my point.
So please try to disprove my suspicion that the only reason Morenz is ranked that high is cause of his legendary status. (Not trying to discredit him here I'm sure he deserve a spot somewhere around #15 - #25.)

 

[Leafs Forever]

In rebuttal:

1) His first two playoff years, howevere, were aboslutely FANTASTIC. A retro smythe, 11 points in 8 cup challenge games, and 7 points in 4 NHL playoff games. Simply dominating.

His numbers do drop off after that point, but at the same time, the playoffs were rather short and saw the two best teams going against eachother often times- didn't leave much room for proving yourself of wracking up points on bottom feeders like many more modern players get to do.

Besides this, he gets hindered in a sense when you look at a spectrum that large, as it's harder to keep pace when you're playing 10+ more games at an older age than some of the other guys who come ahead of them looking at 193-1937 PPG.

He was not the most dominating player ever, but he has good longevity as well. And one must remember that Morenz couldn't just dominate offensibely- he was called the best backecheker of his day, would go through people if not around them, and was quite gritty as well.

Having 3 hart trophies, tied for fourth most, certainly helps his case as well- especially as the hart trophy wasn't around for the first part his career. (to my knowledge)

 

[overpass]

I have serious troubles understanding why Howie Morenz is above nearly all players from #12 - #25.

1) His playoff numbers other than the first 2 years were HORRIBLE.
During his playing career (1923 - 1937) he had the best PPG (0.86) in the NHL other than Charlie Conacher with similar games played.
In the playoffs his PPG drops down to 0.56 (#17 1923 - 1937 among players with more than 15 games).

2) Peak: judging from Hart voting and number he was the best player (forward?) in the NHL for 2 - 3 seasons.
But in comparison to some players placed behind hime like Hasek (94 - 99), Roy (88 - 92), Lafleur (76 - 78), Jagr (98 - 00) or Esposito (70 - 75) he had only ONE season (1927 - 1928) where he dominated his competition. I'm sure you're all aware of how often the previously named players blew their competition away.

3) Some scoring finishes
Morenz: 2 x 1st and 3 x 3rd 1 x 4th 1x 5th
Mikita: 4 x 1st 1x 2nd 3 x 3rd 1x 4th
Jagr: 5 x 1st 2 x 2nd 1 x 5th
....

I'll stop here and I hope you kind of get my point.
So please try to disprove my suspicion that the only reason Morenz is ranked that high is cause of his legendary status. (Not trying to discredit him here I'm sure he deserve a spot somewhere around #15 - #25.)

You make some good points. I wouldn't necessarily put him at #11 myself, but here's the case for him.

Compare him to his fellow pre-WWII players. For whatever reason, there weren't many forwards in this era who displayed the sustained statistical dominance that later stars would. Morenz has a legitimate argument as the best pre-WWII player. If you want the list to fairly represent all eras, you have to consider that.

Morenz also gets a lot of mileage out of a poll from 1950 in which he was overwhelmingly rated as the best player in hockey history. Personally, I think his vote total was inflated because many voters had seen him play, as opposed to Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Joe Malone, and Frank Nighbor. Statistical records from pre-NHL hockey were not widely available, and institutional memory from those days was probably spotty. His tragic death may have added to the legend. But still, I think 27 out of 31 voters considered him to be the best player pre-1950, and that carried weight with a lot of voters.

 

[seventieslord]

- Morenz' actual playoff output is 26 points in 43 games. The cup challenge games need to be included.

- Scoring dropped A TON in the 1930s playoffs - about 30% on average. So Morenz' PPG average is about what you would expect.

- LF's point about the playoff system from back then needs to be stated again - What was Morenz' reward for winning the division? A date with the best team in the other division, in a best-of-3 series. What do today's top stars on top teams get? 4-7 games with a weaking.

- everything else overpass and LF said tell the story fine enough for me.

Personally I would put Mikita ahead of him (exact same resume in so many ways, goalscoring, physicality, defense, playoffs) but Mikita was a much better playmaker and easily takes it; and I'd consider any of the "big-3" goalies as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Era

- Morenz' actual playoff output is 26 points in 43 games. The cup challenge games need to be included.

- Scoring dropped A TON in the 1930s playoffs - about 30% on average. So Morenz' PPG average is about what you would expect.

- LF's point about the playoff system from back then needs to be stated again - What was Morenz' reward for winning the division? A date with the best team in the other division, in a best-of-3 series. What do today's top stars on top teams get? 4-7 games with a weaking.

- everything else overpass and LF said tell the story fine enough for me.

Personally I would put Mikita ahead of him (exact same resume in so many ways, goalscoring, physicality, defense, playoffs) but Mikita was a much better playmaker and easily takes it; and I'd consider any of the "big-3" goalies as well.

Most of Morenz's career was in an era where the forward pass was prohibited and rebound assists were not awarded.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have serious troubles understanding why Howie Morenz is above nearly all players from #12 - #25.

1) His playoff numbers other than the first 2 years were HORRIBLE.
During his playing career (1923 - 1937) he had the best PPG (0.86) in the NHL other than Charlie Conacher with similar games played.
In the playoffs his PPG drops down to 0.56 (#17 1923 - 1937 among players with more than 15 games).

2) Peak: judging from Hart voting and number he was the best player (forward?) in the NHL for 2 - 3 seasons.
But in comparison to some players placed behind hime like Hasek (94 - 99), Roy (88 - 92), Lafleur (76 - 78), Jagr (98 - 00) or Esposito (70 - 75) he had only ONE season (1927 - 1928) where he dominated his competition. I'm sure you're all aware of how often the previously named players blew their competition away.

3) Some scoring finishes
Morenz: 2 x 1st and 3 x 3rd 1 x 4th 1x 5th
Mikita: 4 x 1st 1x 2nd 3 x 3rd 1x 4th
Jagr: 5 x 1st 2 x 2nd 1 x 5th
....

I'll stop here and I hope you kind of get my point.
So please try to disprove my suspicion that the only reason Morenz is ranked that high is cause of his legendary status. (Not trying to discredit him here I'm sure he deserve a spot somewhere around #15 - #25.)

Morenz is ranked so high because he's widely considered the best forward to play hockey in its first 50 years.

But I agree with your point 1 - his playoff performances after his first 2 years were not that great and this did get glossed over when this list was put together.

Morenz also gets a lot of mileage out of a poll from 1950 in which he was overwhelmingly rated as the best player in hockey history. Personally, I think his vote total was inflated because many voters had seen him play, as opposed to Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Joe Malone, and Frank Nighbor. Statistical records from pre-NHL hockey were not widely available, and institutional memory from those days was probably spotty. His tragic death may have added to the legend. But still, I think 27 out of 31 voters considered him to be the best player pre-1950, and that carried weight with a lot of voters.

He most certainly does get a lot of mileage out of that poll - I was probably as guilty as anyone.

Interesting that the guy who finished a distant second to Morenz (Nighbor) really didn't get any mileage out of it.

 

[seventieslord]

Most of Morenz's career was in an era where the forward pass was prohibited and rebound assists were not awarded.

That is true; however, that put him and every other player in the league at a disadvantage as far as collecting assists went. It didn't make it harder on him to lead the league in assists or place higher in assists. Mikita's record is far superior in that area.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Context

That is true; however, that put him and every other player in the league at a disadvantage as far as collecting assists went. It didn't make it harder on him to lead the league in assists or place higher in assists. Mikita's record is far superior in that area.

Question of putting numbers in context historically.

 

[unknown33]

Having 3 hart trophies, tied for fourth most, certainly helps his case as well- especially as the hart trophy wasn't around for the first part his career. (to my knowledge)

He played the first NHL season in 23-24 - the year the Hart trophy was introduced.

 

[seventieslord]

Question of putting numbers in context historically.

The flow of the game was different but the skill of generating offense for your teammates through passing and other methods was still just as important. Comparing one player's assist rankings to another 30 years later (instead of using raw totals or per-game figures) is the definition of context.

 

[Leafs Forever]

He played the first NHL season in 23-24 - the year the Hart trophy was introduced.

I stand corrected on that point, but the 3 harts are still quite impressive.

 

[unknown33]

He most certainly does get a lot of mileage out of that poll - I was probably as guilty as anyone.

Well being voted the best pre-50s player is an impressive feat, but I personlly wouldn't put a lot of weight into it when comparing him to a post-50s player.

And overpass already pointed out some problems I have with the voting.

 

[seventieslord]

Well being voted the best pre-50s player is an impressive feat, but I personlly wouldn't put a lot of weight into it when comparing him to a post-50s player.

But you have to if you're doing an all-time list. Dominance of peers is most important, not whether you think old players are any good compared to modern ones.

 

[unknown33]

.... not whether you think old players are any good compared to modern ones.

That not my point.
I just don't think that this "title" gives us any information about how much Morenz dominated his peers.

 

[Reds4Life]

Howie Morenz gets slightly overrated due to his unfortunate death. (whether you admit it or not is a different thing)

 

[seventieslord]

Howie Morenz gets slightly overrated due to his unfortunate death. (whether you admit it or not is a different thing)

I can't speak for everyone but I can honestly say that does not factor into my ranking at all. Three hart trophies (in an era when defensemen had a rfeal chance of winning it) is quite impressive.

But as I said, I have Mikita ahead and would consider up to 3 goalies as well.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Reds4Life]

I can't speak for everyone but I can honestly say that does not factor into my ranking at all. Three hart trophies (in an era when defensemen had a rfeal chance of winning it) is quite impressive.

But as I said, I have Mikita ahead and would consider up to 3 goalies as well.
Posted via Mobile Device

I ment it in general, ie Morenz voted the best player of the first fifty years of hockey (or something like that, I do not know the exact "title" ) etc.

I mean seriously, would you take him over for example Stan Mikita, Red Kelly, Nick Lidstrom, Denis Potvin, Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek or Jacques Plante? Especially the goalies. The top three goalies ever, all behind Morenz?

 

[unknown33]

Especially the goalies. The top three goalies ever, all behind Morenz?

He would take them ahead as he stated in the post you quoted.

 

[Reds4Life]

He would take them ahead as he stated in the post you quoted.

Nah, he said he would consider them. Though, I missed that part anyways, it's 1:07 after midnight here

 

[seventieslord]

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY, THE LIST WILL RESUME IN LATE APRIL.

Is it late April yet?