HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Iain Fyffe]

Not bad. But defense is definitely not part of Lalonde's reputation.

Sorry for the late contribution, but Lalonde actually started several games at cover-point for the Canadiens. He was originally a goaltender in lacrosse when he played in Cornwall.

 

[seventieslord]

Sorry for the late contribution, but Lalonde actually started several games at cover-point for the Canadiens. He was originally a goaltender in lacrosse when he played in Cornwall.

I mean being a defensive forward.

There were many guys who spent some time at defense but who were mainly forwards, and didn't seem to have any reputation as great defensive players - Taylor, Pitre, and Stanley come to mind.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

I don't know what makes Seibert better than Horton who was 7 times either 1st or 2nd team all star and the arguably the strongest, best defensive defenceman of his day.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know what makes Seibert better than Horton who was 7 times either 1st or 2nd team all star and the arguably the strongest, best defensive defenceman of his day.

Well, if you're counting All-Star teams, Seibert was 1st Team 4 Times, 2nd Team 6 times. Horton was 1st Team 3 Times, 2nd Team 3 Times. 10 vs. 6 in terms of all-star selections.

But then, Horton's competition was better in general and he was probably better in the playoffs.

I actually see Earl Seibert, Tim Horton, and Scott Stevens as very similar players historically.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

You said it Horton's heroics when it mattered give him the edge over Seibert IMO, and obviously THN agreed ranking him some 20 spots higher in 1998. Horton also usually goes 40-45 in the all time draft at this site.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You said it Horton's heroics when it mattered give him the edge over Seibert IMO, and obviously THN agreed ranking him some 20 spots higher in 1998. Horton also usually goes 40-45 in the all time draft at this site.

The THN site also ranks Horton significantly higher than Pierre Pilote, who has a much better Norris record in the same time period. Pilote had less playoff success, but Hockey Outsider had a post not too long ago that showed Pilote raised his offensive game in the playoffs more than any other Blackhawk.

Horton is a guy who definitely appeared early for voting (around the 40s IIRC), but didn't get voted in for quite a few rounds.

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I did rank Stevens and Horton just a tad over Seibert, but I took playoff performances as a bigger factor than most members of the panel. I can certainly understand the argument for all 3. After the top 13 or so defensemen, I have 14-20 as quite close.

 

[EagleBelfour]

At this point in time, I would definitely scrap this version and start a new one. As most user who participate in that list are ATD'ers, I would start a new version near the end of the All-Time Draft. Since we're only doing one ATD per year now, and the majority don't participate in any minor League Draft, I would guess the interest would be very present.

I didn't participate in this 2009 version, but would gladly take part in the next one. My list has change so much since I submitted my 2008 version. For three years, I've been writing little notes beside that 2008 list: this player should be higher, player X over player Z, out of the list etc ... 3/4 of the players have little notes beside their names

 

[EagleBelfour]

xxxx

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At this point in time, I would definitely scrap this version and start a new one. As most user who participate in that list are ATD'ers, I would start a new version near the end of the All-Time Draft. Since we're only doing one ATD per year now, and the majority don't participate in any minor League Draft, I would guess the interest would be very present.

I didn't participate in this 2009 version, but would gladly take part in the next one. My list has change so much since I submitted my 2008 version. For three years, I've been writing little notes beside that 2008 list: this player should be higher, player X over player Z, out of the list etc ... 3/4 of the players have little notes beside their names

I agree 100%

 

[Hardyvan123]

At this point in time, I would definitely scrap this version and start a new one. As most user who participate in that list are ATD'ers, I would start a new version near the end of the All-Time Draft. Since we're only doing one ATD per year now, and the majority don't participate in any minor League Draft, I would guess the interest would be very present.

I didn't participate in this 2009 version, but would gladly take part in the next one. My list has change so much since I submitted my 2008 version. For three years, I've been writing little notes beside that 2008 list: this player should be higher, player X over player Z, out of the list etc ... 3/4 of the players have little notes beside their names

This post is so good that I read it twice...lol

Would love to be involved in a new list, although we do have the HHOF project going on right now.

 

[EagleBelfour]

This post is so good that I read it twice...lol

Would love to be involved in a new list, although we do have the HHOF project going on right now.

Yea, just saw my mistake. How come we can't delete our own post anymore?

 

[canucks4ever]

Is it just me, or is ranking Tim Horton over Al Macinnis a bit awkward. Tim Horton racked up all of his ast selections during the mid to late 60's, a time period that is considered weak. He was never top 5 in norris voting from 54-62. Everyone knocks pronger and chara for thier competition, but the late 60's had players like jim neilson, ted green and ted harris gaining all star nods. Tom Johnson, Harry Howell, and Jaqcues Lapierre won norisses in the same era.

Al Macinnis didn't wait for Ray Bourque to get old. He was a first team all star when bourque was at his best, tim horton on the other hand racked up all of his all star nods when Doug Harvey got old. Macinnis won a smythe, a norris and brought offense to his game, unlike horton, who was strictly a defensive defenseman. Macinnis should be ranked higher.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

These lists IMO are far too inconsistent, and things that favour certain players seem to be used against others. This post above mine is one of many examples, old players always get the benefit of the doubt. Forsberg to me is the most obvious case, hence why I tend to post about him so much, any list with him outside the top 50 of all-time just doesn't hold any water. I could go on about many other players, but no one will change their minds. These lists will continue to look pretty much like they have in the past.

 

[seventieslord]

Horton did not just provide defense. He was top-7 in scoring among NHL defensemen 11 times. The guy had 450 points, how is that not providing offense?

 

[Blizzard]

These lists IMO are far too inconsistent, and things that favour certain players seem to be used against others. This post above mine is one of many examples, old players always get the benefit of the doubt. Forsberg to me is the most obvious case, hence why I tend to post about him so much, any list with him outside the top 50 of all-time just doesn't hold any water. I could go on about many other players, but no one will change their minds. These lists will continue to look pretty much like they have in the past.

There is something to be said about durability and longevity. Forsberg had very little of either. He played what to amounts to a little less than 9 seasons in total games and only 7 seasons with more than 60 games. While the vast majority above him played nearly twice that amount. It is a lifetime of achievement and he, although great, had a very short life.

 

[canucks4ever]

Horton did not just provide defense. He was top-7 in scoring among NHL defensemen 11 times. The guy had 450 points, how is that not providing offense?

He was top 7 in scoring during an era where there were 25-30 defensemen in the league, this is supposed to be impressive? Modern defenseman get trashed all the time for dominating weaker competition, but the same logic can't apply when comparing someone from the precious original six era? At least guys like chris pronger and al macinnis won thier awards when either a prime lidstrom or prime bourque were in the league. They didnt have to wait until thier 'generational' defenseman got old and washed up.

Al Macinnis's offense more than made up for any gap Horton could hold over him. Later on in his career, he was elite offensively and defensively and was right up there with a prime Lidstrom, Tim Horton can make no such claim.

 

[seventieslord]

He was top 7 in scoring during an era where there were 25-30 defensemen in the league, this is supposed to be impressive? Modern defenseman get trashed all the time for dominating weaker competition, but the same logic can't apply when comparing someone from the precious original six era? At least guys like chris pronger and al macinnis won thier awards when either a prime lidstrom or prime bourque were in the league. They didnt have to wait until thier 'generational' defenseman got old and washed up.

Al Macinnis's offense more than made up for any gap Horton could hold over him. Later on in his career, he was elite offensively and defensively and was right up there with a prime Lidstrom, Tim Horton can make no such claim.

no, being 7th itself isn't particularly impressive, but 3rd, 4th, 5th - those are pretty impressive. That said, doing it once or twice is not very special. Doing it 11 times - that is awesome. Horton has always been very underrated offensively.

Horton's ten best seasons, expressed as a percentage of the #2-scoring defenseman:

84, 83, 81, 80, 80, 76, 71, 71, 67, 64.

The same for MacInnis:

110, 109, 101, 100, 100, 99, 94, 92, 90, 86.

MacInnis' offense was about 30% better than Horton's. Was his defensive ability within 30%? When you consider their entire careers? I would say it definitely wasn't.

Horton might be a tad overrated and MacInnis a bit underrated, but I'd still take Tim over Al.

 

[canucks4ever]

no, being 7th itself isn't particularly impressive, but 3rd, 4th, 5th - those are pretty impressive. That said, doing it once or twice is not very special. Doing it 11 times - that is awesome. Horton has always been very underrated offensively.

Horton's ten best seasons, expressed as a percentage of the #2-scoring defenseman:

84, 83, 81, 80, 80, 76, 71, 71, 67, 64.

The same for MacInnis:

110, 109, 101, 100, 100, 99, 94, 92, 90, 86.

MacInnis' offense was about 30% better than Horton's. Was his defensive ability within 30%? When you consider their entire careers? I would say it definitely wasn't.

Horton might be a tad overrated and MacInnis a bit underrated, but I'd still take Tim over Al.

Tim Horton is over 30% better defensively? I think you are making an exaggeration here, this is macinnis we are talking about, not brian leetch and scott neidermayer.

The difference in offense also doesn't take into account the eras. Maccinnis played in the golden era for top end defenseman. In his best seasons he was outscoring players the caliber of bourque, leetch, stevens, chelios, and a prime lidstrom when he was old. Who exactly was tim horton outscoring? Allan stanley, Carl Brewer, Harry Howell, Ted Green, Jim Nielson and Mike Mcmahon Jr? Really that was his competition. Pierre Pilote always outscored him, tim horton was completely irrelevant in the harvey/kelly era The mid 60's was one of the worst eras ever for defenseman, but competition only gets used for deadpuck era defenseman.

Al Macinnis almost won the norris over bourque in 1991, he beat out lidstrom by a huge margin in 1999, and came pretty close to a prime lidstrom in 2003. Horton on the other hand was getting blown out by pierre pilote year after year, horton was never within any distance of winning a norris, and macinnis almost won 3. That alone indicates who the better player was.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is it just me, or is ranking Tim Horton over Al Macinnis a bit awkward. Tim Horton racked up all of his ast selections during the mid to late 60's, a time period that is considered weak. He was never top 5 in norris voting from 54-62. Everyone knocks pronger and chara for thier competition, but the late 60's had players like jim neilson, ted green and ted harris gaining all star nods. Tom Johnson, Harry Howell, and Jaqcues Lapierre won norisses in the same era.

Al Macinnis didn't wait for Ray Bourque to get old. He was a first team all star when bourque was at his best, tim horton on the other hand racked up all of his all star nods when Doug Harvey got old. Macinnis won a smythe, a norris and brought offense to his game, unlike horton, who was strictly a defensive defenseman. Macinnis should be ranked higher.

I have to agree.

I believe I had MacInnis slightly ahead of Horton on my list. It probably was too close. When I fisrt started watching the game in the early 60's Tim Horton was one of my favorite players. Perhaps that figured into my rankings.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

These lists IMO are far too inconsistent, and things that favour certain players seem to be used against others. This post above mine is one of many examples, old players always get the benefit of the doubt. Forsberg to me is the most obvious case, hence why I tend to post about him so much, any list with him outside the top 50 of all-time just doesn't hold any water. I could go on about many other players, but no one will change their minds. These lists will continue to look pretty much like they have in the past.

Remember the list is a composite of many voters. I don't think everyone who submits a list researched it as if they were going write a book about it. It was a lot more difficult than I thought it would be. Give it a try, list 120 players in order. Like everyone else you will go back later and think, "how could I have put him there?"

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I rank both Scott Stevens and Tim Horton over al macinnis. Something is to be said about being the best playoff performer of a dynasty. They are all fairly close though

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re: forsberg, it's certainly no travesty that he isn't top 50. Consider the following two facts:

1. The Stanley cup has been around 120 years.

2. Forsberg wasn't necessarily better than Sakic at his peak, and Sakic maintained that level for twice as long. And Sakic isn't even in the top 30.

The real question however is why forsberg is always quite a bit below Dickie Moore.

Edit- just noticed my auto corrects had changes sakic to Salic.

 

[seventieslord]

Tim Horton is over 30% better defensively? I think you are making an exaggeration here, this is macinnis we are talking about, not brian leetch and scott neidermayer.

For the first 1/3 of his career he was more like Leetch and Niedermayer than like late-career MacInnis. that's why I said "whole careers" - Horton, as far as I know, didn't have a feeling out period.

So yeah, 30% better is not a stretch. That's all he has to really be, to be better overall, and the actual "percentage" if there was ever a real way to calculate it, would be higher than that, IMO. You're underestimating how strong he was defensively.

 

[canucks4ever]

For the first 1/3 of his career he was more like Leetch and Niedermayer than like late-career MacInnis. that's why I said "whole careers" - Horton, as far as I know, didn't have a feeling out period.

So yeah, 30% better is not a stretch. That's all he has to really be, to be better overall, and the actual "percentage" if there was ever a real way to calculate it, would be higher than that, IMO. You're underestimating how strong he was defensively.

If we're going to give equal weight to offense and defense, with your method Lidstrom would be above Shore. Eddie Shore was probably 10% better offensively, from everything i've read about shore, it sounds like lidstrom was 25-35% better defensively.

 

[seventieslord]

If we're going to give equal weight to offense and defense, with your method Lidstrom would be above Shore. Eddie Shore was probably 10% better offensively, from everything i've read about shore, it sounds like lidstrom was 25-35% better defensively.

Yeah, it's plausible. I probably wouldn't come to that conclusion under any methodology that I favour, though. I don't think I'd say under any circumstances that a 4-time hart winner is not as good as a 0-timer. We're talking about a 7-time blueline points leader vs. a 5-timer so I don't think he would be just 10% better offensively.