HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[canucks4ever]

Maybe you should consider that the differences in skill are minuscule within a certain range of players, but they have to be ranked.

10 spots in that company is a hair in reality.

Yeah what about Bill Cowley not making the top 70, wouldnt you agree that is underrating him. He has 2 hart trophies, 5 all star teams at center, and eight top 10 finishes. However, his accomplishments are going to be dismissed because he played too long ago? Peter Forsberg and Jari Kurri are not more accomplished hockey players than Bill Cowley no matter how anyone looks at it, some modern players are getting overrated.

Some people will say oh he played during the war. But that still doesnt change the fact that Doug Bentley, Lach, Blake, Richard, Teeder Kennedy and Bill Mosienko were all in the league during his prime. Bill Cowley got shafted because of post world war 2 bias. Almost all of the guys the dominant players from the 30's and 40s get ranked lower except Morenz, Cook and Shore.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Yeah what about Bill Cowley not making the top 70, wouldnt you agree that is underrating him. He has 2 hart trophies, 5 all star teams at center, and eight top 10 finishes. However, his accomplishments are going to be dismissed because he played too long ago? Peter Forsberg and Jari Kurri are not more accomplished hockey players than Bill Cowley no matter how anyone looks at it, some modern players are getting overrated.

Some people will say oh he played during the war. But that still doesnt change the fact that Doug Bentley, Lach, Blake, Richard, Teeder Kennedy and Bill Mosienko were all in the league during his prime. Bill Cowley got shafted because of post world war 2 bias. Almost all of the guys the dominant players from the 30's and 40s get ranked lower except Morenz, Cook and Shore.

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day that you of all people is suggesting a modern bias...the times they are a changin'.

Cowley is difficult to judge. A point-producing machine definitely, and he did prove he was a great player before the war years. Honestly, he might get punished more for the war years than anybody else of note. His legacy is hampered perhaps by the fact that teammate Schmidt, also a center, seems to be universally regarded as vastly superior to Cowley. Schmidt's Kraut Line seemed to be the number one unit in Boston, though Cowley was usually the top Bruin scorer despite lesser linemates. Haven't heard much about his all around game. Jack Adams called him one of the best stickhandlers of all time. He's described as "aggressive" in The Trail.

Is putting him out of the top-70 underrating him? Maybe a bit, but it's hard to say. Having him in the top-50 would be clearly overrating him IMO. Keep in mind that typically, the margin between a player ranked at #55 and a player ranked at #75 is extremely thin. Cowley does seem low when compared to other players with his accolades I must agree, but you could say the same thing about Brett Hull. The difference is, we all saw Brett Hull, and despite the amazing goal totals, it is difficult to put him any higher than the 60-70 range based on having watched his career. Maybe Cowley is the same sort of deal?

 

[canucks4ever]

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day that you of all people is suggesting a modern bias...the times they are a changin'.

Cowley is difficult to judge. A point-producing machine definitely, and he did prove he was a great player before the war years. Honestly, he might get punished more for the war years than anybody else of note. His legacy is hampered perhaps by the fact that teammate Schmidt, also a center, seems to be universally regarded as vastly superior to Cowley. Schmidt's Kraut Line seemed to be the number one unit in Boston, though Cowley was usually the top Bruin scorer despite lesser linemates. Haven't heard much about his all around game. Jack Adams called him one of the best stickhandlers of all time. He's described as "aggressive" in The Trail.

Is putting him out of the top-70 underrating him? Maybe a bit, but it's hard to say. Having him in the top-50 would be clearly overrating him IMO. Keep in mind that typically, the margin between a player ranked at #55 and a player ranked at #75 is extremely thin. Cowley does seem low when compared to other players with his accolades I must agree, but you could say the same thing about Brett Hull. The difference is, we all saw Brett Hull, and despite the amazing goal totals, it is difficult to put him any higher than the 60-70 range based on having watched his career. Maybe Cowley is the same sort of deal?

He's not the only player that's getting shafted, Nels Stewart is getting dismissed too. Stewart has 2 hart trophies and ten seasons as an elite scorer yet this board decided he's not a top 70 player?

It seems like everyone loves the guys from the 1950s and 60's. Yet we all dismiss the dominant players from the 1926-world war 2 era.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

He's not the only player that's getting shafted, Nels Stewart is getting dismissed too. Stewart has 2 hart trophies and ten seasons as an elite scorer yet this board decided he's not a top 70 player?

I've gone back and forth on Stewart many times. He has some undeniable strengths (two Hart trophies, incredible consistency & longevity for his era, toughness, and probably Bossy-level goal-scoring ability) but there are some major weaknesses on his resume:

- Although playoff scoring was quite low during his era, Stewart's 21 points in 50 games in a huge negative. He's T-24th in points per game, out of 51 forwards. Source.

- Most sources indicate that Stewart was poor defensively. One referree said "[Stewart] wouldn't backcheck and he'd just stand around the net waiting for the centering pass, then flip the puck in. That much he could do. We used to say that Nels stood in one spot all of the time." Source. Bure, another elite goal-scorer, gets justifiably criticized for the same thing. I believe he was named the worst defensive forward of the decade by "Ultimate Hockey", but don't quote me on that.

Let's compare Stewart to Dionne (who was ranked 50).

- Both have very weak playoff resumes for players of their calibre.
- Dionne was nothing special defensively, but Stewart was very likely worse.
- Dionne has a marginally better Hart voting record (2-3-3-5 versus 1-1-5). When Dionne finished 2nd, it was to Gretzky at his absolute peak.
- Offensively, Dionne had the better peak (7 - 3 top five finishes), though Stewart actually has more top-ten placements (9 - 8).

We had Dionne 50th and he was definitely better than Stewart, though it's hard to say if 10 or 20 or 30 spots is "right".

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stewart / Esposito

I've gone back and forth on Stewart many times. He has some undeniable strengths (two Hart trophies, incredible consistency & longevity for his era, toughness, and probably Bossy-level goal-scoring ability) but there are some major weaknesses on his resume:

- Although playoff scoring was quite low during his era, Stewart's 21 points in 50 games in a huge negative. He's T-24th in points per game, out of 51 forwards. Source.

- Most sources indicate that Stewart was poor defensively. One referree said "[Stewart] wouldn't backcheck and he'd just stand around the net waiting for the centering pass, then flip the puck in. That much he could do. We used to say that Nels stood in one spot all of the time." Source. Bure, another elite goal-scorer, gets justifiably criticized for the same thing. I believe he was named the worst defensive forward of the decade by "Ultimate Hockey", but don't quote me on that.

Let's compare Stewart to Dionne (who was ranked 50).

- Both have very weak playoff resumes for players of their calibre.
- Dionne was nothing special defensively, but Stewart was very likely worse.
- Dionne has a marginally better Hart voting record (2-3-3-5 versus 1-1-5). When Dionne finished 2nd, it was to Gretzky at his absolute peak.
- Offensively, Dionne had the better peak (7 - 3 top five finishes), though Stewart actually has more top-ten placements (9 - 8).

We had Dionne 50th and he was definitely better than Stewart, though it's hard to say if 10 or 20 or 30 spots is "right".

Nels Stewart and Phil Esposito might be a better comparison. Size, positioning in front of the net, defensively lax. Stats, trophy and championship profiles fairly similar.

 

[seventieslord]

I've gone back and forth on Stewart many times. He has some undeniable strengths (two Hart trophies, incredible consistency & longevity for his era, toughness, and probably Bossy-level goal-scoring ability) but there are some major weaknesses on his resume:

- Although playoff scoring was quite low during his era, Stewart's 21 points in 50 games in a huge negative. He's T-24th in points per game, out of 51 forwards. Source.

- Most sources indicate that Stewart was poor defensively. One referree said "[Stewart] wouldn't backcheck and he'd just stand around the net waiting for the centering pass, then flip the puck in. That much he could do. We used to say that Nels stood in one spot all of the time." Source. Bure, another elite goal-scorer, gets justifiably criticized for the same thing. I believe he was named the worst defensive forward of the decade by "Ultimate Hockey", but don't quote me on that.

Let's compare Stewart to Dionne (who was ranked 50).

- Both have very weak playoff resumes for players of their calibre.
- Dionne was nothing special defensively, but Stewart was very likely worse.
- Dionne has a marginally better Hart voting record (2-3-3-5 versus 1-1-5). When Dionne finished, it was to Gretzky at his absolute peak.
- Offensively, Dionne had the better peak (7 - 3 top five finishes), though Stewart actually has more top-ten placements (9 - 8).

We had Dionne 50th and he was definitely better than Stewart, though it's hard to say if 10 or 20 or 30 spots is "right".

One point to add to this:

Nels Stewart was not a great playmaker at all. And using point total placements to compare two players from these eras doesn't work very well because assists were still rare in Stewart's time. (in other words, it made it easier for him to be higher in points because goals were a larger percentage of points)

Comparing these two offensively in the regular season should be done by breaking it down:

Top-2, 5, 10, 15, 20

Stewart: 3-8-13-14-14 in goals, 0-0-1-6-8 in assists
Dionne: 2-6-9-10-11 in goals, 2-6-9-11-13 in assists (might be the most perfectly balanced star player of all-time)*

So, Stewart has a marginal edge in goalscoring; Dionne is one player who nearly matches his remarkable goalscoring longevity and excellent peak. However, Dionne's massive edge in playmaking (top-5 as many times as Stewart was top-15) seals the deal.






* on a side note, I decided to take my "top-x" spreadsheet and do a quick formula. the sum of all the absolute values of top-2 in goals minus top-2 in assists, and so on, then all divided by total top-2s, 5s, 10s, 15s, and 20s. Basically you'd get a low score if you were very well balanced between playmaking and goalscoring, and a high score if imbalanced. I ran the top-100 names, the guys with 30 or more top-x seasons in total. Here are the 15-most balanced:

1. Lafleur 0.037
2. Dionne 0.038
3. Fredrickson 0.042
4. Beliveau 0.054
5. Jagr 0.062
6. Morris 0.067
7. Moore 0.070
8. Mosienko 0.075
9. Howe 0.080
10. Lemieux 0.083
11. Gilbert 0.087
12. Ullman 0.092
13. Keats 0.093
14. MacKay 0.094
15. Nighbor 0.102

Here are the 15 least-balanced:

1. Francis 0.98
2. Oates 0.94
3. Bourque 0.91
4. Br. Hull 0.89
5. Federko 0.80
6. Thornton 0.77
7. Coffey 0.77
8. Dye 0.77
9. Clarke 0.75
10. Gilmour 0.68
11. Robitaille 0.66
12. Olmstead 0.65
13. Stewart 0.63
14. Boucher 0.59
15. Conacher 0.56

note that the highest guys on the "less-balanced" list are all modern guys, while two pre-merger guys score highly as most-balanced. I think that this is because when there are fewer players there is less specialization, i.e. if you're one of the best goalscorers, chances are you'll also be one of the best playmakers and vice versa, whereas today you get Francises and Robitailles who specialize in one or the other.

Stewart's even less balanced than this list indicates because of this, and he's the second highest after Babe Dye, among 1930-and-earlier players. On the other hand, Dionne is even more balanced than this list indicates, if that is even possible, because he played in the age of specialization.

Anyway, just a fun little exercize that shows that Dionne is indeed a very balanced superstar (and Stewart is not)

 

[Dreakmur]

Cowley was usually the top Bruin scorer despite lesser linemates.

Roy Conacher was pretty damn good - defanitely better than Dumart or Bauer.

 

[canucks4ever]

I've gone back and forth on Stewart many times. He has some undeniable strengths (two Hart trophies, incredible consistency & longevity for his era, toughness, and probably Bossy-level goal-scoring ability) but there are some major weaknesses on his resume:

- Although playoff scoring was quite low during his era, Stewart's 21 points in 50 games in a huge negative. He's T-24th in points per game, out of 51 forwards. Source.

- Most sources indicate that Stewart was poor defensively. One referree said "[Stewart] wouldn't backcheck and he'd just stand around the net waiting for the centering pass, then flip the puck in. That much he could do. We used to say that Nels stood in one spot all of the time." Source. Bure, another elite goal-scorer, gets justifiably criticized for the same thing. I believe he was named the worst defensive forward of the decade by "Ultimate Hockey", but don't quote me on that.

Let's compare Stewart to Dionne (who was ranked 50).

- Both have very weak playoff resumes for players of their calibre.
- Dionne was nothing special defensively, but Stewart was very likely worse.
- Dionne has a marginally better Hart voting record (2-3-3-5 versus 1-1-5). When Dionne finished 2nd, it was to Gretzky at his absolute peak.
- Offensively, Dionne had the better peak (7 - 3 top five finishes), though Stewart actually has more top-ten placements (9 - 8).

We had Dionne 50th and he was definitely better than Stewart, though it's hard to say if 10 or 20 or 30 spots is "right".

He still won 2 hart trophies head to head against Howie Morenz. Another thing, Steve Yzerman is too high, people like to say Messier is overrated, please. Yzerman only has 3 seasons as a top 5 scorer, the rest of his career was compiling points, outside of 88-90, he was nowhere near a Hart Candidate. Frank Boucher and Bill Cook were more dominant than Yzerman.

Martin Broduer should easily rank above Yzerman, that is a robbery. Broduer has 4 vezinas and 3 cups and holds records at his position. Yzerman on the other hand was the third best player for one season, yeah thats it, for one season he was the third best player. LOL, what a legacy.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Nels Stewart and Phil Esposito might be a better comparison. Size, positioning in front of the net, defensively lax. Stats, trophy and championship profiles fairly similar.

I've seen this comparison before, and it's probably not too far off base. Playmaking is an edge to Esposito though. While he's not often thought of as a great playmaker, he led the league in assists several times. And while he wasn't anything special defensively, Stewart appears to have been flat out terrible in this regard. Though he did excel when the Maroons actually did require him to play on defense during one stretch (1926 playoffs I think).

Roy Conacher was pretty damn good - defanitely better than Dumart or Bauer.

This is true, Conacher was a his regular linemate for four seasons, I overlooked this. He was a better goal scorer than either of Schmidt's linemates.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Martin Broduer should easily rank above Yzerman, that is a robbery. Broduer has 4 vezinas and 3 cups and holds records at his position. Yzerman on the other hand was the third best player for one season, yeah thats it, for one season he was the third best player. LOL, what a legacy.

I actually do agree with this one. Martin Brodeur behind Steve Yzerman was one of the big head scratchers of the last list for me. I mean, you have a guy at the top of his position multiple times and near the top of his position almost every year of his career, against a guy near the top a few times and then a bit below for most of his career. And it's not like Yzerman has the playoff advantage (I think they are pretty even in the playoffs).

Brodeur should be at least as high as Sakic, 5-10 spots ahead of Yzerman.

(In my mind, there is also zero justification for Brodeur below Glenn Hall, but that's an argument for another day).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've seen this comparison before, and it's probably not too far off base. Playmaking is an edge to Esposito though. While he's not often thought of as a great playmaker, he led the league in assists several times. And while he wasn't anything special defensively, Stewart appears to have been flat out terrible in this regard. Though he did excel when the Maroons actually did require him to play on defense during one stretch (1926 playoffs I think).

Esposito led the league in assists, before Orr ever went crazy and inflated everyone's totals on that team. Stewart was not a good playmaker, as 70s showed earlier. That's a huge difference. (In addition to the fact that Stewart was probably even worse than Esposito without the puck).

 

[canucks4ever]

I actually do agree with this one. Martin Brodeur behind Steve Yzerman was one of the big head scratchers of the last list for me. I mean, you have a guy at the top of his position multiple times and near the top of his position almost every year of his career, against a guy near the top a few times and then a bit below for most of his career. And it's not like Yzerman has the playoff advantage (I think they are pretty even in the playoffs).

Brodeur should be at least as high as Sakic, 5-10 spots ahead of Yzerman.

(In my mind, there is also zero justification for Brodeur below Glenn Hall, but that's an argument for another day).

I disagree with Glenn Hall, 11 all star team selections, a conn smythe in 68 and a stanley cup in 61. Ranking Glenn Hall outside the top 25 would be wrong. He has a losing record in the playoffs and hes still one of the best, that's how great he was. Even though I am a huge Joe sakic supporter, Glenn Hall deserves to rank ahead of Sakic.

 

[TANK200]

I actually do agree with this one. Martin Brodeur behind Steve Yzerman was one of the big head scratchers of the last list for me. I mean, you have a guy at the top of his position multiple times and near the top of his position almost every year of his career, against a guy near the top a few times and then a bit below for most of his career. And it's not like Yzerman has the playoff advantage (I think they are pretty even in the playoffs).

Brodeur should be at least as high as Sakic, 5-10 spots ahead of Yzerman.

(In my mind, there is also zero justification for Brodeur below Glenn Hall, but that's an argument for another day).

I also fully agree with that. Brodeur, in my opinion, is the fourth best goalie of all-time after Hasek, Plante and Roy. He has been an excellent in the regular season and even better in the playoffs. I see him as being roughly on par with Mark Messier, which would probably place him about 10 spots higher than Sakic or Yzerman on the list that I have not actually made.

I also agree with your assessment of Brodeur vs Hall. Hall was probably the better regular season goalie, but his statistics are significantly worse in playoff games than in the regular season. Brodeur's are significantly better in the playoffs than the regular season, as he has always done it big when it counts most.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Playmaking

I've seen this comparison before, and it's probably not too far off base. Playmaking is an edge to Esposito though. While he's not often thought of as a great playmaker, he led the league in assists several times. And while he wasn't anything special defensively, Stewart appears to have been flat out terrible in this regard. Though he did excel when the Maroons actually did require him to play on defense during one stretch (1926 playoffs I think).



This is true, Conacher was a his regular linemate for four seasons, I overlooked this. He was a better goal scorer than either of Schmidt's linemates.

Nels Stewart learned hockey and played a good part of his NHL career in the pre forward pass era so the centers role was different.

 

[seventieslord]

Nels Stewart learned hockey and played a good part of his NHL career in the pre forward pass era so the centers role was different.

So did a number of his contemporaries, though, and their playmaking numbers turned out much differently. You could say some of it was the way he was raised, but a lot of if was just Nels being Nels.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I actually do agree with this one. Martin Brodeur behind Steve Yzerman was one of the big head scratchers of the last list for me. I mean, you have a guy at the top of his position multiple times and near the top of his position almost every year of his career, against a guy near the top a few times and then a bit below for most of his career. And it's not like Yzerman has the playoff advantage (I think they are pretty even in the playoffs).

Brodeur should be at least as high as Sakic, 5-10 spots ahead of Yzerman.

(In my mind, there is also zero justification for Brodeur below Glenn Hall, but that's an argument for another day).

And I will be ready and waiting that day

I also agree with your assessment of Brodeur vs Hall. Hall was probably the better regular season goalie, but his statistics are significantly worse in playoff games than in the regular season. Brodeur's are significantly better in the playoffs than the regular season, as he has always done it big when it counts most.

But fact is, that is a direct result of the teams he played on.

Glenn Hall did not lower his play in the playoffs. You aren't going to convince me he is signifigantly worse in the playoffs than Brodeur to make up for the signifigant regular season edge. Glenn Hall playing poorly in the playoffs is a stat-created myth.

Over the last ATD playoffs, as the owner of Glenn Hall, I poured through old globe and mail newspaper articles trying to disprove supposed playoffs where Hall played poorly in an effort to stop the constant attacking of his playoff record.. And it was discovered he didn't in years where the stats suggest he was dreadful. The stars of the Hawks did come out to play in the playoffs for the most part (including Hall), but it seems the rest of the team just vanished. And unfortunately for Hall's playoff record, hockey is a team sport.

Volume I-The Detroit Years- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22327576&postcount=47

Volume II-1963- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22470773&postcount=6

 

[TANK200]

But fact is, that is a direct result of the teams he played on.

Glenn Hall did not lower his play in the playoffs. You aren't going to convince me he is signifigantly worse in the playoffs than Brodeur to make up for the signifigant regular season edge. Glenn Hall playing poorly in the playoffs is a stat-created myth.

Over the last ATD playoffs, as the owner of Glenn Hall, I poured through old globe and mail newspaper articles trying to disprove supposed playoffs where Hall played poorly in an effort to stop the constant attacking of his playoff record.. And it was discovered he didn't in years where the stats suggest he was dreadful. The stars of the Hawks did come out to play in the playoffs for the most part (including Hall), but it seems the rest of the team just vanished. And unfortunately for Hall's playoff record, hockey is a team sport.

Volume I-The Detroit Years- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22327576&postcount=47

Volume II-1963- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22470773&postcount=6

I have to disagree with the bolded part. In the playoffs, every goalie in the league faces, on average, better teams than they do in the regular season, so their stats probably should all get worse. Of the top goalies to ever play, he is the only one whose stats actually do take a significant drop in the playoffs. In fact, most of these goalies have performed better than they did in the regular season. Hall may not have been worse in the playoffs than he was in the regular season, but he did not step it up like many of his peers.

You're going to have a tough time selling your argument that Hall's stats are significantly worse in the playoffs because most of his teammates played worse every single year. What is more likely, one person consistently underperforms or a dozen people all consistenly underperform?

 

[Dark Shadows]

And I will be ready and waiting that day



But fact is, that is a direct result of the teams he played on.

Glenn Hall did not lower his play in the playoffs. You aren't going to convince me he is signifigantly worse in the playoffs than Brodeur to make up for the signifigant regular season edge. Glenn Hall playing poorly in the playoffs is a stat-created myth.

Over the last ATD playoffs, as the owner of Glenn Hall, I poured through old globe and mail newspaper articles trying to disprove supposed playoffs where Hall played poorly in an effort to stop the constant attacking of his playoff record.. And it was discovered he didn't in years where the stats suggest he was dreadful. The stars of the Hawks did come out to play in the playoffs for the most part (including Hall), but it seems the rest of the team just vanished. And unfortunately for Hall's playoff record, hockey is a team sport.

Volume I-The Detroit Years- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22327576&postcount=47

Volume II-1963- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22470773&postcount=6

I disagree. Stats completely aside(Although they are nice when you are trying to build a case), I was one of the louder advocates of this opinion having personally seen him lay several eggs in the playoffs. When I think of that Chicago team, the first 2 things I blame for them not having more cups is Hall, and depth. Hall was just not a guy you saw often stealing games on his own like most of the other top goaltenders in the playoffs(The only goaltenders ahead of him on the list were renowned for stealing games). There were times when the opposing goaltenders were stealing games for Detroit, Montreal, Toronto when Chicago outplaying them and Hall let in a goal or two he should have had as well.

I know I am in the minority for this opinion though.

If you scoured the newspapers, Ill assume you found Adams public lashing of Hall after game 5 in Boston.
"I don't mean to criticize", Adams said, preparing to criticize, "But Hall looked bad on Doug Mohns goal and worse on Cal Gardiner's. We should have had a 2 goal lead after the second period"

That being said, I have them ranked virtually equal, with Brodeur being only a single slot away.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I have to disagree with the bolded part. In the playoffs, every goalie in the league faces, on average, better teams than they do in the regular season, so their stats probably should all get worse. Of the top goalies to ever play, he is the only one whose stats actually do take a significant drop in the playoffs. In fact, most of these goalies have performed better than they did in the regular season. Hall may not have been worse in the playoffs than he was in the regular season, but he did not step it up like many of his peers.

You're going to have a tough time selling your argument that Hall's stats are significantly worse in the playoffs because most of his teammates played worse every single year. What is more likely, one person consistently underperforms or a dozen people all consistenly underperform?

Well first off, I'll inquire if you read through the volumes. Again, much of his signifigance drops in stats seem to be a result of the team around him, as I indicated.

Hall may not have always stepped it up, but his regular season play is so excellent that I do not feel that it is that bad to not step it up.

Teams can consistently underperform, even if they are regular season powerhouses. The Ottawa Senators and San Jose Sharks of modern times come to mind. Sure, it's more likely that one guy underperforms, but it doesn't mean a dozen people can all consistently underperform for an umber of reasons.

Frankly I feel that the two posts I linked to do a fine job of showing Hall's stat decrease was more so the teams around him, in the years they cover if nothing else.

Not that Hall's stats always decreased. His cup and conn smythe runs come to mind.

I disagree. Stats completely aside(Although they are nice when you are trying to build a case), I was one of the louder advocates of this opinion having personally seen him lay several eggs in the playoffs. When I think of that Chicago team, the first 2 things I blame for them not having more cups is Hall, and depth. Hall was just not a guy you saw often stealing games on his own like most of the other top goaltenders in the playoffs(The only goaltenders ahead of him on the list were renowned for stealing games). There were times when the opposing goaltenders were stealing games for Detroit, Montreal, Toronto when Chicago outplaying them and Hall let in a goal or two he should have had as well.

I know I am in the minority for this opinion though.

If you scoured the newspapers, Ill assume you found Adams public lashing of Hall after game 5 in Boston.
"I don't mean to criticize", Adams said, preparing to criticize, "But Hall looked bad on Doug Mohns goal and worse on Cal Gardiner's. We should have had a 2 goal lead after the second period"

That being said, I have them ranked virtually equal, with Brodeur being only a single slot away.

Hall played well enough to steal a game a couple times in the volumes. But, because his team wasn't playing well enough, he didn't win the game.

I did search for that quote- because my opponent was referencing a post you made-and failed to find it. Could you direct me to it's origin?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Well first off, I'll inquire if you read through the volumes. Again, much of his signifigance drops in stats seem to be a result of the team around him, as I indicated.

Hall may not have always stepped it up, but his regular season play is so excellent that I do not feel that it is that bad to not step it up.

Teams can consistently underperform, even if they are regular season powerhouses. The Ottawa Senators and San Jose Sharks of modern times come to mind. Sure, it's more likely that one guy underperforms, but it doesn't mean a dozen people can all consistently underperform for an umber of reasons.

Frankly I feel that the two posts I linked to do a fine job of showing Hall's stat decrease was more so the teams around him, in the years they cover if nothing else.

Not that Hall's stats always decreased. His cup and conn smythe runs come to mind.



Hall played well enough to steal a game a couple times in the volumes. But, because his team wasn't playing well enough, he didn't win the game.

I did search for that quote- because my opponent was referencing a post you made-and failed to find it. Could you direct me to it's origin?

I am 99.9% certain that the quote is from the book "Glenn Hall, the man they call Mr. Goalie" By Tom Adrahtas

It used to be available for preview on Google, but the preview has since been removed. But I assure you, the quote is genuine.

Whether or not the quote matters to you, Ill just say that what I saw with my own two eyes makes the difference for me. Hall has the best record of any goalie ever in the regular season, but......

 

[overpass]

Nels Stewart and Phil Esposito might be a better comparison. Size, positioning in front of the net, defensively lax. Stats, trophy and championship profiles fairly similar.

Does anyone know have anything more about Stewart's defensive game? With Esposito, we have a more nuanced picture. I didn't see him play, but according to the stats and reputation his defensive play was fine up to about 1972 or 1973, when his it really started to drop off. Later in his career with New York his defensive problems meant he was getting to be a liability at even strength.

So that means Esposito really has a nice peak from about 1968 to 1972 when he was scoring a ton and his defence was OK. Is it possible that Stewart's reputation comes from later in his career also, with the same implications for peak value?

 

[tommygunn]

My plan is to knock out the last chunk of the list in December between semesters. Sorry about the delay everyone.

Any news on when this will occur?? December is almost over..

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Does anyone know have anything more about Stewart's defensive game? With Esposito, we have a more nuanced picture. I didn't see him play, but according to the stats and reputation his defensive play was fine up to about 1972 or 1973, when his it really started to drop off. Later in his career with New York his defensive problems meant he was getting to be a liability at even strength.

Other than the fact the Bruins decided to put him back on defense after the dissolution of the Maroons, I don't know much. I think that says a lot, even if he was little more than the Mike Green of the early NHL. I mean, you don't take a goal scorer like Stewart and move him back on D unless he's a) good enough at it, and/or b) team offense doesn't suffer as a result. His reknown lack of foot speed probably also contributed. I've read criticism of his "laziness" and lack of commitment to back-checking as a forward, but find surprisingly little about how he did on the blueline.

It was likely that his propensity for the rough-and-tumble (didn't he lead the league in PIMs early in his career, and come close a few times?), size, and strength made him a natural choice to fill in back there, and the ability to provide offense from the back probably caught a few teams off guard despite knowing full well who he was.

So that means Esposito really has a nice peak from about 1968 to 1972 when he was scoring a ton and his defence was OK. Is it possible that Stewart's reputation comes from later in his career also, with the same implications for peak value?

I don't know if we're talking defense or overall, but the guy had 2 Hart trophies in his first 5 seasons and was in the top 2, 3 scorers pretty much his whole time as a Bruin (despite playing a lot of defense)... that's all in the 1st half of his career. I also think he scored every "playoff" goal for the Cup winning Maroons in his rookie year. That's right, all ten goals.

 

[seventieslord]

Stewart only everplayed D in the 1926 finals. That may be why you have not read muchabout him on D. But that performance earned him a retro smythe.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Does anyone know have anything more about Stewart's defensive game? With Esposito, we have a more nuanced picture. I didn't see him play, but according to the stats and reputation his defensive play was fine up to about 1972 or 1973, when his it really started to drop off. Later in his career with New York his defensive problems meant he was getting to be a liability at even strength.
So that means Esposito really has a nice peak from about 1968 to 1972 when he was scoring a ton and his defence was OK. Is it possible that Stewart's reputation comes from later in his career also, with the same implications for peak value?

Esposito's defensive decline may be magnified by his trade to New York.

That Rangers team was brutual defensively. Giacomin & Villemure were both gone from the year before in goal. Emily Francis stepped down as coach. Park was replaced by Vadnais with the trade. And it was no secret Espo was crushed by the trade and his play showed it. That 75-76 Rangers team gave up 57 more goals than
the previous year. Only the Washington Capital and Kansas City Scouts gave up more goals. It took 3 seasons for the Rangers to recover from the turnover of that season.