The 5th best player ever is a goalie.

[Midnight Judges]

I've always found it a bit coincidental that the best goalies of all time (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) just so happened to play during the dead puck era while the best offensive players of all time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) played in the high scoring era.

It begs the question if we are adjusting properly.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Looks like this guy was right eh?

Right about what exactly?

Either arguing for Crosby is off topic or it isn't. It shouldn't be that the pro Crosby crowd gets to state their opinions (as Farkas did) while disagreeing is discouraged (as Voight's was).

Or is that what you are advocating?

 

[Crocodiligator]

I've always found it a bit coincidental that the best goalies of all time (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) just so happened to play during the dead puck era while the best offensive players of all time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) played in the high scoring era.

It begs the question if we are adjusting properly.

Yeah, but lots of people consider Plante, Hall, Sawchuk and Dryden to be better goalies than Brodeur.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yeah, but lots of people consider Plante, Hall, Sawchuk and Dryden to be better goalies than Brodeur.

Yes. fair point.

 

[wetcoast]

Right about what exactly?

the poster wasn't creating an argument just trying to knock one down without a reason and something that msot everyone would agree on (the part in bold) that the poster pointed out.

the post was also providing context that people couldn't agree with the placing of a current forward with near 20 straight years of being elite compared to goalies thus the bar that he mentioned.

Either arguing for Crosby is off topic or it isn't. It shouldn't be that the pro Crosby crowd gets to state their opinions (as Farkas did) while disagreeing is discouraged (as Voight's was).

Man rent free or what eh?

Farkas was talking about the bar for goalies compared to position players and that the OP had Hasek ranked 8th and Roy 10th and they haven't played since that ranking and also included the best resume since then which also doesn't bring a consensus, not everything ahs to be about your favorite topic.

Or is that what you are advocating?

What I advocate for and everyone should is actual debate and grounded opinions not some offhanded remark with zero backing or justification.

This type of response is lacking and everyone knew where it was coming from and where the off topic would lead to.

Incorrect, but I don't wanna go off topic.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Roy dominated across scoring levels.

His 3 Vezinas were in a very high scoring era, as were 2 of his Smythes. His last Smythe was in the middle of the DPE. He had a very strong 2002 and 2003 as well. That he was a top goaltender on multiple teams across 18 seasons in very different scoring environments is a big part of why he is ranked where he is.

Brodeur won Vezinas both in the DPE (2003 and 2004) and in the high scoring post lockout (2007).

Lemieux was able to dominate PPG in very low scoring years (2001 and 2003).

Gretzky only dominated in high scoring eras, but that's the nature of being born in 1961. He was 37 in the first true DPE season and still managed to be 3rd in points.

Orr was an 18 year old rookie in his only low scoring year. The next truly low scoring year he was 50.

You can make the point that Hasek only dominated in a low scoring era, but I don't think it's very compelling. Scoring was still high when he won his first Vezina in 1994 and he showed dominance in the high scoring 2006 and 2007 (in his 40s).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

"Pro-Crosby crowd", FFS.

Can't we just be normal in the History forum? That's main board shit.

 

[Midnight Judges]

the poster wasn't creating an argument just trying to knock one down without a reason and something that msot everyone would agree on (the part in bold) that the poster pointed out.

That is blatantly false though. Most everyone would not agree that a 2 time MVP was the best player for 10 years - certainly not during a timeframe where another player had 3 MVPs and 50% more goals.

You desire to have a forum where the pro Crosby crowd is able to state opinions and then disagreement is censored or discouraged - as was the case here.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That is blatantly false though. Most everyone would not agree that a 2 time MVP was the best player for 10 years - certainly not during a timeframe where another player had 3 MVPs and 50% more goals.

You desire to have a forum where the pro Crosby crowd is able to state opinions and then disagreement is censored or discouraged - as was the case here.

Let's make one thing clear - I'm the admin who said it. I'm not "pro Crosby" or "anti Crosby", and you need to stop that shit right now.

Voight gave an opinion, and then said "don't derail the thread" (meaning "don't respond to my opinion even though I gave no support for it").

Drive your "pro Crosby crowd" bullshit right down to the store and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

The partisan bullshit will not be allowed here.

 

[Midnight Judges]

"Pro-Crosby crowd", FFS.

Can't we just be normal in the History forum? That's main board shit.

The partisan reputation of this forum is fully earned.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The partisan reputation of this forum is fully earned.

Everyone here has biases and backgrounds and history to them. Yes, even you (and yes, even me).

Stop the flagwaving shit.

 

[wetcoast]

The partisan reputation of this forum is fully earned.

just so that this thread isn't sidetracked go here to discuss..

Best player in the first 10 years since the lockout 05-06 to 14-15

This came from another thread so I decided to bring it here since it wasn't relevant there. The question is pretty simple as to who was the best player overall in that time period. I will do a more detailed pro and cons for the 6 guys I have listed and I will the other option open but really...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[K Fleur]

The “sv% and GSAA are all that matters” crowd should love Plante(Dryden and Hall too). That data being readily accessible is fairly new for pre 1980 players
though so it would require a tiny bit of research on their end.


There will always be a crowd that just writes off anything that happened in hockey before like 1990 though.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

That is blatantly false though. Most everyone would not agree that a 2 time MVP was the best player for 10 years - certainly not during a timeframe where another player had 3 MVPs and 50% more goals.

You desire to have a forum where the pro Crosby crowd is able to state opinions and then disagreement is censored or discouraged - as was the case here.

Ovechkin is doesn't belong anywhere near the top 5 all time so what are you even going on about in here?

 

[The Panther]

Is it really so obvious by now that Hasek and Roy are much more deserving of the 5th spot than Plante? Is there any clear evidence that Dominik and Patrick were all around more dominant prime/career wise than Jacques?

No.

You desire to have a forum where the pro Crosby crowd is...

WTF is a "pro-Crosby crowd"?

 

[The Panther]

Roy dominated across scoring levels.

Roy's best and most consistent hockey was circa 1988 to 1992 (throw in 1993 playoffs, though his performance there wasn't quite as great as most people think), when he played behind a defence-first team that had Chelios, Green, Ludwig, Svoboda, Robinson, Schneider, Desjardins, Brisebois, and Lefebvre mannig the blue-line.

I mean, there's a reason Brian Hayward---who was otherwise a forgettable player, with an .843 save percentage the season before joining Montreal---had back-to-back seasons (in '87 and '88) with the third-best save percentage in the NHL.

His 3 Vezinas were in a very high scoring era, as were 2 of his Smythes. His last Smythe was in the middle of the DPE. He had a very strong 2002 and 2003 as well. That he was a top goaltender on multiple teams across 18 seasons in very different scoring environments is a big part of why he is ranked where he is.

"Multiple teams" is kind of flatterring Roy---he played for two teams, both Cup contenders pretty much consistently during his tenures. Certainly he was a big part of those teams being in Cup contention, but both were also great teams with or without him.

I'm not sure I get your point about "scoring environments" being a point in Roy's favor, though. I would think most people on this forum are aware of the historical differences in scoring environments. Also, what difference does a lower scoring environment make in justifying a higher ranking for a goaltender?? If anything, it's the opposite of what you're saying. Lots of goalies of Roy's vintage (or a little younger than him) look way better than they actually were from the late 1990s onward because of the lower scoring environment.

The fact that a goalie had good numbers, later in his career, in a lower scoring environment, isn't a point in his favor (in itself).

Brodeur won Vezinas both in the DPE (2003 and 2004) and in the high scoring post lockout (2007).

Brodeur was also great as early as 1993-94, still a quite high scoring environment.

Lemieux was able to dominate PPG in very low scoring years (2001 and 2003).

"Dominate" is over-stating it. In 2002, Lemieux was outscored by his own teammate head-to-head (and only appeared in 43 games total). In 2003, he was second in PPG overall due to a hot first half, and from Dec. 30th onward he was 38th in PPG.

You can make the point that Hasek only dominated in a low scoring era, but I don't think it's very compelling. Scoring was still high when he won his first Vezina in 1994...

Indeed, his 1993-94 is one of the greatest-ever and most dominant seasons by an NHL goalie!

_____________________

Anyway, Jacques Plante was the best, and leaves Roy in the dust:
-- first led NHL in save percentage in 1956, last led NHL in 1971
-- led NHL in save percentage five times, including with THREE different clubs
-- highest save-percentage of all time in 1971, aged 42 (despite scoring being way higher than in his younger days)
-- never had a less than .902 season (including playing on a horrible mid-sixties' Rangers club)

 

[Sentinel]

Hasek all day long.

 

[Midnight Judges]

WTF is a "pro-Crosby crowd"?

Ha!

I'd say it's the kind of crowd that pretends he contributes significantly in his own end (he doesn't) while calling a different 1500 point player "one dimensional" or "shoot only" or any of the other multitude of obviously false statements.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Ha!

I'd say it's the kind of crowd that pretends he contributes significantly in his own end (he doesn't) while calling a different 1500 point player "one dimensional" or "shoot only."

But you're suggesting that there's a large cohort of people that have a single monolithic opinion.

Is what you're saying that the "pro-Crosby crowd" is just the people who disagree with you on a discussion forum?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I've always found it a bit coincidental that the best goalies of all time (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) just so happened to play during the dead puck era while the best offensive players of all time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) played in the high scoring era.

It begs the question if we are adjusting properly.

Orr started in the 06 era. Never got to the high scoring 1980's.

Roy won the Conn Smythe in the heart of the high scoring era, 1986. Won it again in 1993,
another very high scoring season.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Orr started in the 06 era. Never got to the high scoring 1980's.

Roy won the Conn Smythe in the heart of the high scoring era, 1986. Won it again in 1993,
another very high scoring season.

So did Billy Smith and Bill Ranford.

Let's stop acting like 86 Roy didn't play behind Chelios, Robinson, Gainey and Carbonneau.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So did Billy Smith and Bill Ranford.

Let's stop acting like 86 Roy didn't play behind Chelios, Robinson, Gainey and Carbonneau.

What are you talking about?

 

[Midnight Judges]

But you're suggesting that there's a large cohort of people that have a single monolithic opinion.

Is what you're saying that the "pro-Crosby crowd" is just the people who disagree with you on a discussion forum?

It's definitely not monolithic. For example, one highly respected history forum regular claims Ryan Getzlaf is better than Ovechkin. Several of the regulars were so much in disagreement that they denied that he even said this. But he did - on multiple occasions.

Another claimed Dickie Moore and Bernie Geoffrion were superior to Ovechkin - meaning Alex Ovechkin would have been the 8th or 9th player from the top of the 1956 Canadians.

But those are on the extreme end of the spectrum among the group.

The consensus is that Ovechkin would have been the 5th best player on that team, not the 8th. And that Ovechkin is inferior to a 1 time Norris winning defenseman from the 1950s.

That too strikes me as not particularly defensible.

So that's the general range here - from 'extreme' to 'not defensible' as it pertains to Crosby's rival.

And for the record I thought Crosby's placement was low as well in the top 100 project. So it's not just anti-Ovechkin bias that works against Ovie but also an anti-recency bias which is actually kind of an endearing trait for a forum about history to have. I think the anti recency thing is objectively demonstrable.

Orr started in the 06 era. Never got to the high scoring 1980's.

Roy won the Conn Smythe in the heart of the high scoring era, 1986. Won it again in 1993,
another very high scoring season.

I think expansion in Orr's peak seasons provided a high scoring environment for some of the teams, albeit not for the scrub teams. Orr's Bruins used to beat the Capitals 8-1 and 12-4.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It's definitely not monolithic. For example, one highly respected history forum regular claims Ryan Getzlaf is better than Ovechkin. Several of the regulars were so much in disagreement that they denied that he even thought this. But he did.

Another claimed Dickie Moore and Bernie Geoffrion were superior to Ovechkin - meaning Alex Ovechkin would have been the 8th or 9th player from the top of the 1956 Canadians.

But those are on the extreme end of the spectrum among the group.

The consensus is that Ovechkin would have been the 5th best player on that team, not the 8th. And that Ovechkin is inferior to a 1 time Norris winning defenseman from the 1950s.

That too strikes me as not particularly defensible.

So that's the general range here - from 'extreme' to 'not defensible' as it pertains to Crosby's rival.

And for the record I thought Crosby's placement was low as well in the top 100 project. So it's not just anti-Ovechkin bias that works against Ovie but also an anti-recency bias which is actually kind of an endearing trait for a forum about history to have. I think the anti recency thing is demonstrable.

I appreciate this - thank you; it helps clarify your position. I'm a fan of both players to be fair.

I think these are all reasonable arguments to be had and we're all adults here who (I believe) are interested in reasoned discussion (the proportion of outright trolls in this subforum is hopefully far less than the mains). If we need to have these discussions I think it's a welcome subforum for it.

 

[Dingo]

I've always found it a bit coincidental that the best goalies of all time (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) just so happened to play during the dead puck era while the best offensive players of all time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) played in the high scoring era.

It begs the question if we are adjusting properly.

its not a question for me.