Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

[Johnny Engine]

Speaking of this did you know Mogilny's name during the 89 WJC read Mogylny and Zubov's Subov? Those changes aren't affecting the pronunciation as much as the case with Fyodorov, Kovalyov, Syomin and Kulyomin though.

Subov I think is pretty wildly different than how I say his name.

The funny thing is, unless you are seriously good at speaking the language or imitating the accent, there's really no English spelling that's going to accurately represent how those names are spoken. Sort of like how hockey fans and classical music aficionados have equally wrong pronunciations of the name Dvořák, because it's completely impossible to pronounce the letter ř if you don't do it řegulařly.

 

[seventieslord]

Nighbor cultists...

Please do some more research before round 2.

 

[seventieslord]

And some of us are re-thinking that perspective. I have 34 Defensemen in my 120. You think that's inordinately high? Well, seventieslord has 37. How many multiple-Stanley-Cup winners have we seen where the most important skater for the winning team has been the Stud Defenseman? Chicago (Keith), Los Angeles (Doughty), Detroit (Lidström), New Jersey (Stevens). Hey, if you want to take it back far enough into our childhood we could even make a case for Denis Potvin for the Islanders, or Big Bird there in Montréal. Then there's that guy from Parry Sound.

No apologies needed for a robust number of Defensemen under consideration here.

[Oh- and sorry about the misstep for Sergei. I applied edits, with an eye towards not taking any chances.]

and I don't think we need to make apologies for those numbers anyway. When you look at what proportion of defenseman are on the ice at one time among all players, the most typical proportion would suggest that we should have 40 defenseman in our top 120. If you look at it based on an entire starting lineup in today's game including one goalie, then you would be looking at 38 defenseman on your list if you did it proportionally. I don't see how 37 bucks that at all.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Please do some more research before round 2.

Wouldn't hurt.


On the other hand Nighbor's strength was the poke check. Valuable in the pre liberalized forward pass era but virtually disappeared along with the sweep check since 1929-30.

So how are such attributes to be balanced?

 

[sr edler]

What about Jack Walker and his hook check though?

 

[seventieslord]

Wouldn't hurt.


On the other hand Nighbor's strength was the poke check. Valuable in the pre liberalized forward pass era but virtually disappeared along with the sweep check since 1929-30.

So how are such attributes to be balanced?

I think that anybody like him who just thinks the game at a higher level is going to find a way to be just as successful under any rules. Perhaps his defensive dominance could be exaggerated before the liberalized forward passing rules, but being that he was a guy who was in Tip-Top physical condition and could skate all day, combine that with his intelligence and stick skills, and I still think that when skating and Puck chasing become more important, he would still be the best defensive forward in the league.

after all, he continued to be the best through many rule changes, including the introduction of the Blue Line, the rule about camping out in the defensive Zone, roster size increases which led to players being more rested and assumedly faster, The moving of the blue lines, and the shortening of the length of sticks, when previously a long stick with something he was said to have benefited from. Still, in 1929 they were referring to him as the master.

 

[seventieslord]

What about Jack Walker and his hook check though?

That was Nighbor's first.

Walker was Surely the second best defensive forward of the era, but he was nowhere near nighbor offensively.

 

[sr edler]

That was Nighbor's first.

Are you sure about that? Walker and Nighbor appeared on the same teams with Port Arthur and Toronto in 1911–12 and 1912–13 and Walker was 4 years older.

 

[DitchMarner]

Speaking of this did you know Mogilny's name during the 89 WJC read Mogylny and Zubov's Subov? Those changes aren't affecting the pronunciation as much as the case with Fyodorov, Kovalyov, Syomin and Kulyomin though.

If he had gone with "Fyodorov" in the NHL, I wonder if his name would be spelled incorrectly more or less often than it is.

 

[seventieslord]

Are you sure about that? Walker and Nighbor appeared on the same teams with Port Arthur and Toronto in 1911–12 and 1912–13 and Walker was 4 years older.

no, I guess I'm not a hundred percent sure about that. I thought I read somewhere that Walker learned it from him, but I could be mistaken. In any case, I'm not as concerned with the Innovation itself, but who used it to the greatest effect, and I don't think there's any doubt about that.

 

[sr edler]

no, I guess I'm not a hundred percent sure about that. I thought I read somewhere that Walker learned it from him, but I could be mistaken. In any case, I'm not as concerned with the Innovation itself, but who used it to the greatest effect, and I don't think there's any doubt about that.

I agree usage is probably more important than invention but there was a poke check and a hook check, those are two different checks.

Walker could put up good offense when it mattered though so he's pretty high on my list, but obviously not as high as Nighbor.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree usage is probably more important than invention but there was a poke check and a hook check, those are two different checks.

Walker could put up good offense when it mattered though so he's pretty high on my list, but obviously not as high as Nighbor.

Yes I know those are different checks... And aside from 1914 and 1924, Walker pretty much topped out at 50% of the scoring rate of the League's best players, so are you referring to those two good playoffs that he had or something else?

as much as I respect Walker, there's no way I would put them near my list, I would not think twice about putting Patrice Bergeron or Anze Kopitar on this list over him, and neither one of them were able to make mine either.

 

[sr edler]

They are on my list.

 

[MXD]

after all, he continued to be the best through many rule changes, including the introduction of the Blue Line, the rule about camping out in the defensive Zone, roster size increases which led to players being more rested and assumedly faster, The moving of the blue lines, and the shortening of the length of sticks, when previously a long stick with something he was said to have benefited from. Still, in 1929 they were referring to him as the master.

The master of what?
... Which would translate to what?

I mean.... By then, Nighbor was something of an also-ran playing for an also-ran team, for which he probably deserves at least SOME blame, considering the amount of time he was spending on the ice.

Of course.... Nighbor was old, and probably shouldn't be expected to be the player he once was. Why use the word "master" to describe him, and, while we're at it, why would I give full credibility to the people who gave him more praise (than his numbers warranted) if they'd use words like "master" to describe him when his score sheet looked like a donut?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What about Jack Walker and his hook check though?

He can be added somewhere around Bob Gainey (neither is on my list)

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Please do some more research before round 2.

Yeah- you're right...

But hopefully, I won't have to really return for additional Nighbor research until Vote 3 (at the earliest).

 

[sr edler]

so are you referring to those two good playoffs that he had or something else?

He certainly had more than "two good playoffs", and also led the 13–14 Toronto team in RS assists and points (and almost goals). Walker was never a passenger on any of his Cups.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think that anybody like him who just thinks the game at a higher level is going to find a way to be just as successful under any rules. Perhaps his defensive dominance could be exaggerated before the liberalized forward passing rules, but being that he was a guy who was in Tip-Top physical condition and could skate all day, combine that with his intelligence and stick skills, and I still think that when skating and Puck chasing become more important, he would still be the best defensive forward in the league.

after all, he continued to be the best through many rule changes, including the introduction of the Blue Line, the rule about camping out in the defensive Zone, roster size increases which led to players being more rested and assumedly faster, The moving of the blue lines, and the shortening of the length of sticks, when previously a long stick with something he was said to have benefited from. Still, in 1929 they were referring to him as the master.

While true and well presented does not change the fact that a puck passed forward travels much faster than the best skater.

So the center has to play in harmony with his wingers. Prime examples, Henri Richard and Dave Keon playing in harmony with various wingers to check Bobby Hull.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The master of what?
... Which would translate to what?

I mean.... By then, Nighbor was something of an also-ran playing for an also-ran team, for which he probably deserves at least SOME blame, considering the amount of time he was spending on the ice.

Of course.... Nighbor was old, and probably shouldn't be expected to be the player he once was. Why use the word "master" to describe him, and, while we're at it, why would I give full credibility to the people who gave him more praise (than his numbers warranted) if they'd use words like "master" to describe him when his score sheet looked like a donut?

Perhaps "master" Nighbor would be a post 1971 Henri Richard with less offence in a significantly lower scoring era.

 

[MXD]

Perhaps "master" Nighbor would be a post 1971 Henri Richard with less offence in a significantly lower scoring era.

... My point is, if THIS is a "master", then every raving review of him when he was in his prime has to be viewed with a very, very healthy dose of skepticism, because we're talking about a donut here.

 

[Theokritos]

What was on his bloody jersey for 1248 NHL games!

Too bad the NHL couldn't be bothered to transliterate his name (and many others) accurately.

The funny thing is, unless you are seriously good at speaking the language or imitating the accent, there's really no English spelling that's going to accurately represent how those names are spoken.

Huh? Many of those names could be spelled pretty accurately in English. For example Dvořák: ř = r+sh, therefore Dvořák = Dvorshák.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Wouldn't hurt.


On the other hand Nighbor's strength was the poke check. Valuable in the pre liberalized forward pass era but virtually disappeared along with the sweep check since 1929-30.

So how are such attributes to be balanced?

Nighbor, like any other player, took advantage of how the game was played during his time. Whether his skills would have been transferable to future eras seems largely moot in this case. It's not like he took advantage of a specific rule by finding some loophole to exploit. The hockey world simply didn't feel the need or desire to allow unrestricted forward passing until the very end of his career.

A modern example might be Al MacInnis' blazing slapshot. Presumably he would have been far less effective offensively in an era before the slapshot was invented (unless we suspect he himself would have invented it). But I see no reason to apply this line of thought.

 

[MXD]

... Then why would we credit Nighbor for his offense not captured by stats? I mean... he played by those rules, too.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

... Then why would we credit Nighbor for his offense not captured by stats? I mean... he played by those rules, too.

The offense not being captured by stats does not mean it didn't exist. No assists at all were recorded at one point in history, doesn't mean the game was completely devoid of any great set-up men.

 

[MXD]

The offense not being captured by stats does not mean it didn't exist. No assists at all were recorded at one point in history, doesn't mean the game was completely devoid of any great set-up men.

How can he be a great set-up man without the numbers to show for it?

He was getting praise? Fine.

Then how can we take seriously the praise he was receiving? Considering he was praised as a master while going pointless or so?

Also, congratulations for trying to make me look bad by coming up with the seasons where assists were not recorded, when that wasn't my intention at all. You're back on the shitlist.