Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2

[VanIslander]

Maurice Richard played 132 playoff games. 71 games in SC years scoring 51 goals. 61 games in non-winning SC years,scoring 31 goals. Rather obvious that his goals contributed more to winning.

Re-read my post. I state how many career goals set the record (31) and in which year (1947), then I indicate his career total (82) and when (1960).

No BS. Facts.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Re-read my post. I state how many career goals set the record (31) and in which year (1947), then I indicate his career total (82) and when (1960).

No BS. Facts.

BS is your effort to minimize the contribution to winning.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes and no.

The Rocket set the NHL record for career playoff goals in 1947 (his 31 passed Gordie Drillon) and totalled 82 by 1960 and no one (not Howe or Lafleur) passed it until Bossy in 1983 (Kurri led for a year and of course Gretzky shattered the record). Kuddos to Richard. That is special. It influences my esteem for him.

However, Richard's playoff goal scoring contributed less to dynasty victories than losing playoff years. Richard five times led the playoffs in goals (great, see paragraph above) but only one was during a dynasty cup win (his scoring is less than Boom Boom and others over the dynasty span). Three times that he led in goals his team didn't win the cup, and the first time he did was 1944, at the weakest time of competition due to late WWII enlistment.

So, divorce his goal scoring prowess from cup success. Heck, he is in Bobby Hull territory, not some tier above, at least in terms of significance of playoff scoring.

Some fancy dancing with the numbers here.

Richard led the playoffs 5 times in goals, 3 times they won the Cup (1944, 46, 58), not 2.

When he led the playoffs in goals in 1951, not a Cup year, he also had 3 overtime goals. He had 9 of the 23 goals Montreal scored in their 11 playoff games.

The Montreal dynasty started when Richard was 34, so he was 38 when it ended. Still, in the first 3 years of the dynasty he scored 24 goals in 30 games. Boom Boom and Beliveau had 22 each.

 

[VanIslander]

.. in the first 3 years of the dynasty he scored 24 goals in 30 games. Boom Boom and Beliveau had 22 each.

Why separate out 3 of the 5 years of the dynasty? That's no less fancy dancing than citing the 5-year dynasty as a span and discounting the 1944 cup win, at least to some degree.

I get your point about his age. He was older when the Canadiens were a dynasty so any contributions are impressive and he did have one of his five best goal scoring playoffs then. Granted. That is significant. I value longevity and his scorecard has a plus in that category.

I am not a Richard hater. Heck I had him ranked 6th or 7th on my original list. I just am not so enamoured with him in terms of better playoff hero than a Bobby Hull, once one looks at year by year comparisons of the two. They seem like same tier, not different tiers, contrary to some comments off the cuff it seemed from some.

 

[Sentinel]

Don't think anyone actually looks at it this way.

... Or this way

Facts, I know... *shrug*

 

[quoipourquoi]

Two very different things.

The former is impressive evidence of repeated dominant impact on team success at the beginning, middle and end of a 16-year stretch. (Having seen a lot of his career, I know how intense and big game performer he was. That said, rollercoaster might be a metaphor for his play at times, down, then right back up high.)

The latter is a team accomplishment. How much of a driver vs. passenger was he? A lot of Colorado games in the regular season were won by Sakic & Forsberg and a talented support crew. In Montreal coaching and team defense were praised. Carbonneau won three Selkes during the Roy years, shutting down/containing opposing top line centers. Jack Adams trophy winner Pat Burns coached the Habs for four years during Roy's years in Montreal. Simply citing conference or divisional titles indicates little, especially with top 10 candidates who should be in the rarified air of transcending their team and their era, not simply being a part of it.

Well, he won a Division Title with a Montreal team that finished 14th in Goals out of 22 teams and another Division Title with a Colorado team that finished 18th in Goals out of 30 teams.

He went 33-5 (.908) on a Montreal team that finished 1st in the East by a 23-point margin while splitting time with a 20-13 (.887) partner.

He won a President’s Trophy with a Colorado team that saw Sakic and Forsberg play just 65 games each - which included overlapping absences during which Roy stopped 175 out of 184 (.951) across 6 games.

So I wouldn’t necessarily try to place him on the spectrum of Driver or Passenger, because while he often played for good teams, he could also drive either team’s car when asked. Those four examples above range across 14 seasons, so he put in a lot of miles.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't know qpq, I think we're still in the rarefied air of this thing...I mean, we're talking about the fifth best player in the history of hockey...we still have guys that put together, 10, 12, 15+ years of just mega dominance or even regular dominance...I don't see a goalie that can offer that right now...

Lets just say that I see this completely different from you to the point that we might as well be typing in different languages and breathing different oxygen.

 

[Sentinel]

As a sidenote, I personally will do as if 18-19 never started. It's not super relevant for Crosby and Ovechkin, but things might be really different for players like Malkin, Keith, Chara and Lundqvist.

I dunno... If Ovechkin breaks Hull's record, good luck convincing the general population he is not the greatest goalscorer of all time.

 

[MXD]

I dunno... If Ovechkin breaks Hull's record, good luck convincing the general population he is not the greatest goalscorer of all time.

You realize that the chances he accomplishes such a thing before we get to vote on his candidacy in round 2 are totally inexistant?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I ranked Bourque quite high on my initial list. There are four main arguments (three of which are well-known, and one of which probably isn't). I'll run through the first three quickly (since most people here already know them - but it doesn't hurt to document this for posterity), and then present some newly-published data for the last one.

Consistent all-star

One of the reasons is I like Bourque is his year-to-year consistency, and his ability to play at a high level for two decades. Only Gordie Howe was an all-star player for a longer period of time. Bourque was a year-end all-star seventeen years in a row, never placing lower than 4th in Norris voting. (He also had two more Norris finalist/all-star seasons in his final five seasons).

Well-rounded player

I've read a number of posts (mostly on the main board) that Bourque wasn't great defensively. I disagree - and so do the people who watched him play. There are three surveys from the early to mid nineties that highlight that Bourque was the ultimate two-way threat from the blueline:

• In a 1990 players survey, he was ranked 3rd in "best all around player" (the only defenseman listed), 2nd in best offensive defenseman, and 5th in best defensive defenseman. Link.
• In a 1993 coaches survey, he was 2nd in both the offensive defenseman (tied) and defensive defenseman questions. Link.
• In a 1994 coaches survey, he was again 2nd in the best offensive defenseman question, and 1st in the best defensive defenseman category. Link.

Hart consideration

It's already been established that, since the creation of the Norris trophy, defensemen have received far less consideration for the Hart trophy. From 1984 to 1991, Bourque ranked 3rd in the league (behind only Gretzky and Lemieux) in Hart votes - ahead of Messier, Yzerman, Hull, etc.

Underrated playoff performer

I think Bourque takes a lot of undeserved flack for not winning a Stanley Cup in Boston. (Hasek wasn't able to win a Stanley Cup until planning on a stacked team either). His four longest runs (outside of Colorado) were 1983, 1988, 1990, and 1991. The impact that he had on his teams is tough to overstate (comparing the ES ratio of goals for to goals against when he's on the ice, to when he's off):

Player	Season	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
Ray Bourque	1987-88	1.80	1.04	74%
Ray Bourque	1990-91	0.83	0.76	9%
Ray Bourque	1982-83	1.88	0.69	173%
Ray Bourque	1989-90	1.92	0.63	203%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

To put those numbers into perspective, Chris Pronger was +84% in in 2006 (and +73% in 2007). Brian Leetch was +97% in 1994. Denis Potvin averaged +51% over the Islanders' four Cups. Scott Stevens was +22% in 2000. Bobby Orr was +59% in 1970 (and then an other-worldly +225% in 1972). Bourque had three runs that match these (one of which even approaches Orr's insane 1972 performance).

Bourque's 1990 run is ridiculous; his R-On ratio is comparable to key members of the 1990 Oilers (the team that beat his Bruins in the finals), while his team's R-Off is comparable to, say, Alexei Yashin in Ottawa, or Joe Thornton during his last few years in Boston, or Marcel Dionne's career in LA.

Lest I be accused of cherry-picking the data - even if you exclude these four big runs entirely, Bourque still has a favourable ratio over the rest of his career. How many players still have a positive impact on their team if you exclude their five best postseasons entirely (the four above plus 2001 in Colorado)?

Bourque's importance to his team in the playoffs can't be overstated. He led his team in playoff scoring four times - as many as Richard, and only one fewer than Crosby and Morenz.

 

[Sentinel]

You realize that the chances he accomplishes such a thing before we get to vote on his candidacy in round 2 are totally inexistant?

Not if Russian mafia hijacks all 32 participants and holds them in an undisclosed location with no internet till next June.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I honestly think the legend of Richard (based largely on being a Quebecois superstar) has created a reputation that doesn't match the facts.

Outside of Richard, who is going to be the highest ranked forward with zero Art Ross trophies? Bobby Clarke maybe? One of the greatest defensive forwards in history who still put up insane offensive numbers? Brian Trottier? Wait he won one. Mark Messier?

Why is Richard over Clarke, Messier, and Nighbor, both who brought far more to the ice than just offense?

greatest clutch playoff goal scorer of all time?

 

[VanIslander]

As someone already mentioned, Bourque had a stellar peak of 1987-94 to go with longevity. He won 5 Norris trophies in 8 years plus two 2nd place finishes.

His top competitors in Norris voting were:

Chris Chelios
Paul Coffey
Al MacInnis
Scott Stevens
Brian Leetch
Mark Howe
Larry Murphy

How many of those will be on our top-100 all-time lists? It is easily one of the most competitive times in terms of top-tier defensemen. And Bourque OWNED that 8-year stretch.

 

[Michael Farkas]

While I should have been doing something else productive, I decided to time a Ray Bourque game...I should be able to grab another from his prime prime later on...

Here's the shift chart for Ray Bourque - May 7, 1983 @ Islanders - Game 6 of the Wales Conference Final (NYI 8-4)

1st Period
0:33* (* - shift contained a stoppage, 0:00 -> 0:33)
1:12
0:22
1:03* [played RW]
0:58
1:06 (10:16 -> 11:22)
0:46 (PP, 12:28 -> 13:14)
2:02* (2:00 of PP, 0:02 at ES; 14:32 -> 16:34)
1:14 (18:16 -> 19:30)
0:12 (19:48 -> 20:00)

1st Per Tot: 10 shifts, 9:28 TOI - 6:42 ES, 2:46 PP, 0:00 PK | played 1:03 at RW

2nd Period:
0:42* (0:17 -> 0:59)
0:45
0:42** (4:19 -> 5:01, [LW])
0:55
0:35 (7:45 -> 8:20, [LW])
1:04
0:56 (13:14 -> 14:10 [LW])
1:18* (PP, 15:49 -> 17:07)
1:03* (0:39 of PK, 18:40 -> 19:43 [LW at ES -> D on PK])

2nd Per Tot: 9 shifts, 8:00 TOI - 6:03 ES, 1:18 PP, 0:39 PK | played 2:37 at LW

3rd Period:
0:33 (PK, 0:00 -> 0:33)
0:56 (PP, 1:17 -> 2:13)
1:12 (3:29 -> 4:41 [LW])
2:29 (2:00 of PP, 4:56 -> 7:25)
1:00 (9:19 -> 10:19)
0:50 (PK, 13:11 -> 12:11)
1:07
0:51 (18:23 -> 19:14)

3rd Per Tot: 8 shifts, 8:58 TOI - 4:39 ES, 2:56 PP, 1:23 PK | played 1:12 at LW

Game total: 27 shifts, 26:26 - 17:24 ES, 7:00 PP, 2:02 PK | played 4:52 at either wing


Not a very pretty game overall. The Islanders are the class of the league in terms of structure at this time. They're hungrier, they're more disciplined, they're better positioned, they play much tighter as a team. Bourque is still pretty raw here, he makes a few defensive errors...Goring posterized him on one too that was really an inexcusable error by young Bourque while the game was still close. He rebounded and as Boston had to chase the game, Bourque was used to rush the puck from the back line often. Notably, he played a number of shifts at wing. In fact, there were instances where the Bruins had four d-men on the ice. He looked comfortable playing up there at least, though it probably wasn't the best use of his abilities being stuck at wing considering he was the best puck carrier on defense. He didn't have a regular partner in the game really, hell, he didn't have a regular position...he and Rick Middleton seemed to be the only threatening players from the attack line in...

Like I said, I'll try to squeeze in another from the 1988 to 1992 window or so to add a little context, hate to leave you hanging with one data point...

 

[Captain Bowie]

Facts, I know... *shrug*

Saying losing in the 2nd round in 2010 is like losing in the SC Finals in 1960 is an opinion, not a fact. And in my opinion, it's a poor opinion.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, he keeps playing these really off-the-wall, no-way-that-can-be-serious cards at increasingly weirder times in this project...frankly, it's getting a little disquieting...

I was going to take on the post as a whole, because from top to bottom it's just not in line with the reality of the situation...but then it dawned on me that it was about a player who is rightfully not available to us yet...so I let it slide...

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Just seem like there are more broken silhouettes to piece together here than there were in the last round.

Hull- you have his WHA-stint, and his team's playoff performances. That said, I think the WHA-thing, at the very worst, doesn't take away anything from his legacy. It likely adds to it. Re: the playoffs, I think if you study the matter earnestly, you'll see that there are a lot more obvious places to lay the blame for playoff disappointments than at his feet.

Roy- you absolutely have to get into an assessment of his playoff performances to get a sense of his value. I don't think even M. Richard is as dependent upon this as Roy is.

Harvey- now Harvey is a player that it takes a little more for me to feel as though I can place him properly. There's a lot in the literature to suggest that he's seminal to the Dynasty's Special Teams- but I have a hard time seeing it in the stats to which I have access. There is a little bit of a tease out there with a league-leading +37 in 59-60 as a 35 year-old. You think to yourself "if he was doing that as a 35-year-old, what the hell was he doing between 55 & 58, when the entire league thought he was the best Defenseman, and it wasn't a close call? He has the strongest of teammates, but maybe relatively weak blue-line partner(s). You can (speculatively) reconcile the two by claiming that he could favorably influence game-flow just by being out there. I used to say that after eye-testing peak Hart-Trophy C. Pronger. "It just seems like good things happen for his team just by his being on the ice." Maybe Harvey gave his teams years of that kind of stuff.

Béliveau- lots of advocacy for Béliveau this round, no doubt. Two of our veteran participants have staked opposing sides on the Harvey/Béliveau conundrum- so it's really important for me to work it out on my own. He's got a sporty post-season résumé, too. Appears to have more playoff wow-factor than Harvey. One Smythe, one "retro-Smythe." Unlike the other Center, both look deserved.

I have M. Richard, Morenz, and Bourque as my next trio. These next two Habs will be a close call, as well...

 

[VanIslander]

Hull- you have his WHA-stint, and his team's playoff performances. That said, I think the WHA-thing, at the very worst, doesn't take away anything from his legacy. It likely adds to it. Re: the playoffs, I think if you study the matter earnestly, you'll see that there are a lot more obvious places to lay the blame for playoff disappointments than at his feet

Don't forget his great performances in the 1974 Summit Series and 1976 Canada Cup (dominant yet 35-37 years old).

They are as playoff-relevant as the Stanley Cup.

 

[Sadekuuro]

God help me.... I might put Roy at 5.

Ugh, this hurts my soul. For my entire life I've been a Hasek > Roy guy. It's basically a personality trait at this point. But **** me... The guy has a high peak, is unparalleled in the playoffs, a super long prime, and did it across eras (including *the* hardest era for goalies in the NHL). And he did it without backstopping a dynasty at any point.

I mean, what's the knock against him? Hart trophy voting record? Sheeeeeeit. I don't care about that for non-forwards. Goalies didn't start winning the Hart until scoring plummeted during the DPE. If Roy is putting up the same (relative) numbers he was in the 80s in a year like 2000, he could easily have walked away with a Hart.

Three Vezinas? I mean, that's pretty damn good. But he also finished pretty high plenty of other times. And for some reason he has more First All-Stars than Vezinas, so we can give him a kinda 4.

But three Smythes? Could easily argue a fourth? I mean... like, those Habs teams weren't bad, but they weren't that good either.

Someone please talk me out of this.

Had I gotten a list together in time, they'd almost certainly be back to back (and very high, perhaps even 5 and 6). I think it ultimately comes down to what you prefer. Roy ultimately provided more career value, but many would argue that it is peak play that defines who was the best... and that might well be a toss-up in this case.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

My issue with Harvey is I don't know how to sift him out from the rest of the Habs. His great season with the Rangers helps a little, but how much of Harvey is simply that he was the best defenseman on the greatest team of all time? And how much do I factor in that after he left the Habs went on to have another dynasty despite not having anyone of his caliber on the back end?

i don’t think the habs winning after he left tells us anything other than that team was a great team.

maybe they didn’t necessarily need need him but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t any less than completely awesome. i mean, in his seven year peak what more could he have provided to his team? they practically could not have won any more than they did. a record five straight cups, plus a loss in game seven of the finals against a dynasty with gordie howe in the best playoff run of his career.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'm not utterly inflexible- there are almost no poor choices this round... but I feel that I could take a big-ol' Staedtler-Eraser to Hull's WHA-years and still have enough left on the sheet to place him no lower than #2 overall this round.

I hesitate (only a little) before saying this- because I don't want to come off as a retro-grouch who spins yarns about "yeah... back in my day..." But:

Hull was a stone-freak. Fastest skater of his time. Hardest shot of his time. Physical specimen. Conditioning for years. Rotations of opponents trying to hang onto him would ofttimes tire before he'd tire. Yes, he had playoff disappointments- but he was beaten by other legends- on teams with greater depth- and better coaching- and superior playoff goaltending.

If Hull had played c. 30 years later than he did, I think people'd probably accuse him of being On The Gear...

imo, the case for bobby hull—if you asked me which player in hockey history if you put him in today’s game, with all the fitness coaching and resources and “vitamins,” would be to hockey what lebron is to basketball, my answer would be bobby hull.

what an absolute specimen, and with an all-time toolbox to match.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

[It] would be nice if those who introduced the term "star power" here could clarify what it means as far as on-ice performance is concerned.

@TheDevilMadeMe
@BenchBrawl

i can’t speak for others but i would define it as a guy steps on the ice in the other team’s arena and the crowd goes so silent that their simultaneous dread and awe is crushingly audible to the home team.

rocket richard reportedly had this in spades.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

RE: Longevity

How exactly are people defining longevity as a player trait? Is it how old the players were when they retired? Number of games played? Number of elite seasons?

I haven’t done much research on Hasek’s side but does he really have much more elite NHL seasons than Crosby? In my gut it feels like it’s not that far off.

Crosby is in his 14th season with, give or take, 10 of them being “full” seasons. 9(atleast) of these full seasons would constitute as elite. Now Hasek’s elite seasons may be of higher quality, but does he have more of them? Is the longevity gap in elite play that big?

No, I don't think there's really any argument that he does.

To me, longevity is the number of complete or mostly complete seasons as a significant contributor. And Hasek probably only brings 8 such seasons to the table. I've been sold that he was likely an NHL-caliber goaltender during his Czechoslovakian years before coming to the NHL. But I can't buy that he was an elite, Vezina-level player who was simply mis-evaluated in Chicago and his early Buffalo days, to the point that he was alternating between back-up and minor leaguer.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Sidney Crosby vs. Howie Morenz

Since both might get in, it's now or never.They're extremely close and similar.I offer no conclusion, I'm just putting their overall case side by side.Any suggestion and addition or feedback is welcomed.

I think most would agree Béliveau is ahead of both.

Hart Voting

Morenz: 1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 7
Crosby: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6

This is an ackward comparison.Morenz had more competition from defensemen for the Hart, but Crosby had a stronger pool of forwards to compete against.

All-Star Teams*

Morenz: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2
Crosby: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2

*I added 1st, 1st and 2nd to Morenz, for more info see TheDevilMadeMe's excellent post on Morenz, section V: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151745959/

All-Around Game

Howie Morenz: Taking you back again to TDMM's post, section IV.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151745959/

TDMM: Morenz seemed to have developed an effective defensive game by 1927 and was excellent defensively by 1929

''Hooley Smith and Boucher are potential candidates for the pivot, but Morenz is too fast and his ability to hurdle through a defense right into the goal mouth gives him the edge over the other candidates. Howie also can poke-check with the best and his scoring proclivities, not much better than Boucher's, surpasses Smith.''

''Last season Howie Morenz started to use a poke-check and at the close of the year he was getting very effective.''

Edit: Adding:

Toe Blake called Morenz "one of the greatest backcheckers I ever saw," and Tommy Gorman said "Morenz was the fastest and greatest two-way center in the game."

There are far more on Morenz' all-around game if you check his bios, but I'll keep it succinct.

Sidney Crosby: His reputation along the boards is well-known.In recent years Crosby started getting minor Selke attention: 7, 10, 9.

Crosby is good, though not great, at faceoffs, averaging 52.2% over his career according to h-r.This is above-average among strong offensive centers.

Some quotes (thanks to ImporterExporter for his excellent Crosby biography):

''There’s not a single part of Crosby’s game that we can take advantage of. He’s simply an all-around unbelievable hockey player.'' - JONATHAN TOEWS

“He’s really a great leader,” he said. “Everybody judges Sid on his points and how many goals he gets and all of that. But he’s really an all-around player. He plays in all zones of the rink. He leads by example. But he does things quietly.” - JIM RUTHERFORD

''Just watch for a couple of shifts or a period the effort that Crosby expends in his zone. Coming back around his net. Getting in passing lanes. Winning battles. He’s not hanging out above the circles, waiting for someone else to do the work.

“He’s really committed to that side right now,” Blue Jackets captain Nick Foligno said in the Eastern Conference quarterfinals. “You can see it. He understands the 200-foot game. It’s made him even more dangerous.”

What is it that separates Crosby defensively? Let’s ask two other centers on the Penguins. Nick Bonino pointed to Crosby’s smarts.

“He’s a really good skater, and he has good anticipation; he knows where to go,” Bonino said. “Another of his best attributes is how quickly he can go from defense to offense. He knows when to jump, when not to jump. It helps him get out of his zone quicker.”

Matt Cullen pointed to how Crosby works in the corner. How he routinely comes out with pucks. And how strong he is on his stick.

“I think that’s often overlooked with his skill set is how good he is at winning battles,” Cullen said. “He just goes into the corners and takes the puck and comes out of it. There’s not a lot of guys who just do that.” ''

"What I always go back to is his work ethic," Sullivan said. "He is a tireless worker. He's the hardest-working player I have ever been around, and I've been around a lot of players. He, without a doubt, has the highest work ethic that I've seen. He's not as good as he is by accident. He's a very talented player, but his work ethic is tremendous. It's relentless."

Crosby is on an amazing run. His body of work and practice habits make him this good. And defensively, there's no reason Crosby shouldn't be considered for the Selke Trophy. His defense, which tends to go unnoticed, is just as good as his offense.

"Most elite players tend to lean towards the one-dimensional side," Sullivan said. "If you go through the league of superstars, the challenge for coaching staffs is to get those guys to be a little bit more committed away from the puck. I don't have that conversation with Sid."

Conclusion: No conclusion.It's unclear who was the best at what in terms of all-around play.Both were at least competent all-around player, if not fairly strong and increasingly so as their career progressed.

Playoffs Performances

Howie Morenz

Kyle McMahon made a good post about Morenz's playoffs:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151725009/

Re-quoting:

The case for three-time Cup champion Howie Morenz, info pulled from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.

1924. Morenz seems to have been the best player as Montreal went 6-0 over three series to win the Cup with relative ease. Had the winning goal in a 1-0 win, 2 goals in 4-2 win over Ottawa in the NHL Final. Had a hat trick in 6-1 win over Calgary in the Stanley Cup Final, Montreal beating the Tigers 2-0 in games without much trouble.

1925. Another great effort in the NHL Final. Two goals in 3-2 win over Toronto with Joliat injured, then scored again in a 2-0 win to advance. The Habs fell behind 2-0 to Victoria in the Stanley Cup series, but Morenz got a hat trick in Game 3 to stave off elimination before Montreal fell in Game 4.

1927. His play is described well in semi final series (2 games/total goals) as he scored and assisted in 2-1 total goals win. Ottawa got ahead of Montreal quickly in the division final (same format) and played kitty bar the door. Morenz and Joliat "tried hard but to no avail".

1928. This is a disappointing performance. Morenz took a lot of penalties as the Habs lost 3-2 total goals semi final.

1929. Montreal finished first and played first place Boston in a best-of-five semi final as the playoff format now dictated. Morenz was described as "always dangerous" with his rushes, despite a 1-0 loss in Game 1. Another 1-0 loss in Game 2, then a 3-2 loss "despite determined efforts of Morenz and Joliat".

1930. Morenz scored two goals including the OT winner to win 3-2 total goals series in the first round. It is mentioned that the Canadiens were tired after the long OT game, but had a very short turnaround before the next series began. As it happened, the opening game of this round went to quadruple OT. Montreal won this series 2-0 and it is interesting that subs scored all the goals. The Habs then upset Boston to win the Stanley Cup 2 games to 0. Morenz had one goal, and was described along with Lepine as the star in the deciding game.

1931. Had three assists in opening game defeat, little mention thereafter in a 3-2 series win over Boston. Morenz was described as "easily the outstanding player" after Game 2 loss in the Cup Final, despite 0 goals in playoffs. He is said to have put up a great performance in Game 3, a triple OT loss. Morenz "did everything but score" in a Game 4 win to send the Final to a decisive game. He finally scored in Game 5 to clinch Cup. It is mentioned that he was playing with an injured shoulder.

1932. Strong effort in opening 4-3 win over the Rangers in the semi-final. Long OT game loss in game 2, then played the very next night in NY, a 1-0 loss where it seems the teams were understandably tired. Joliat and Lepine were both injured in this game, and Montreal was ousted from the playoffs the next game.

1933. Two game/total goals, Montreal lost opener 5-2, and the Morenz line was outplayed by the Cooks and Frank Boucher. Morenz then started Game 2 on defense as coach Newsy Lalonde wanted 4 forwards on the ice to try and close the gap. This seemed to work as Morenz had two assists to pull the round to 6-5 total. Two late Ranger goals sealed the series.

1934. Morenz apparently played great and scored in 3-2 loss in the first game of another two game/total goals. It is said that the Canadiens had numerous injuries, and Morenz himself left injured in Game 2 as Montreal was eliminated.

1935. Now in Chicago. The Black Hawks lost 1-0 total goals in their opening round series. Morenz being stopped on two breakaways was the only specific mention of his play.

Morenz seems to have almost always figured prominently in his teams successes, with few instances where he clearly dropped the ball. His great playoff runs occurred at a time when there simply weren't many games to be played, and he had some prime years in an extremely low scoring environment. I don't think Morenz is a must include at this stage, but at the same time I don't think his resume is lacking compared to just-listed Sidney Crosby or Phil Esposito. They just have much more attractive and easier to quantify statistical profiles. If we're being fair to all eras (and why wouldn't we), we have to remember that modern players might not look so impressive at a glance if they only got to play 6 games during a Conn Smythe-level Cup run.

Sidney Crosby

Crosby is easily the most productive playoff performer of his generation, and if you factor in his four deep playoff runs, plus his couple of good half-runs, his two Conn Smythes (whatever you think of the first one), his captaining of three championships and his general all-around game, he is easily the best playoff performer of his generation (unless you count Chris Pronger, who might be his only serious competitor IMO).

Playoffs PTS and PPG since 2005-2006

Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Sidney Crosby	185	1.16
2	Evgeni Malkin	165	1.04
3	Patrick Kane	123	0.97
4	Ryan Getzlaf	120	0.96
5	Alex Ovechkin	117	0.97
6	Marian Hossa	115	0.75
7	Henrik Zetterberg	115	0.95
8	Daniel Briere	113	0.96
9	Jonathan Toews	110	0.86
10	Joe Thornton	105	0.84
11	Pavel Datsyuk	101	0.84

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Keeping in mind that Morenz is usually underrated in the playoffs, has he done enough to be considered the equal of a guy who is by far the best of his generation?

Regular Season Offense

Let's ignore the seasons where Crosby was injured, and focus on those where Morenz and Sid were in the Top 10 in scoring.Let's take a ballad through those seasons side by side, roughly ordered according to best VsX value.

27-28					2013-14
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Howie Morenz	51	1.19		1	Sidney Crosby	104	1.3
2	Aurele Joliat	39	0.89		2	Ryan Getzlaf	87	1.13
3	Frank Boucher	35	0.8		3	Claude Giroux	86	1.05
4	George Hay	35	0.83		4	Tyler Seguin	84	1.05
5	Nels Stewart	34	0.83		5	Corey Perry	82	1.01
6	Art Gagne	30	0.68		6	Taylor Hall	80	1.07
7	Bun Cook	28	0.64		7	Phil Kessel	80	0.98
8	Bill Carson	26	0.81		8	Nicklas Backstrom	79	0.96
9	Frank Finnigan	26	0.68		9	Jamie Benn	79	0.98
10	Bill Cook	24	0.56		10	Alex Ovechkin	79	1.01
30-31					2006-07
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Howie Morenz	51	1.31		1	Sidney Crosby	120	1.52
2	Ebbie Goodfellow	48	1.09		2	Joe Thornton	114	1.39
3	Charlie Conacher	43	1.13		3	Vincent Lecavalier	108	1.32
4	Ace Bailey	42	1.05		4	Dany Heatley	105	1.28
5	Bill Cook	42	0.95		5	Martin St. Louis	102	1.24
6	Joe Primeau	41	1.08		6	Marian Hossa	100	1.22
7	Frank Boucher	39	0.89		7	Joe Sakic	100	1.22
8	Nels Stewart	39	0.93		8	Jaromir Jagr	96	1.17
9	Cooney Weiland	38	0.86		9	Marc Savard	96	1.17
					10	Daniel Briere	95	1.17
26-27					2009-10
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Bill Cook	37	0.84		1	Henrik Sedin	112	1.37
2	Dick Irvin	36	0.82		2	Sidney Crosby	109	1.35
3	Howie Morenz	32	0.73		3	Alex Ovechkin	109	1.51
4	Frank Fredrickson	31	0.7		4	Nicklas Backstrom	101	1.23
5	Babe Dye	30	0.73		5	Steven Stamkos	95	1.16
6	Ace Bailey	28	0.67		6	Martin St. Louis	94	1.15
7	Frank Boucher	28	0.64		7	Brad Richards	91	1.14
8	Billy Burch	27	0.63		8	Joe Thornton	89	1.13
9	Bun Cook	25	0.57		9	Patrick Kane	88	1.07
10	George Hay	24	0.69		10	Marian Gaborik	86	1.13
31-32					2016-17
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Busher Jackson	53	1.1		1	Connor McDavid	100	1.22
2	Joe Primeau	50	1.09		2	Sidney Crosby	89	1.19
3	Howie Morenz	49	1.02		3	Patrick Kane	89	1.09
4	Charlie Conacher	48	1.09		4	Nicklas Backstrom	86	1.05
5	Bill Cook	47	0.98		5	Nikita Kucherov	85	1.15
6	Hooley Smith	44	1.02		6	Brad Marchand	85	1.06
7	Dave Trottier	44	0.92		7	Mark Scheifele	82	1.04
8	Dit Clapper	39	0.81		8	Leon Draisaitl	77	0.94
9	Aurele Joliat	39	0.81		9	Brent Burns	76	0.93
10	Babe Siebert	39	0.81		10	Vladimir Tarasenko	75	0.91
24-25					2012-13
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Babe Dye	46	1.59		1	Martin St. Louis	60	1.25
2	Aurele Joliat	42	1.68		2	Steven Stamkos	57	1.19
3	Cy Denneny	41	1.41		3	Sidney Crosby	56	1.56
4	Howie Morenz	39	1.3		4	Alex Ovechkin	56	1.17
5	Jack Adams	35	1.3		5	Patrick Kane	55	1.17
6	Red Green	35	1.17		6	Eric Staal	53	1.1
7	Billy Boucher	30	1		7	Phil Kessel	52	1.08
8	Hap Day	27	1.04		8	Chris Kunitz	52	1.08
9	Shorty Green	27	0.96		9	Taylor Hall	50	1.11
10	Billy Burch	26	0.96		10	Pavel Datsyuk	49	1.04
28-29					2014-15
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Ace Bailey	32	0.73		1	Jamie Benn	87	1.06
2	Nels Stewart	29	0.66		2	John Tavares	86	1.05
3	Andy Blair	27	0.61		3	Sidney Crosby	84	1.09
3	Carson Cooper	27	0.61		4	Alex Ovechkin	81	1
3	Howie Morenz	27	0.64		5	Jakub Voracek	81	0.99
6	Frank Boucher	26	0.59		6	Nicklas Backstrom	78	0.95
7	Bill Cook	23	0.53		7	Tyler Seguin	77	1.08
8	Harry Oliver	23	0.53		8	Jiri Hudler	76	0.97
9	Bill Carson	22	0.51		9	Daniel Sedin	76	0.93
10	Jimmy Ward	22	0.5		10	Nick Foligno	73	0.92
29-30					2015-16
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Cooney Weiland*	73	1.66		1	Patrick Kane	106	1.29
2	Frank Boucher*	62	1.48		2	Jamie Benn	89	1.09
3	Dit Clapper*	61	1.39		3	Sidney Crosby	85	1.06
4	Bill Cook*	59	1.34		4	Erik Karlsson	82	1
5	Hec Kilrea	58	1.32		5	Joe Thornton	82	1
6	Nels Stewart*	55	1.25		6	Johnny Gaudreau	78	0.99
7	Howie Morenz	53	1.2		7	Joe Pavelski	78	0.95
8	Normie Himes	50	1.14		8	Blake Wheeler	78	0.95
9	Dutch Gainor	49	1.17		9	Evgeny Kuznetsov	77	0.94
10	Joe Lamb	49	1.11		10	Artemi Panarin	77	0.96
25-26					2005-06
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Nels Stewart*	42	1.17		1	Joe Thornton	125	1.54
2	Carson Cooper	36	1		2	Jaromir Jagr	123	1.5
3	Cy Denneny*	36	1		3	Alex Ovechkin	106	1.31
4	Jimmy Herbert	35	0.97		4	Daniel Alfredsson	103	1.34
5	Jack Adams*	29	0.81		5	Dany Heatley	103	1.26
6	Aurele Joliat*	26	0.74		6	Sidney Crosby	102	1.26
7	Howie Morenz	26	0.84		7	Eric Staal	100	1.22
8	Frank Nighbor*	26	0.74		8	Ilya Kovalchuk	98	1.26
9	Hooley Smith*	25	0.89		9	Marc Savard	97	1.18
10	Billy Burch*	24	0.67		10	Jonathan Cheechoo	93	1.13
32-33					2008-09
Rk	Player	PTS	PTS		Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
1	Bill Cook*	50	1.04		1	Evgeni Malkin	113	1.38
2	Busher Jackson*	44	0.92		2	Alex Ovechkin	110	1.39
3	Baldy Northcott	43	0.9		3	Sidney Crosby	103	1.34
4	Paul Haynes	41	0.85		4	Pavel Datsyuk	97	1.2
5	Hooley Smith*	41	0.85		5	Zach Parise	94	1.15
6	Aurele Joliat*	38	0.79		6	Ryan Getzlaf	91	1.12
7	Marty Barry*	37	0.79		7	Ilya Kovalchuk	91	1.15
8	Bun Cook*	37	0.77		8	Jarome Iginla	89	1.09
9	Johnny Gagnon	36	0.75		9	Nicklas Backstrom	88	1.07
10	Howie Morenz	36	0.78		10	Marc Savard	88	1.07
					2017-18
					Rk	Player	PTS	PTS
					1	Connor McDavid	108	1.32
					2	Claude Giroux	102	1.24
					3	Nikita Kucherov	100	1.25
					4	Evgeni Malkin	98	1.26
					5	Nathan MacKinnon	97	1.31
					6	Taylor Hall	93	1.22
					7	Phil Kessel	92	1.12
					8	Anze Kopitar	92	1.12
					9	Blake Wheeler	91	1.12
					10	Sidney Crosby	89	1.09

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This ignores all the peak seasons Crosby missed because of injuries where he was on the verge of decapitating the league.I think despite the fact Morenz have the highest peak seasons in VsX, Crosby looks better here.

Star Power

I feel like they're dead even in this category.

Again from TDMM's post:

''Easily won a 1950 Canadian Press Poll for the greatest hockey player from 1900-1950.

Howie Morenz - 27 votes
Maurice Richard - 4 votes (only 5 seasons into his career!)
Cyclone Taylor - 3 votes
Frank Nighbor - 2 votes''

So Morenz was widely considered the greatest hockey player of all-time before Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe (at least in Canada).Very strong star power.

OTOH, Crosby is without a doubt the biggest star since Lemieux, and the biggest non-Big 4 star since 1970.He's been the face of the league for his entire career and a flawless ambassador to the game.His name goes beyond hockey.

Overall, I see no difference between their star power.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good post, BB.

I do think more highly of Morenz' defensive ability than Crosby's, however.

Also from my big post: Toe Blake called Morenz "one of the greatest backcheckers I ever saw," and Tommy Gorman said "Morenz was the fastest and greatest two-way center in the game."

I don't think Morenz is near Nighbor or Clarke territory defensively (that would be crazy), but I do think he received more praise for his defensive game than any other forward available this round.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Crosby has the playoffs advantage. Nothing against Morenz - he was mostly good in the playoffs.