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

[BenchBrawl]

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.

Reasonable conclusion.

I do wonder how Morenz stack up against Crosby in ''board play''.Crosby must be one of the greatest ever along the board.This is not a defensive skill, but it's in the constellation of ''all-around play''.In the same vein, Crosby has proven himself a great leader.I haven't dig about Morenz' leadership, something to explore.

Also couldn't find anything on Morenz' faceoffs skills, but I only ctrl-f some key words in his bios.

As of now I'm siding with you that Morenz had more intangibles than Crosby.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

Excellent post but premature for Crosby for a number of reasons.

Unlike Morenz,Crosby never never had to compete against another generational dynasty, complete game center Lady Byng winner.

Depth of competition favours Morenz. At least two superstar plus centers, Ranger and Maroon. Two generational RWs, Ranger and Leaf. Plus Eddie Shore and probably three-four goalies who will place in this project. This is without considering teammates.

Crosby is playing in a parity / mediocrity era. Defined by a ratio 1:3:3. Total 5/7.

To challenge for a playoff spot, a team needs a solid goalie, two solid defencemen, two solid forwards.1:3:1 or 1:1:3 also work. SC run 1:3:3 or 1:4:2. Plus sufficient filler players for depth.

Crosby's strength is playing with filler players, keeping,them in line and hungry.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Reasonable conclusion.

I do wonder how Morenz stack up against Crosby in ''board play''.Crosby must be one of the greatest ever along the board.This is not a defensive skill, but it's in the constellation of ''all-around play''.In the same vein, Crosby has proven himself a great leader.I haven't dig about Morenz' leadership, something to explore.

Also couldn't find anything on Morenz' faceoffs skills, but I only ctrl-f some key words in his bios.

As of now I'm siding with you that Morenz had more intangibles than Crosby.

Faceoff skills not a factor until the center Red Line started driving strategy.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Now that you mention it, I said Crosby faced tougher competition at forward, but I'm not sure this is true.

If you look at Crosby, his competition was not that good.Some mix of Ovechkin, Sedin, Kane, Benn, Thornton, Getzlaf, Giroux, Tavares, St. Louis, Stamkos, teammate Malkin and so on.

Morenz had Frank Boucher, old Frank Nighbor, Nels Stewart, Bill Cook, Cy Denneny, Charlie Conacher, Frank Fredrickson, Busher Jackson, Ebbie Goodfellow, Babe Dye, teammate Joliat and so on.

Obviously peak Ovechkin is tough competition for the Hart and AR, but after that it's not that strong a group.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Excellent post but premature for Crosby for a number of reasons.

Unlike Morenz,Crosby never never had to compete against another generational dynasty, complete game center Lady Byng winner.

Depth of competition favours Morenz. At least two superstar plus centers, Ranger and Maroon. Two generational RWs, Ranger and Leaf. Plus Eddie Shore and probably three-four goalies who will place in this project. This is without considering teammates.

Crosby is playing in a parity / mediocrity era. Defined by a ratio 1:3:3. Total 5/7.

To challenge for a playoff spot, a team needs a solid goalie, two solid defencemen, two solid forwards.1:3:1 or 1:1:3 also work. SC run 1:3:3 or 1:4:2. Plus sufficient filler players for depth.

Crosby's strength is playing with filler players, keeping,them in line and hungry.

In Crosby's defense, it's not his fault that he's playing in this environment.As your last sentence note, Crosby adapted to his environment by excelling at enhancing filler players, ultimately taking them to three Stanley Cup championships.

It's too bad that Crosby never faced Toews in the SC Finals in their prime.That would have been interesting.I think Pittsburgh only faced Boston and Bergeron one time, and Pittsburgh got cleaned 4-0, Crosby held scoreless.I don't remember that series very well.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Chicago-Pittsburgh- the Epic Rivalry that Never Was- Pt 1

I'm going to leave this here-- not because I think it will be a big help in evaluating players. I just think it's something interesting I fleshed out- and might qualify as one of those fascinating tidbits that might make for a good read for someone who digs up this thread a few years from now.

During the span from 08-09 to 16-17, nine Stanley Cups were contested, and the Pittsburgh Penguins OR the Chicago BlackHawks won six of them. During their respective Cup runs, they have both reached the playoff promised land while completely and utterly avoiding contact with one another. And because they're in different divisions, they've avoided considerable contact with one another during the regular season, as well.

Now, if this were an O-6 or even E-6 paradigm, we'd have, oh- at least half-a-dozen (or a dozen +) regular season games per season to assess the Crosby-Malkin Penguins in a head-to-head against the Kane-Toews BlackHawks- and have a whole lot of data-points to review and process how the league's best-on-best performed against one another when on the same ice. We might also have a couple of hard-fought epic playoff series that future generations would discuss and analyze. Instead thanks to the "joys" of the 30-team league, we have a paltry dozen regular-season games- total. Furthermore, upon review of the availability of the relevant player(s) involved, we have even less than that.

During the relevant time span, the scoreboard reads as follows:

Chicago- 9 wins, 2 losses, 1 loser-point
Pittsburgh- 3 wins, 4 losses, 5 loser-points

I looked into this because I have specific memories of how Pittsburgh played Chicago when Pittsburgh was visiting. I remember how Pittsburgh would have limbs over the boards in a continual effort to keep Crosby away from the Toews matchup. I don't present that as a knock against Crosby- and if I was less partisan, I could easily see myself making a similar observation about Kane's deployment when HE was on the road.

I'll go to the tape in Part II

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Chicago-Pittsburgh: The Epic Rivalry that Never Was- Part II

In the Crosby Cup era, Pittsburgh and Chicago have played twelve regular season games. Chicago has generally prevailed- but I freely admit that it's a piteous sample-size, made even less valuable by the fact that they're stinking regular-season games. Still, I'd like to go ahead and look at them one-by-one:

2008/09- Pittsburgh wins 5-4 in O/T. Loss can be passed off on the fact that the marginal Christobal Huet was Chicago's goalie that day- but here's the thing- Crosby didn't play.
2009/10- Chicago wins 2-1 in O/T. Again- Crosby didn't play.
2010/11- Pittsburgh wins 3-2 in shootout. One more time: Crosby didn't play.
2011/12- Finally an outright win- Pittsburgh 3-2. The only slightly less marginal Ray Emery in net for Chicago- and there's that thing again: Crosby didn't play.

[Now, Crosby was oft-injured in that span. I'm not trying to imply that he came down with the Windy-City strain of Philly-flu...]
(2012-13 was the abbreviated season- and they did not meet at all.)

Finally, in 2013-14, in Crosby's 9th year, we get a matchup where Crosby, Malkin, Kane and Toews are all on the ice for the same game. Chicago wins 5-1. They play again later than season- Pittsburgh avenges the loss 4-1. But here's a twist- Kane didn't play. I try to be fair... Malkin didn't play, either.
2014/15- two games on the schedule-- the first time, Chicago wins 2-1 in shootout. Second time Chicago again wins 3-2 in shootout... but Malkin didn't play on that occasion.
2015/16- they schedule a home-and-home- Chicago collects the points- 3-1 at home and 3-2 on the road, in O/T.
2016/17- another pair of games-- another four points for the BlackHawks- a 4-1 victory at home and a 5-1 win on the road- but Malkin didn't play in that encounter.

And here we gently fade-to-black. The next time these two teams play, it looks pretty ugly. Now- what does all this mean for our assessment of Crosby? It doesn't mean jack-shit, really. If you're looking to claim that Crosby would have collected more Cups if he'd gone head-to-head with Chicago, there's no evidence here to suggest that possibility. If you're looking to make the converse point, the sample size- and (ir)relevance of the regular-season meetings, is woefully insufficient to make a definitive conclusion.

Would have been nice if we could have run this one a few more times, though...

 

[dr robbie]

TLDR:

Now- what does all this mean for our assessment of Crosby? It doesn't mean jack-****, really.

Honestly, I'm trying to read through your post a couple times (trying to ignore the biases) and really cant figure out what you're objective is here. Basically Crosby didn't play Chicago much, was often injured, when he wasn't injured, other players were out, and it's hard to determine how a SC final would look between the two? Correct?

 

[DannyGallivan]

You're going backwards, Den...Gretzky was smart and it didn't translate into being a coach for other reasons...Shore does not seem as smart and then also didn't make it as a coach...whether it's because he wasn't that smart about the game after all or because he was just the d word, I don't think we exactly know...but there's more smoke there than there is with Gretzky certainly...

Well, Gretzky had the best vision of all time. I don't think there's evidence that he was particularly "smart".

There are many hockey legends who didn't have what it takes to lead behind the bench. The circus Quebec City put on at the expense of Maurice Richard, and Maurice's teammate Boom-Boom's failed attempts are other examples.

Anyways, it doesn't really matter how smart you are, as long as you produce on the ice. So, I'm not factoring I.Q. into my rankings.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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.

I had Bourque 20th on my list, but the impossible is happening and I'm actually being influenced during these voting rounds.
The mysterious "eye test" worked against him. He wasn't particularly dynamic. Then again, neither was Lidstrom. And the Bruins weren't winning Cups with him either, although that's not really his fault.
However, I'm starting to think that I had him grossly underrated.

 

[bobholly39]

So I wanted to do a comparison of the 4 more “modern” players. Bourque, Crosby, Hasek and Roy. I’ll do a similar style scoreboard of all of their best seasons as I did in round 1 with the big 4. Here is the grade on which I’m scoring:

Extra Special – 10 points
Great - 5 points
Good - 2 points
Ok - 1 point
“Zero” - 0 points (the stuff not really worth looking at – I simply ignored those. Either due to crappy play or not enough games played)

It was important for me to highlight “moments” and not just individual seasons. (ie golden goal, or 98 olympics). I also wanted to capture non-NHL stuff and combine things where it made sense (so all of Hasek’s pre-NHL stuff earns him one extra combined “extra special” score). In some cases I averaged two items and put one in one category vs one in another (ex: Roy’s 89 & 96 playoffs, or Crosby’s 2008/2009 – instead of putting both great or extra special, I put 1 each).

Obviously this is subjective but here is an idea of what constitutes each category. Extra special is a truly special moment/achievement, or a significant award (Hart, Pearson, Smythe). “Great” is usually Vezina, Norris, Rocket – or possibly lack of any of those yet still an extremely great run/season. “Good” is every good season. These are all fantastic players, and combined have very few seasons/playoffs below this threshold. “ok” are seasons/playoffs that I tally up for longevity but that are mostly disappointing. Some particularly bad or short seasons were ignored completely.

Sidney Crosby
Totals	Ok	Good	Great	Extra Special	Total Score
	2014 playoffs	2006 season	2010 season	2007 season
	2015 playoffs	2008 season	2011 season	2014 season
		2009 season	2013 season	2009 playoffs
		2015 season	2016 season	2016 playoffs
		2018 season	2017 season	2017 playoffs
		2007 playoffs	2008 playoffs	2010 olympics
		2010 playoffs	2018 playoffs	2016 world up
		2012 playoffs	2014 olympic
		2013 playoffs
Total Count	2	9	8	7
Total Score	2	18	40	70	130

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

26 Total elements ranked. I scored both 2011 and 2013 seasons as “great”. To me level of domination over peers is definitely worthy of recognition, despite smaller sample size (2012 ignored completely). His smythes & harts give him 4 extra specials, his 2009 playoffs as well (vs 2008 is great, flip a coin between both). Then I also gave him extra special for the golden goal (due to importance of winning a gold medal on home soil – it helps he was captain too and the biggest star who came through) and the 2016 world cup MVP (best on best tournament MVP is important I feel). I gave him a “great” designation for the 2014 olympics – in large part because he was captain and had a big responsibility in winning/losing – but I could see the argument for knocking this down to “good”. The rest is pretty self-explanatory I feel.

Patrick Roy
Totals	OK	Good	Great	Extra Special	Total Score
	86 season	87 season	89 season	86 playoffs
	93 season	88 season	90 season	93 playoffs
	95 season	91 season	92 season	96 playoffs
	99 season	94 season	2002 season	2001 playoffs
	87 playoffs	96 season	89 playoffs
	88 playoffs	97 season	97 playoffs
	91 playoffs	98 season	2000 playoffs
	98 playoffs	2000 season	98 olympics
	2003 playoffs	2001 season
		2003 season
		90 playoffs
		92 playoffs
		94 playoffs
		99 playoffs
		2002 playoffs
Total Count	9	15	8	4
Total Score	9	30	40	40	119

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

His 3 smythes are “extra special”. I also wanted to give 1 of 96 or 89 playoffs “extra special” so put one in that category and one in great. 98 olympics gets a “great” nod. All his vezinas are “great”. For playoff runs, as a #1 goalie I looked at statistics but also simply results. More games played, more rounds won = better ranking.

Hasek
Totals	OK	Good	Great	Extra Special	Total Score
	90-93 seasons	96 season	95 season	PRE-NHL stuff
	90-93 playoffs	2000 season	99 season	94 season
	2000 playoffs	2002 season	2001 season	97 season
		2006 seaspm	98 playoffs	98 season
		2007 season	2002 playoffs	99 playoffs
		2008 season		98 olympics
		1994 playoffs
		1997 playoffs
		2001 playoffs
		2007 playoffs
		2008 playoffs
Total Count	3	11	5	6
Total Score	3	22	25	60	110

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Hasek gets 6 “extra special” nods. His hart seasons are self-explanatory. I also gave 94 the nod. Honestly, I feel his 94, 99 and even 2001 season are pretty great – and I wanted to at least average out and bump one up a level, which is why 94 got the rank of “extra special”. 98 olympics too. I hesitated on playoffs – but finally gave 1999 extra special. Is it fair that 99 Hasek playoffs is here but 89 Roy is not? Maybe in a 1 to 1 comparison no – but I figure between 2002 playoffs, 99 playoffs and even 98 playoffs Hasek deserved one “extra special” nod which is why 1999 made it. I also wanted to highlight his pre-NHL stuff, so I combined it into one “extra special” score. Rest is pretty straightforward.

Bourque
Totals	OK	Good	Great	Extra Special	Total Score
	81 playoffs	80 season	85 season
	84 playoffs	81 season	87 season
	87 playoffs	82 season	88 season
	85 playoffs	83 season	90 season
	89 playoffs	84 season	91 season
	95 playoffs	86 season	94 season
	98 playoffs	89 season	83 playoffs
		92 season	88 playoffs
		93 season	2001 playoffs
		95 season	International resume
		96 season
		97 season
		98 season
		99 season
		2000 season
		2001 season
		80 playoffs
		82 playoffs
		90 playoffs
		91 playoffs
		92 playoffs
		94 playoffs
		96 playoffs
		99 playoffs
		2000 playoffs
Total Count	7	25	10	0
Total Score	7	50	50	0	107

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bourque’s biggest strength is definitely his longevity. 25 “good” nods, but no “extra special” ones. He does also get 10 “great” nods. The “great” stuff are the Norris or strong hart placements. His 2001 playoffs gets a nod too as do a couple of others – and his overall international resume gets a “great” too.

Total Results:

Summary Table	OK	Good	Great	Extra Special	Total
Sidney Crosby	2	18	40	70	130
Patrick Roy	8	30	40	40	118
Dominik Hasek	3	22	25	60	110
Ray Bouque	7	50	50	0	107

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Out of 26 items ranked, Crosby scores 130. Average of 5 (or great).
Out of 36 items ranked, Roy scores 119. Average of 3.3 (halfway between good & great).
Out of 25 items ranked, Hasek scores 110. Average of 4.4 (closer to great than good)
Out of 42 items ranked, Bourque scores 107. Average of 2.5 (very close to “good”).

Conclusions:

Crosby ranks #1. He has more accomplishments and high end stuff than everyone, and his average rank is also easily the highest. Very impressive.
Patrick Roy ranks #2 overall – but #3 in average rank. Still the idea in this exercise is to try and calculate if enough “longevity” overtakes “better” stuff, since we’re ranking players overall and not just peak. Results seem to say that yes, Roy over Hasek.
Hasek ranks #3 overall – but #2 in average rank. Very high average rank which is highly impressive. Still he does lack overall longevity I feel to take over Roy.
Bourque. I really feel he doesn’t belong here. His overall score of 107 is close to Hasek maybe – but he really doesn’t stand out much. A wall of consistency and so many good (and great) seasons – but not much “extra special” about him. His average rank is disappointingly low at 2.5.

 

[MXD]

... Wait...
You just put Crosby 2016 playoffs on par with ... ALL of Roy Cup-winning runs?

Hasek 93-94 reg season being extra-special despite not making the Top-10 in minutes played for goalies? There's no doubt Hasek was absolutely phenomenal by the way. It's just that there's this thing with minutes played, and the fact he was arguably not even the best netminder who didn't make the Top-10 for minutes played in the NHL that season!

 

[The Macho King]

There are just so many methodological issues with that entire process I don't know where to begin...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, Gretzky had the best vision of all time. I don't think there's evidence that he was particularly "smart".

Anyways, it doesn't really matter how smart you are, as long as you produce on the ice. So, I'm not factoring I.Q. into my rankings.

No, sir. Yes, we actually do know that he was a smart hockey player. No question about it.

Hockey sense is part of the proper talent evaluation package. This is how you tell who is driving the ship and who is swabbing your poop deck...

Recent example that seems to come up. "Oh, the Habs won without Harvey" or "the Habs won without Plante, how valuable was he really?" Those questions can largely be answered with proper talent evaluation. That's how we know that it was Mario Lemieux dragging Rob Brown and Warren Young along and not the other way around. It's how you know that Roman Cechmanek wasn't gonna make it as anything useful despite a couple seasons of good stats...this is how you don't get duped.

In other words, it's intrinsically valuable to the process.

 

[The Macho King]

I had Bourque 20th on my list, but the impossible is happening and I'm actually being influenced during these voting rounds.
The mysterious "eye test" worked against him. He wasn't particularly dynamic. Then again, neither was Lidstrom. And the Bruins weren't winning Cups with him either, although that's not really his fault.
However, I'm starting to think that I had him grossly underrated.

There are some players that the deeper you look the better they look. There are some that the deeper you look the worse they look.

That's kind of what makes this fun for me. I learn a lot and get to challenge my own preconceptions.

 

[bobholly39]

... Wait...
You just put Crosby 2016 playoffs on par with ... ALL of Roy Cup-winning runs?

Hasek 93-94 reg season being extra-special despite not making the Top-10 in minutes played for goalies? There's no doubt Hasek was absolutely phenomenal by the way. It's just that there's this thing with minutes played, and the fact he was arguably not even the best netminder who didn't make the Top-10 for minutes played in the NHL that season!

Regarding 2016 Crosby playoffs thats a good point. Ill adjust it down a tier.

Regarding 93-94 Hasek. The idea was that by looking at 94 99 and 01 all 3 were in between great or slightly better and i wanted to highlight that so raised one above.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, sir. Yes, we actually do know that he was a smart hockey player. No question about it.

Hockey sense is part of the proper talent evaluation package. This is how you tell who is driving the ship and who is swabbing your poop deck...

Recent example that seems to come up. "Oh, the Habs won without Harvey" or "the Habs won without Plante, how valuable was he really?" Those questions can largely be answered with proper talent evaluation. That's how we know that it was Mario Lemieux dragging Rob Brown and Warren Young along and not the other way around. It's how you know that Roman Cechmanek wasn't gonna make it as anything useful despite a couple seasons of good stats...this is how you don't get duped.

In other words, it's intrinsically valuable to the process.

Another aspects of hockey smarts is leaving a legacy, template,imprint for the way a team plays.

Post Harvey the Canadiens defencemen retained the transition teachings and techniques thru various defencemen for close to two generations. The forwards, kept moving and coming back. The basics of the PP and PK were retained.

Did not see this with Bourque and the Red Wings forgot their star defenceman overnight.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

TLDR:


Honestly, I'm trying to read through your post a couple times (trying to ignore the biases) and really cant figure out what you're (sic) objective is here. Basically Crosby didn't play Chicago much, was often injured, when he wasn't injured, other players were out, and it's hard to determine how a SC final would look between the two? Correct?

I appreciate your attempt to have a go at this. If you're late to this party, you're currently dialoging with the last vote's most active (IMO reasonable) advocate for placing Lemieux higher than the 4th place slot he's been consigned to the last few times we've run this project.

I do hope you'll make another attempt at my submission-- I don't think you got the full flavor of it. If I had to boil it down to one overriding point, I'll stick with what I said in the last sentence-- that I wish I could have seen this matchup run a few more times- with all principals healthy. Perhaps even a Final-for-the-Ages or two between those two teams. And- for a peek behind the composer-screen for one of my sub rosa points, there's kind of a Retro-Grouch lament that the Bloated League bears some responsibility for this coming to pass. If these teams were O-6 or even O-6+E-6 principals, we'd know so much more about how they'd interact with one another, wouldn't we?!

There are some other things lodged in there as well, but I won't get into them now- it's like trying to explain humor to someone that didn't laugh when it was first expressed.

Can't spoon-feed everything, dont'cha know.

 

[seventieslord]

Chicago-Pittsburgh: The Epic Rivalry that Never Was- Part II

In the Crosby Cup era, Pittsburgh and Chicago have played twelve regular season games. Chicago has generally prevailed- but I freely admit that it's a piteous sample-size, made even less valuable by the fact that they're stinking regular-season games. Still, I'd like to go ahead and look at them one-by-one:

2008/09- Pittsburgh wins 5-4 in O/T. Loss can be passed off on the fact that the marginal Christobal Huet was Chicago's goalie that day- but here's the thing- Crosby didn't play.
2009/10- Chicago wins 2-1 in O/T. Again- Crosby didn't play.
2010/11- Pittsburgh wins 3-2 in shootout. One more time: Crosby didn't play.
2011/12- Finally an outright win- Pittsburgh 3-2. The only slightly less marginal Ray Emery in net for Chicago- and there's that thing again: Crosby didn't play.

[Now, Crosby was oft-injured in that span. I'm not trying to imply that he came down with the Windy-City strain of Philly-flu...]
(2012-13 was the abbreviated season- and they did not meet at all.)

Finally, in 2013-14, in Crosby's 9th year, we get a matchup where Crosby, Malkin, Kane and Toews are all on the ice for the same game. Chicago wins 5-1. They play again later than season- Pittsburgh avenges the loss 4-1. But here's a twist- Kane didn't play. I try to be fair... Malkin didn't play, either.
2014/15- two games on the schedule-- the first time, Chicago wins 2-1 in shootout. Second time Chicago again wins 3-2 in shootout... but Malkin didn't play on that occasion.
2015/16- they schedule a home-and-home- Chicago collects the points- 3-1 at home and 3-2 on the road, in O/T.
2016/17- another pair of games-- another four points for the BlackHawks- a 4-1 victory at home and a 5-1 win on the road- but Malkin didn't play in that encounter.

And here we gently fade-to-black. The next time these two teams play, it looks pretty ugly. Now- what does all this mean for our assessment of Crosby? It doesn't mean jack-****, really. If you're looking to claim that Crosby would have collected more Cups if he'd gone head-to-head with Chicago, there's no evidence here to suggest that possibility. If you're looking to make the converse point, the sample size- and (ir)relevance of the regular-season meetings, is woefully insufficient to make a definitive conclusion.

Would have been nice if we could have run this one a few more times, though...

So you're telling us that all the big stars on those two teams were only on the same sheet of ice once??

 

[DannyGallivan]

No, sir. Yes, we actually do know that he was a smart hockey player. No question about it.

Hockey sense is part of the proper talent evaluation package. This is how you tell who is driving the ship and who is swabbing your poop deck...

Recent example that seems to come up. "Oh, the Habs won without Harvey" or "the Habs won without Plante, how valuable was he really?" Those questions can largely be answered with proper talent evaluation. That's how we know that it was Mario Lemieux dragging Rob Brown and Warren Young along and not the other way around. It's how you know that Roman Cechmanek wasn't gonna make it as anything useful despite a couple seasons of good stats...this is how you don't get duped.

In other words, it's intrinsically valuable to the process.

Semantics, I suppose. I've known people who've spent some time with Gretzky. Exceptionally nice guy. Not too bright.

Personally, I value "nice guy" over "intelligence" anyways.

 

[seventieslord]

So I wanted to do a comparison of the 4 more “modern” players. Bourque, Crosby, Hasek and Roy. I’ll do a similar style scoreboard of all of their best seasons as I did in round 1 with the big 4. Here is the grade on which I’m scoring:

Extra Special – 10 points
Great - 5 points
Good - 2 points
Ok - 1 point
“Zero” - 0 points (the stuff not really worth looking at – I simply ignored those. Either due to crappy play or not enough games played)

It was important for me to highlight “moments” and not just individual seasons. (ie golden goal, or 98 olympics). I also wanted to capture non-NHL stuff and combine things where it made sense (so all of Hasek’s pre-NHL stuff earns him one extra combined “extra special” score). In some cases I averaged two items and put one in one category vs one in another (ex: Roy’s 89 & 96 playoffs, or Crosby’s 2008/2009 – instead of putting both great or extra special, I put 1 each).

Obviously this is subjective but here is an idea of what constitutes each category. Extra special is a truly special moment/achievement, or a significant award (Hart, Pearson, Smythe). “Great” is usually Vezina, Norris, Rocket – or possibly lack of any of those yet still an extremely great run/season. “Good” is every good season. These are all fantastic players, and combined have very few seasons/playoffs below this threshold. “ok” are seasons/playoffs that I tally up for longevity but that are mostly disappointing. Some particularly bad or short seasons were ignored completely.

Sidney Crosby
Totals	Ok	Good	Great	Extra Special	Total Score
	2014 playoffs	2006 season	2010 season	2007 season
	2015 playoffs	2008 season	2011 season	2014 season
		2009 season	2013 season	2009 playoffs
		2015 season	2016 season	2016 playoffs
		2018 season	2017 season	2017 playoffs
		2007 playoffs	2008 playoffs	2010 olympics
		2010 playoffs	2018 playoffs	2016 world up
		2012 playoffs	2014 olympic
		2013 playoffs
Total Count	2	9	8	7
Total Score	2	18	40	70	130

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So Crosby earned 10 points for 6 games played in the 2016 world cup, and 5 points for his 2010 season (to name just one).

This is ok with you?

 

[bobholly39]

So Crosby earned 10 points for 6 games played in the 2016 world cup, and 5 points for his 2010 season (to name just one).

This is ok with you?

Yes. Hasek also gets 10 points for 6 games in the 98 olympics.

Its important for me to highlight big moments and achievments that make a player special. World cup was a best on best tournament and he stood out as mvp despite the small sample size.

If we ever get to ranking Paul Henderson i expect that his 1 goal may hold more value than multiple seasons combined. I dont see a problem with this tbh.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Semantics, I suppose. I've known people who've spent some time with Gretzky. Exceptionally nice guy. Not too bright.

Personally, I value "nice guy" over "intelligence" anyways.

Hockey smarts and being book smart or even common sense smart are not close to the same thing, nor, in my experience are they all that related. I say that as someone who coaches at an Ivy League school haha

 

[bobholly39]

There are just so many methodological issues with that entire process I don't know where to begin...

I mean i would hope every voter does something somewhat similar with eligible players.

List the criteria that are most important to you. Grade each player on each criteria. Weight criteria appropriately if you value some more than others. and see who comes out ahead.

Isnt that the whole point?

Maybe you disagree with some specific grades or such but i dont see anything wrong with the methodology.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I mean i would hope every voter does something somewhat similar with eligible players.

List the criteria that are most important to you. Grade each player on each criteria. Weight criteria appropriately if you value some more than others. and see who comes out ahead.

Isnt that the whole point?

Maybe you disagree with some specific grades or such but i dont see anything wrong with the methodology.

If it works for you, great. We all bring our own perspective to every player we rate. That's the way it should be and I applaude your effort.
Personally, I just think your method is still very subjective. A different person could come up with totally different results.