Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3 (Secret of the Ooze)

[Theokritos]

Adding to seventieslord contribution. Seems the voting was limited to a select 44 in the CP reach. Quebec opinions seem to have been by-passed. Sparse press coverage in Québec, but a gem, above, was found.

For what it's worth, here's what Zotique Lespérance wrote in La Patrie in 1944 (link) in reference to Morenz' rookie season (1923-1924):

"Howie Morenz, who later had the reputation of the greatest player of all times."

Howie Morenz qui plus tard eut la renommée du plus grand joueur de hockey de tous les temps.

Lespérance adds:

"After a 14-year career in the NHL, the great Howie died tragically, having reigned supreme in hockey as Babe Ruth in baseball. The best tribute we could pay to Morenz was to nickname him 'Mister Hockey' [the moniker is predating Gordie Howe!] and repeat without ceasing that there will never be another Morenz."

Après une carriere de 14 années dans la N.H.L., le Grand Howie mourût tragiquement, ayant régné en roi dans le hockey, comme Babe Ruth régna dans le baseball. Le plus bel hommage que l'on pouvait alors rendre à Morenz était de la surnommer "Monsieur Hockey" et de répéter sans cesse qu'il n'y aura jamais plus un autre Morenz.

An interesting comparison with Maurice Richard:

"Moving over the entire length of the rink, Morenz was faster; [meanwhile] from the blue line to the net of the opponents, there was no equal to Richard. To return to the defence, Morenz was the perfect skater thanks to his speed; but in evading an opposing defenceman, Richard is the ace of aces."

Sur un élan de toute la longueur de la patinoire, Morenz était plus rapide; de la ligne bleue jusqu'au filet des adversaires, il n'y a pas eu l'égal à Richard. Pour revenir sur la défensive, Morenz était le patineur parfait grâce à sa grande rapidité mais pour éluder une défense rivale, Maurice est l'as des as.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mean, there probably is a very good argument for Jagr over Bourque (not that there isn’t an equally good argument for the other way around). Obviously he doesn’t have the playoffs of a Messier, but whether someone does or does not believe in a bias against defensemen in Hart voting, the Art Ross has to be considered a tougher accomplishment than most Norris Trophies, right?

Bourque has a lot less of that extra fat on his resume though. Never a time when you wouldn’t want a Ray Bourque, and that has to count for something when compared to a Jagr, Hasek, Shore, or even Nielsen-feud Messier.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Moving over the entire length of the rink, Morenz was faster; [meanwhile] from the blue line to the net of the opponents, there was no equal to Richard. To return to the defence, Morenz was the perfect skater thanks to his speed; but in evading an opposing defenceman, Richard is the ace of aces."

This seems dead-on accurate from what I've seen too. Good distinction by whomever this is spouting it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparing 5 years to a whole 20 year career is cherry picking stats. Not surprised. You loving winners and players who contribute to winning so please be consistent.

You did not do the math extensions. Not surprising. From 40-9 dynasty Canadiens would have to lose 17 straight games to get to Lidstrom levels. Comment was about the extent of superiority.

All dynasty teams - Canadiens, Leafs, Islanders did much better than Lidstrom. Potvin went 60 - 18 with the dynasty Islanders. Lidstrom was never part of such runs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No, I mean what I stated. Detroit lost to underdog Anaheim in 2007 after finishing in 1st place, 4th consecutive year they were upset in the playoffs.

I wouldn’t call 2006-07 Anaheim the underdogs at all. They were (along with Buffalo) the big Stanley Cup pick going into the season, and until they lost Pronger and Giguere at the same time, the top team in the NHL. More than that, Lidstrom had a great playoff.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Bourque has a lot less of that extra fat on his resume though. Never a time when you wouldn’t want a Ray Bourque, and that has to count for something when compared to a Jagr, Hasek, Shore, or even Nielsen-feud Messier.

Hmph, ya know, that's an interesting point and one that I really didn't consider in such a direction fashion but was considering by accident already...

Fittingly, Lidstrom and Bourque (I feel like I'm one of the few that has them really tight...I think MXD and I had them back to back on our prelims, though I may be mistaken with that too) will appear on my ballot about 68, Hasek, Shore and Mess...

 

[Canadiens1958]

This seems dead-on accurate from what I've seen too. Good distinction by whomever this is spouting it.

Zotique L'Esperence, one of the leading Québec sportswriters. Saw Morenz and Maurice Richard.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hmph, ya know, that's an interesting point and one that I really didn't consider in such a direction fashion but was considering by accident already...

Fittingly, Lidstrom and Bourque (I feel like I'm one of the few that has them really tight...I think MXD and I had them back to back on our prelims, though I may be mistaken with that too) will appear on my ballot about 68, Hasek, Shore and Mess...

Lidstrom over Jagr (or Hasek) is a step too far for me, personally. I’d trust him more if I was building a team, but I think his top-level isn’t quite there.

I did put him over Potvin this round though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I compiled a lot of information on Jagr in the ATD a few years ago and in particular put in some detail regarding his playoffs between 98-00 for those interested.

He was strong and consistent during this time and the Pens took out a few teams much higher in the standings as well. The Pens just didn't have the horses.

The tables from overpass showing how outstanding Jagr was at ES didn't make it through conversion but he was approaching Big 4 level there.

ATD 2013 BIO Thread (quotes, stats, pics, sources, everything)

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I wouldn’t call 2006-07 Anaheim the underdogs at all. They were (along with Buffalo) the big Stanley Cup pick going into the season, and until they lost Pronger and Giguere at the same time, the top team in the NHL. More than that, Lidstrom had a great playoff.

Certainly not a big underdog, but the team with home ice advantage is almost universally favoured in a playoff series. Detroit, coming off their third 1st overall finish in a row, was certainly a popular Stanley Cup pick as well. They also had Anaheim down 1-0 and 2-1 in games and let them off the mat. A black mark on Lidstrom's resume? No, but still a missed opportunity.

 

[danincanada]

Certainly not a big underdog, but the team with home ice advantage is almost universally favoured in a playoff series. Detroit, coming off their third 1st overall finish in a row, was certainly a popular Stanley Cup pick as well. They also had Anaheim down 1-0 and 2-1 in games and let them off the mat. A black mark on Lidstrom's resume? No, but still a missed opportunity.

The Red Wings should have been underdogs going into the series, home ice or not. They lost Kronwall to injury late in the season and Schneider right before the series against the Ducks. Those were arguably their # 2 and 3 defenseman and they had to play a rookie in Quincey and overplay 46 year old Chelios in their place. They weren’t the same team by the time they faced the Ducks and Lidstrom captained that short handed team admirably.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't quite agree. What you say here could also be said about Hull and Mikita. And yet Hull beats Mikita 436½ to 7 in that 1970 poll on the Best Player of the 1960s. Unreasonable? I don't think so. A big difference in a voting result doesn't necessarily mean two players were miles apart. As you rightly pointed out in your earlier post: A single-name ballot is not likely to deliver a nuanced picture. Yes, the numbers aren't close: The vast majority of voters thought player A was better than player B. But that doesn't mean the vast majority of voters also thought A was much better than B. If almost everyone thinks: It's close, but Morenz for me... then you get a landslide victory for Morenz like 27-1.

I think this is important to keep in mind.

Our very own vote ended up Gretzky (23), Orr (5), Howe (3), as far as first place votes go. This would imply Gretzky was far and away the best, yet we have hundreds of posts debating it. Howe ended up finishing ahead of Orr overall, despite fewer 1st place votes. Lemieux and Ray Bourque both had 0 first place votes, but obviously were not seen as equal by the panel overall.

 

[danincanada]

You did not do the math extensions. Not surprising. From 40-9 dynasty Canadiens would have to lose 17 straight games to get to Lidstrom levels. Comment was about the extent of superiority.

All dynasty teams - Canadiens, Leafs, Islanders did much better than Lidstrom. Potvin went 60 - 18 with the dynasty Islanders. Lidstrom was never part of such runs.

Do you believe there are no more true dynasties anymore simply because there aren’t any truly great players anymore? That’s what it seems like.

Lidstrom didn’t have the top centre and top goalie with him like the 50’s Habs did. No team has that type of situation anymore but of course it’s not a tiny 6 team league anymore either.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The Red Wings should have been underdogs going into the series, home ice or not. They lost Kronwall to injury late in the season and Schneider right before the series against the Ducks. Those were arguably their # 2 and 3 defenseman and they had to play a rookie in Quincey and overplay 46 year old Chelios in their place. They weren’t the same team by the time they faced the Ducks and Lidstrom captained that short handed team admirably.

Alright, let's throw this one out then and say it was a toss-up. Does it really change our overall outlook, that being Detroit having a dip in post-season performance relative to expectations while Lidstrom was driving the bus, in between the Yzerman/Fedorov and Zatterberg/Datsyuk eras? I don't want to belabour this point; I mean it is just one talking point of many. But Lidstrom is perceived as a low-peak player relative to the guys he's up against in this vote. I think this 2003-2007 stretch as a whole lends support to this idea. If it can be dispelled as bad timing and he really did have a Bourque-like positive impact while Deroit went down to Anaheim, Calgary, and Edmonton in succession as heavy favorites, I'm all ears.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Lidstrom didn’t have the top centre and top goalie with him like the 50’s Habs did.

Ya because he just played with centers like Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg, what a bunch of plugs...

 

[Sentinel]

No, I mean what I stated. Detroit lost to underdog Anaheim in 2007 after finishing in 1st place, 4th consecutive year they were upset in the playoffs. I'd be inclined to forgive the 2003 loss to Anaheim though. Giguere played maybe the greatest series of all time against them, tough to find a lot of fault there. But is Detroit's four year stretch of playoff underachieving perfectly overlapping with the time span where Lidstrom was pretty clearly their top player just coincidental? Maybe. I mean, I certainly wouldn't direct outright blame in his direction. But it does put a big damper on any suggestion that Lidstrom could get a less-than-great roster to swing above their weight class. Not that all the other candidates necessarily could either. But Bourque specifically did demonstrate that he could. As far as my vote goes, this will be a key reason why I have a gap between Bourque (3rd this vote pending further arguments) and Lidstrom (undecided).

Detroit lost to 03' Ducks and 04' Flames, when both Giguere and Kiprusoff had historically significant performances that turned into very deep runs. 07 Ducks won the Cup. Add to that 06 Oilers, and you have four losses to the teams that went to the Finals. Blaming it on Lidstrom is a very fresh take, when Shanahan, Hull, and Luc have seemingly forgotten how to score and Datsyuk hasn't learned yet.

f it can be dispelled as bad timing and he really did have a Bourque-like positive impact while Deroit went down to Anaheim, Calgary, and Edmonton in succession as heavy favorites, I'm all ears.

There was no player on Detroit team in those years similar to Neely at his peak, when Bourque's Boston did anything of note in playoffs.

 

[MXD]

Dumping some stuff in here, not sure if this is of any interest

Winnipeg Tribune, 4 Avril 1946

... There was a time when Percy Galbraith was a star?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Do you believe there are no more true dynasties anymore simply because there aren’t any truly great players anymore? That’s what it seems like.

Lidstrom didn’t have the top centre and top goalie with him like the 50’s Habs did. No team has that type of situation anymore but of course it’s not a tiny 6 team league anymore either.

Players are more complete these days. One dimensional offensive players disappeared a generation ago for the most part. Exception Ovechkin.

Top centers - others replied to this nonsense. Top goalie. Arguing against Hasek now.

Hockey has always been a 5/7 game in terms of competing for the SC.

Excellent coach and management.5-7 excellent to star players. Five, a team makes the playoffs, seven excellent chance to go to the finals.True in a six team league. True during various expansions and consolidations, True today.

Canadiens won five SCs with a core of Plante/Harvey/Beliveau/H.Richard/Moore plus two, an aging Maurice Richard and Tom Johnson. Surrounded by depth players who brought great diversity. Sixties four in five team had a similar structure Worsley/Laperriere/Beliveau/Henri Richard/Provost plus Backstrom and Lemaire the last two seasons. plus depth.

Detroit basically an excellent goalie/Lidstrom plus a HHOF defenceman/Yzerman/Federov(Later Datsyuk/Zetterberg) plus two from the likes of Shanahan, Robitaille, Brett Hull Larianov. For a variety of reasons the wheels kepth falling off in Detroit.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Detroit lost to 03' Ducks and 04' Flames, when both Giguere and Kiprusoff had historically significant performances that turned into very deep runs. 07 Ducks won the Cup. Add to that 06 Oilers, and you have four losses to the teams that went to the Finals. Blaming it on Lidstrom is a very fresh take, when Shanahan, Hull, and Luc have seemingly forgotten how to score and Datsyuk hasn't learned yet.


There was no player on Detroit team in those years similar to Neely at his peak, when Bourque's Boston did anything of note in playoffs.

Also true of all the dynasty teams. Talk with all the boot Neely from the HHOF crew.

 

[ImporterExporter]

While I do think that playing in the 06 era was absolutely more difficult in the sense that you played more quality opponents more often, the fact that "dynasties" as we would have called them are more or less gone and have been for some time, is a testament to the struggles franchises face today in being great for extended periods of time.

1. Salary cap. The league is structured in a way that it prevents a team from being able to consolidate elite talent up and down a lineup. No matter how you slice it, you wouldn't be able to retain 6, 7, 8 HOF caliber players on a roster today. Just simply isn't doable math wise for any extended amount of time.

2. Draft. Gone are the days when teams more or less bought teenagers and fostered them through their AHL or Jr level tiers before arriving in the NHL. If you're a poor team you get a draft pick that in theory compensates you for being poor. You can't simply go and sign Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid when they're 16-18 years old. Winning is obviously preferable, but it also means you have a tougher time drafting quality talent.

3. Season length and travel. 82 games, playoffs that add another 2 full months to the regular season. You have to play 100 some odd games today to win the Cup. Traveling 2 and 3000 miles is not uncommon. You're talking (camp and preseason) September through early June for a Cup run. That's an incredible amount of time.

 

[Theokritos]

Mod Note: Top 100 project or not, the site rules are still in force. If some of you keep acting as if they were ignorant of this, there will be consequences beyond posts getting deleted. Consider this a last warning.

 

[BenchBrawl]

We say the days of dynasties are gone...until one comes up.

It's not like the 2010s were a model of parity.

 

[danincanada]

Ya because he just played with centers like Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg, what a bunch of plugs...

I said “the top centre” as in the top centre in the game, 1st team all-star centre like Beliveau was most seasons for those Habs teams and like Plante was in net for many of those seasons. Lidstrom had some great centers but he didn’t have the top centre in the game, except for ‘94, which was before his prime. Goaltending? He had one second team AS in Osgood and that’s the best he had his whole career in terms of AS nominations. Hasek was at least in his very last season of his prime, if not right out of it but we all know how that turned out anyway.

 

[Michael Farkas]

...and Hasek.

 

[danincanada]

Top centers - others replied to this nonsense. Top goalie. Arguing against Hasek now..

You make it sound like Lidstrom had prime Hasek behind him his whole career. What he got was 37 year old Hasek and looked how that turned out. Again, he had the top centre in the game once and that was prior to his prime. The Red Wings were never as stacked as the 50’s Habs, especially due to their goaltending, which often became their Achilles heel in the playoffs.

Detroit basically an excellent goalie/Lidstrom plus a HHOF defenceman/Yzerman/Federov(Later Datsyuk/Zetterberg) plus two from the likes of Shanahan, Robitaille, Brett Hull Larianov. For a variety of reasons the wheels kepth falling off in Detroit.

Their “excellent” goaltenders usually were the second best goaltender in any given playoff series, and it often wasn’t close. When is Osgood coming up in this project anyways?