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

[MXD]

... And now that this round draws to a close...

- I really hope that Crosby, Bourque and Morenz make it and I REALLY hope that Hasek makes it, because, frankly, if he doesn't, that could potentially mean (for me at least) three goalies at the top of next round (and Mike would probably ragequit the whole thing).

 

[BraveCanadian]

Except to move his name up the all-time players list that fans will inevitably create decades in the future!

Yes, he totally missed that aspect.

Also I can't remember when the NHL free agency rules kicked in that would have let him go to another contender to continue trying to stay at the top.. so I'm not sure if that was a factor.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

For consideration, maybe the league just got "too better", too fast for players exiting their prime...the talent level disparity and overall crumminess (relatively speaking) of game play from around 1980 to 84 or 85 or so might help to explain this...

Fairly prominent early 80's guys crashed and burned pretty hard at around age 33 or 34 when the game took a turn for the better: King Richard, Don Lever, Peter McNab, Mike Milbury, Bobby Nystrom, Jim Schoenfeld, Bob Gainey, Lanny McDonald, Dave Lewis, Denis Potvin (relative to what he was doing), Tom Lysiak, Andre Savard, Blaine Stoughton, Blair MacDonald, Danny Gare, Doug Risebrough, Stef Persson, Mike Rogers, Mike Palmateer, Brian Engblom, Cowboy Willi Plett, Wilf Paiement, Don Edwards, Pat Price, Dennis Maruk...why did Pierre Mondou quit again? I don't recall...

"Yes, but Mikey, you can find examples in any era of players retiring early or breaking down early at any time...Mike Richards, etc. what's your point?"

Glad you asked mysterious stranger...my hypothesis is that 1980 to 1984 or 85 or 86 or so is a weaker time for hockey. Especially 1981 thru 1983. As such, that time extended the careers of players because it was easier to hang around. Where as, 1985, 86 or 87 somewhere in there, closed off the league from players hanging around (names noted above)...but what about on the whole?

Removing players with less than 100 career games to help to avoid Don Cherry's getting called up for a game here and there...

Year	Total	After 1980	Pct that made it
1946	55	9	16.4%
1947	59	13	22.0%
1948	67	20	29.9%
1949	88	33	37.5%
1950	83	33	39.8%
1951	73	30	41.1%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Total	After 1985	Pct that made it
1952	97	10	10.3%
1953	87	9	10.3%
1954	104	19	18.3%
1955	108	28	25.9%
1956	99	26	26.3%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As you can see, it was terribly uncommon (comparatively) for the later birthdays (theoretically, access to slightly better training, advances, more rinks, etc.) to hang around through the mid-80's than it was for the 40's kids to hang on through the early 80's...

"Well, it's because the league was all Canada at [Point A] and not all Canada at [Point B]..."

Meh, not really...

1980-81: 81.9% Canadian
1981-82: 80.6% Canadian
1982-83: 80.7% Canadian
1983-84: 78.8% Canadian
1984-85: 75.7% Canadian
1985-86: 76.0% Canadian
1986-87: 76.3% Canadian

And a decent portion of that percentage is eaten up by the startling amount of American high school kids that just waltzed into the league in the time that I'm saying is on the weaker side...Brian Lawton, Tom Barrasso, Phil Housley, Bobby Carpenter...all made some impact in the league (some more than others, naturally) fresh out of high school...U.S. high school...yet, just ten years before that, you could take every American in the NHL and put them on the same team and not have enough skaters...

Bill Flett was the "Cowboy", for future reference. But anyway, interesting observations, especially the American high schoolers having such an impact pretty much overnight.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Haha I do have a clump of goalies between like 17 and 25 on my original list...just none higher than that. Which I think is right, as I think you can make a claim for three or four goalies to be the best ever, and it drags down the #1 guy as an indirect result...

Unfortunately, we already put a goalie on the list which I think created an artificial need (it was an artificial push in the first place in my unsophisticated opinion) to push another goalie(s) close to Roy...so we created a tough spot for ourselves a little bit...

But you can only play the hand your dealt...so I won't rage quit yet...

If all of Hasek, Lidstrom and Ovechkin are available next round though...eeeeehh...I might plan a trip to the center of the earth where cell service is limited service...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

For consideration, maybe the league just got "too better", too fast for players exiting their prime...the talent level disparity and overall crumminess (relatively speaking) of game play from around 1980 to 84 or 85 or so might help to explain this...

Fairly prominent early 80's guys crashed and burned pretty hard at around age 33 or 34 when the game took a turn for the better: King Richard, Don Lever, Peter McNab, Mike Milbury, Bobby Nystrom, Jim Schoenfeld, Bob Gainey, Lanny McDonald, Dave Lewis, Denis Potvin (relative to what he was doing), Tom Lysiak, Andre Savard, Blaine Stoughton, Blair MacDonald, Danny Gare, Doug Risebrough, Stef Persson, Mike Rogers, Mike Palmateer, Brian Engblom, Cowboy Willi Plett, Wilf Paiement, Don Edwards, Pat Price, Dennis Maruk...why did Pierre Mondou quit again? I don't recall...

"Yes, but Mikey, you can find examples in any era of players retiring early or breaking down early at any time...Mike Richards, etc. what's your point?"

Glad you asked mysterious stranger...my hypothesis is that 1980 to 1984 or 85 or 86 or so is a weaker time for hockey. Especially 1981 thru 1983. As such, that time extended the careers of players because it was easier to hang around. Where as, 1985, 86 or 87 somewhere in there, closed off the league from players hanging around (names noted above)...but what about on the whole?

Removing players with less than 100 career games to help to avoid Don Cherry's getting called up for a game here and there...

Year	Total	After 1980	Pct that made it
1946	55	9	16.4%
1947	59	13	22.0%
1948	67	20	29.9%
1949	88	33	37.5%
1950	83	33	39.8%
1951	73	30	41.1%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Total	After 1985	Pct that made it
1952	97	10	10.3%
1953	87	9	10.3%
1954	104	19	18.3%
1955	108	28	25.9%
1956	99	26	26.3%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As you can see, it was terribly uncommon (comparatively) for the later birthdays (theoretically, access to slightly better training, advances, more rinks, etc.) to hang around through the mid-80's than it was for the 40's kids to hang on through the early 80's...

"Well, it's because the league was all Canada at [Point A] and not all Canada at [Point B]..."

Meh, not really...

1980-81: 81.9% Canadian
1981-82: 80.6% Canadian
1982-83: 80.7% Canadian
1983-84: 78.8% Canadian
1984-85: 75.7% Canadian
1985-86: 76.0% Canadian
1986-87: 76.3% Canadian

And a decent portion of that percentage is eaten up by the startling amount of American high school kids that just waltzed into the league in the time that I'm saying is on the weaker side...Brian Lawton, Tom Barrasso, Phil Housley, Bobby Carpenter...all made some impact in the league (some more than others, naturally) fresh out of high school...U.S. high school...yet, just ten years before that, you could take every American in the NHL and put them on the same team and not have enough skaters...

i think mondou retired because he was wrecked by injuries. but him aside, i agree. there are times when you see a lot of players who should be in their primes/late primes watching the game pass them by. i don't necessarily buy the US high school players reason (or even US players in general), but i do think we're seeing a huge wave of talent coming into their own (the '79 to '84 drafts). ironic that the the literal mid-80s drafts ('85 and '86) were so weak.

you see something similar in the early-to-mid 90s where a host of either slow or soft players—in addition to the usual whipping boys carson and rob brown, guys like darren turcotte, pat elynuik, falloon—fell out of the league. also, an entire generation of small goalies that were highly touted: essensa, tugnutt, sidorkiewicz, riendeau, cheveldae, terreri, the only exception being arturs irbe.

but in both cases, i don't think you necessarily would say that the players being left behind in those sea changes were bad players, or weaker talent, per se. but they were less versatile players. what i mean is, sergei fedorov was a versatile player, with an adaptable skill set; he could excel in any era. jimmy carson was awesome in the late 80s, and he probably would have been awesome in 2006. but i can't imagine 1988 jimmy carson being much more than a guy who goes from headed to the IHL to leading an expansion team in scoring in the late 90s or early 2000s (donald audette, i'm looking in your direction).

 

[BM67]

Wow. Potvin is getting the short shift here on longevity.

He wasn't some broken down bench warmer when he retired. He played 72 games in 1987-88. His 19 goals tied him with Mark Howe for 6th among defensemen. His +26 +/- was tied for 9th among D with Larry Robinson (Howe was +23).

When he retired after 15 years, his 1060 RS GP was tied with Lanny McDonald for 48th all-time (14th among D), while his 185 PO GP were #1 all-time.

 

[danincanada]

Actually it would seem Harvey did carry the Rangers in Bourque-like fashion in 1962. Norris winner, Hart Trophy runner up. The Rangers improved 10 points in the standings and allowed 41 fewer goals against compared to the year before. And they also lost a HOF defenseman in Bill Gadsby, who was traded for a proverbial bag of pucks. Harvey was the only major addition. You'll have to explain to us how this is in any way similar to Lidstrom's situation from 2003-2006 on a multiple times 1st overall team.

[MOD]

Lidstrom and Konstantinov joined the Red Wings as rookies and brought them up 22 points in the standings and reduced their GA by 42 so is 10 points really that impressive for someone who is apparently top 10 all-time? Lidstrom never let his team drop below a .567 winning % his whole career. In short, just because Lidstrom never went to another team, or played for a weaker team, and helped pull them up doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable. His career and the amount of winning speaks for itself.

[MOD]

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Two of you have just been hit for flaming, and it was for attacking one another.

THIS STOPS NOW. Are we clear?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Personally - I ignore the lockouts altogether. I just look at games and seasons actually played. Too much hypotheticals if not (emphasis mine)

You're within rights to apply the standards you wish- and the first (unbolded) part of your statement here is somewhat understandable, I suppose. I truly hope that you'll reconsider the second part, however- particularly from the standpoint of years lost to Wartime Service. If you don't, you'll wind up lauding the Bill Cowleys of the world at the expense of the Syl Appses. To me, that doesn't merely seem imprecise, it feels absolutely backwards/wrong-way-'round.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lidstrom and Konstantinov joined the Red Wings as rookies and brought them up 22 points in the standings and reduced their GA by 42 so is 10 points really that impressive for someone who is apparently top 10 all-time? Lidstrom never let his team drop below a .567 winning % his whole career. In short, just because Lidstrom never went to another team, or played for a weaker team, and helped pull them up doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable. His career and the amount of winning speaks for itself.

This is a good point to raise in Lidstrom's favour.

[MOD]

 

[MXD]

Wow. Potvin is getting the short shift here on longevity.

He wasn't some broken down bench warmer when he retired. He played 72 games in 1987-88. His 19 goals tied him with Mark Howe for 6th among defensemen. His +26 +/- was tied for 9th among D with Larry Robinson (Howe was +23).

When he retired after 15 years, his 1060 RS GP was tied with Lanny McDonald for 48th all-time (14th among D), while his 185 PO GP were #1 all-time.

He wasn't, but...
He is being actively compared to Raymond Bourque and to Nicklas Lidstrom. And to Eddie Shore, whose raw longevity was somewhat similar to Potvin but whose career ended 35 years before Potvin's career started (and who earned a Hart award on his antepenultimate season, at an age where Denis Potvin was retired).

 

[BraveCanadian]

Wow. Potvin is getting the short shift here on longevity.

He wasn't some broken down bench warmer when he retired. He played 72 games in 1987-88. His 19 goals tied him with Mark Howe for 6th among defensemen. His +26 +/- was tied for 9th among D with Larry Robinson (Howe was +23).

When he retired after 15 years, his 1060 RS GP was tied with Lanny McDonald for 48th all-time (14th among D), while his 185 PO GP were #1 all-time.

For sure -- to reiterate what I said above, Potvin left on his own terms, not because he was done.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Lidstrom and Konstantinov joined the Red Wings as rookies and brought them up 22 points in the standings and reduced their GA by 42 so is 10 points really that impressive for someone who is apparently top 10 all-time? Lidstrom never let his team drop below a .567 winning % his whole career. In short, just because Lidstrom never went to another team, or played for a weaker team, and helped pull them up doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable. His career and the amount of winning speaks for itself.

Ok because I suppose Lidstrom was the only one responsible for this...

I could say that Bourque prevented the Bruins from missing the playoffs for 17 years in a row (and 19 of 20).

 

[Canadiens1958]

i think mondou retired because he was wrecked by injuries. but him aside, i agree. there are times when you see a lot of players who should be in their primes/late primes watching the game pass them by. i don't necessarily buy the US high school players reason (or even US players in general), but i do think we're seeing a huge wave of talent coming into their own (the '79 to '84 drafts). ironic that the the literal mid-80s drafts ('85 and '86) were so weak.

you see something similar in the early-to-mid 90s where a host of either slow or soft players—in addition to the usual whipping boys carson and rob brown, guys like darren turcotte, pat elynuik, falloon—fell out of the league. also, an entire generation of small goalies that were highly touted: essensa, tugnutt, sidorkiewicz, riendeau, cheveldae, terreri, the only exception being arturs irbe.

but in both cases, i don't think you necessarily would say that the players being left behind in those sea changes were bad players, or weaker talent, per se. but they were less versatile players. what i mean is, sergei fedorov was a versatile player, with an adaptable skill set; he could excel in any era. jimmy carson was awesome in the late 80s, and he probably would have been awesome in 2006. but i can't imagine 1988 jimmy carson being much more than a guy who goes from headed to the IHL to leading an expansion team in scoring in the late 90s or early 2000s (donald audette, i'm looking in your direction).

Highstick by Ulf Samuelsson resulted in a career ending eye injury.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sorry I haven't been around much this week. Things are getting very busy at work. They'll slow down again - in May if I'm lucky, if not, July.

I just sent in my votes. I haven't participated much in the discussion, but I've read every post, so this should be a (reasonably) well-informed ballot.

I'm not sure about all of drama/bickering but I'll echo the comments that many others have made - QPQ is doing a fantastic job managing this project. I'd imagine the time commitment is in the range of 10-15 hours per week - definitely a substantial investment. I'm fine if he wants to have someone else co-administer the project to deal with the workload, but that's not in any way a reflection on his good work.

 

[BM67]

Lidstrom and Konstantinov joined the Red Wings as rookies and brought them up 22 points in the standings and reduced their GA by 42 so is 10 points really that impressive for someone who is apparently top 10 all-time? Lidstrom never let his team drop below a .567 winning % his whole career. In short, just because Lidstrom never went to another team, or played for a weaker team, and helped pull them up doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable. His career and the amount of winning speaks for itself.

Potvin joined the Islanders, and they improved by 26 points and 100 GA, going from dead last in GA to above average.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I went ahead and voted Potvin ahead of both Bourque and Lidstrom, like I did in Round 1.Unpopular as this may be, I have to trust my soul.Him overseeing a transition from a lottery team to a dynasty, generalling said dynasty and just being the prototypical perfect #1 defenseman who's elite offensively, defensively and physically, as well as maturing into a great leader, was too much for me to pass on.Longevity alone, be it as an elite player, is not enough to compensate for this synergy.His health issues have been mentioned, which is a good point, but bottom line it didn't hurt the results in any significant way.He showed up and delivered the Cups in his window.

Another point on Denis Potvin, he was the unlucky great defenseman to come up just after Bobby Orr.The comparisons were incessant and Potvin made some dickish comments about this in the 70s, so all of this contributed to his star not shining as bright as perhaps it should have shone.Popping up just after Orr has a way to make you look not-so-special.Yet, no defenseman as dominant and complete as Potvin came into the league since the 70s.

Last point, and I should have brought it up before since now it's too late, but how much pressure did Bourque have starting his career? He was drafted 8th overall, 4th among defensemen of his draft.Maybe this was covered and I missed it, if so I apologize.Potvin was a consensus #1 overall and had huge pressure on his shoulders to jumpstart the Islanders franchise, and the result was a dynasty within the decade.Yeah he wasn't alone, but he was the one who paved the way.Not saying this is a huge point, but it's another thing that makes his overall story and career more compelling than Bourque's (maybe) and certainly than Lidstrom's.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I went ahead and voted Potvin ahead of both Bourque and Lidstrom, like I did in Round 1.Unpopular as this may be, I have to trust my soul.Him overseeing a transition from a lottery team to a dynasty, generalling said dynasty and just being the prototypical perfect #1 defenseman who's elite offensively, defensively and physically, as well as maturing into a great leader, was too much for me to pass on.Longevity alone, be it as an elite player, is not enough to compensate for this synergy.His health issues have been mentioned, which is a good point, but bottom line it didn't hurt the results in any significant way.He showed up and delivered the Cups in his window.

Another point on Denis Potvin, he was the unlucky great defenseman to come up just after Bobby Orr.The comparisons were incessant and Potvin made some dickish comments about this in the 70s, so all of this contributed to his star not shining as bright as perhaps it should have shone.Popping up just after Orr has a way to make you look not-so-special.Yet, no defenseman as dominant and complete as Potvin came into the league since the 70s.

Last point, and I should have brought it up before since now it's too late, but how much pressure did Bourque have starting his career? He was drafted 8th overall, 4th among defensemen of his draft.Maybe this was covered and I missed it, if so I apologize.Potvin was a consensus #1 overall and had huge pressure on his shoulders to jumpstart the Islanders franchise, and the result was a dynasty within the decade.Yeah he wasn't alone, but he was the one who paved the way.Not saying this is a huge point, but it's another thing that makes his overall story and career more compelling than Bourque's (maybe) and certainly than Lidstrom's.

It may be unpopular for many posters, but its hardly a reach.

For those of us who saw Potvin's entire career, Bourque & Lidstrom were on his level (not the other way around).

 

[The Macho King]

I think I put Potvin over Lidstrom. If you value peak and playoffs heavily it's hardly a reach having him 2 or 3 for the position.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Bourque had to fill the shoes of someone that's already on our list while wearing the number of someone who is about to be on the list haha

The comparisons to Orr were instant and his impact was necessary...Potvin played for an expansion team that was rushed into the league so the WHA wouldn't get a stranglehold...no one knew if the Islanders were going to live or die in those first years...Bourque steps in the year after Orr retired from the league on a team that had just recently turned the page from some of its most recognizable faces: Orr, Esposito, Cherry...soon after, it wouldn't be long til Brad Park moved on and Bourque was there to just do whatever he could...

Not saying Potvin was a walk in the park situation...but there were no expectations on an expansion to do anything...he's out there, just trying to keep games close playing with his comparatively untalented brother...

 

[bobholly39]

I went ahead and voted Potvin ahead of both Bourque and Lidstrom, like I did in Round 1.Unpopular as this may be, I have to trust my soul.Him overseeing a transition from a lottery team to a dynasty, generalling said dynasty and just being the prototypical perfect #1 defenseman who's elite offensively, defensively and physically, as well as maturing into a great leader, was too much for me to pass on.Longevity alone, be it as an elite player, is not enough to compensate for this synergy.His health issues have been mentioned, which is a good point, but bottom line it didn't hurt the results in any significant way.He showed up and delivered the Cups in his window.

Another point on Denis Potvin, he was the unlucky great defenseman to come up just after Bobby Orr.The comparisons were incessant and Potvin made some dickish comments about this in the 70s, so all of this contributed to his star not shining as bright as perhaps it should have shone.Popping up just after Orr has a way to make you look not-so-special.Yet, no defenseman as dominant and complete as Potvin came into the league since the 70s.

Last point, and I should have brought it up before since now it's too late, but how much pressure did Bourque have starting his career? He was drafted 8th overall, 4th among defensemen of his draft.Maybe this was covered and I missed it, if so I apologize.Potvin was a consensus #1 overall and had huge pressure on his shoulders to jumpstart the Islanders franchise, and the result was a dynasty within the decade.Yeah he wasn't alone, but he was the one who paved the way.Not saying this is a huge point, but it's another thing that makes his overall story and career more compelling than Bourque's (maybe) and certainly than Lidstrom's.

No offense but this sounds more like a vote of passion/emotion than a rational comparison with other players.

I'm not saying there couldn't be any possible case for Potvin over the other two, but to me it's very weak and you're not exactly presenting it strongly. Bourque and Lidstrom are every bit as worthy candidates to being called "perfect #1 defensemen". Moreso i'd argue considering they were voted best defenseman in the league 7, and 5 times respectively, vs 3. And how can longevity possibly not matter? That's kind of ridiculous when talking about elite seasons., that should be what matters the "most" to a certain point.

Lidstrom was the main general in maybe not a dynasty of 4 years straight, but 4 cups nonetheless. He was also the captain after Yzerman, with a ton of leadership. The gap there isn't all that huge.

You say Potvin is the perfect #1 defenseman - yet he only won 3 norris. Bourque won 5, in an era much more competitive than his for defenseman - and also placed highly in norris finishes *much* more often than Potvin. His Hart ranking is a lot more impressive, too.

I'm sure Potvin had a lot of pressure but he also played on a dynasty with star teammates. Bourque often was the solo star, and by far the biggest, in Boston. Pressure argument kind of goes in Bourque's favor imo.

Bottom line is i strongly disagree with this ranking - and feel you haven't really presented a valid reasoning as to why this ranking makes sense.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

Absolutely. With Hasek a Red Wing between 93 and 2002... OMG.

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?

No kidding. The only time Osgood was better than anyone he faced in playoffs was in 2009.

But people seem to dismiss head-to-head comparisons as "irrelevant." Whatever.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bourque had to wait until he was 40 to play on a near dynasty. I don't look past what Potvin did in helping lead the charge for NY but their dynasty took place perfectly between the end of the 70's Habs dynasty under Bowman and the arrival and maturation of Gretzky in Edmonton and that dynasty.

Bourque took the Bruins to a pair of Cup finals and generally played well in the postseason. Sometimes even elite. He simply played on the wrong team against multiple dynasties throughout the 80's and the Pens juggernaut of the early 90's. He never had a Trottier or Bossy in Boston. And the only Dman, IMHO, that has a better regular season resume is Orr.

Norris finishes:

Bourque
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4

-This isn't even remotely close. Peak and longevity goes to RB by a mile (just look at the damn numbers) and he did it against a deeper crop of Dmen throughout his career. At 19, a rookie, Bourque was already getting serious Norris votes, and by 21 he was finishing ahead of Potvin, Robinson, etc.

AS finishes:

Bourque
1 (13) 2 (6)

Potvin
1 (5) 2 (2)

-Again, peak goes to RB by a mile. And he played at an elite level for much, much longer.

Hart:

Bourque
2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8

Potvin
2, 4, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9,

-Not as big a gap here but one that still favors Bourque. 5 times he was in the top 5. Only twice for Potvin. And Bourque played through prime Gretzky and Lemieux.

Post Consolidation VsX:

Bourque
75.3

Potvin
74.3

-Both were tremendous offensive players from the back end.


Scoring Finishes among D:

Bourque
1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5,

Potvin
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5,

-Bourque looks better here, especially on longevity. And he was up against Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch, Howe etc.


Adjusted +/- all time (regardless of position)

Bourque
+586 (1st all time)

Potvin
+253

-What else needs to be said?

Bourque played 88% of Boston's PP, Potvin 87% of NY. Bourque played more on the PK, 58% to 53%

 

[bobholly39]

I think I put Potvin over Lidstrom. If you value peak and playoffs heavily it's hardly a reach having him 2 or 3 for the position.

I don't see it. Everything that's being said about Bourque vs Potvin can also be said about Lidstrom vs Potvin, or just about. I think Potvin should be easily 3rd of the bunch.

 

[bobholly39]

So with a bit of time to kill this AM...

My prediction for players going through, in order are:

1. Hasek
2. Crosby
3. Morenz
4. Bourque
5. Shore

I feel as though Crosby and Hasek are quite polarizing and will both still suffer from some very, very low votes, but i'm hoping overall they should be able to make top 2. Morenz could hypothetically pass both if enough "low votes" hurt Crosby and Hasek, but i'm hoping not. Almost said Lidstrom at 5, but i'll go with Shore.

I feel as though a lot of voters in this round have held their cards close to them, so i could be way off for some, but we'll see.

Prediction for next round additions:

Lafleur
Esposito
Brodeur
Makarov