Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[Michael Farkas]

While I don't have Messier this high in my list, I am still surprised at the constant stream of negativity (not by you per se, but in general) I read about him in this corner of the forums. The guy accomplished a helluva lot, and as someone who watched his entire career, I can attest that he lived up to his reputation. He had a ton of skill, and if Gordie wasn't knocked for physical intimidation that often went beyond the rule book, then neither should Messier. I think people remember his so-so Vancouver years.

Messier was a beast and a great player. Perhaps not worthy of getting in at this round, but he could skate, stickhandle and shoot, as well as crush.

Yeah, Messier finished much higher on my prelim list than I ever could have imagined...I was pretty anti-Messier for a while (relative to the group), perhaps because I lived in NY metro for about 7 years and you'd think the entire 1994 team belongs in the HOF (someone legitimately made a case to me that Jay Wells belongs...Jay Wells...).

Anyway, going back and watching him more in his prime, he was a monster and I lost sight of that a little bit...I'm not ready for him now certainly...he finished in my top 20, I'm not sure that's ever been my mindset before...

 

[sr edler]

Worn out from playing like 11 minutes of the 3rd period in a throwaway game 82 vs. New Jersey chasing a hat trick...

It turned out well in the end though.

(someone legitimately made a case to me that Jay Wells belongs...Jay Wells...)

Presumably for drawing that high-stick penalty on Bure in game 3 of the finals.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Agreed, except when was Bourque ever physical. Ever?
Other than that, I concur.

He was not consistently physical nor Stevens-like physical too but still more physical than Lidstrom has ever been and I couldn't be wrong since I made a comparison between them.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Lidstrom clearly in tier 2. I don't see what separates him from Potvin.

I'm torn here. I'd take prime/peak Potvin (and even prime/peak Robinston) over Lidstrom. However, since we're rewarding consistency and longevity, I cannot ignore all the Norris' (although I necessarily don't think he deserved seven of them) and the Conn Smythe. Judging by his body of work, I reluctantly put Lidstom ahead of Potvin.

However, if I had to choose one player in his prime in a best of seven, it would be Potvin all the way.

 

[MXD]

I'm torn here. I'd take prime/peak Potvin (and even prime/peak Robinston) over Lidstrom. However, since we're rewarding consistency and longevity, I cannot ignore all the Norris' (although I necessarily don't think he deserved seven of them) and the Conn Smythe. Judging by his body of work, I reluctantly put Lidstom ahead of Potvin.

However, if I had to choose one player in his prime in a best of seven, it would be Potvin all the way.

That's... a valid way to rank them. And that would fit with the fact that you seem to really, really like Guy Lafleur, whose prime was basically a 6-year-peak.

That's not how I'm doing it, but I'm not sure I can call this "wrong".

 

[seventieslord]

So was Bourque.

....I think there was more to that quoted post than you replied to...

 

[DannyGallivan]

But like Morenz (you did mention this) Crosby has also done other things that don't show up on the score sheet, like pretty much owning Thornton head to head, even if 87's point production was down.

I forget who said it, but I heard Crosby described as the most talented grinder in the history of the game.

 

[sr edler]

(and even prime/peak Robinston)

He was not consistently physical nor Stevens-like physical too but still more physical than Lidstrom has ever been and I couldn't be wrong since I made a comparison between them.

Why would Lidström skate around and hit people when he can stay in position and execute his subtle holding instead? It's all about the effectiveness.

 

[The Macho King]

I forget who said it, but I heard Crosby described as the most talented grinder in the history of the game.

I remember that too. I do think that underrates his skill *somewhat*, but yeah if it's not a ridiculous backhander, he generally isn't a guy flooding the highlight reels.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I remember that too. I do think that underrates his skill *somewhat*, but yeah if it's not a ridiculous backhander, he generally isn't a guy flooding the highlight reels.

It was actually a very nice compliment. It acknowledged his very real talent, but it implied that he also goes to the dirty areas and works his butt off against players generally larger and stronger than him. In other words, when pure talent isn't enough, Crosby finds another way to get the job done. And let's not forget that he's usually been saddled with the younger and "weaker" linemates (except for the occasional Marion Hossa) than his teammate Malkin.

 

[The Macho King]

It was actually a very nice compliment. It acknowledged his very real talent, but it implied that he also goes to the dirty areas and works his butt off against players generally larger and stronger than him. In other words, when pure talent isn't enough, Crosby finds another way to get the job done. And let's not forget that he's usually been saddled with the younger and "weaker" linemates (except for the occasional Marion Hossa) than his teammate Malkin.

Yeah Crosby's effort is never in doubt. Hell of a hockey player. Still hate him.

 

[bobholly39]

In the top 40 playoff project, the top performers from this round were:

Messier (7)
Plante (8)
Potvin (10

Then you also have Lidstrom (23) and Crosby (28) ranked. This was done before Crosby's 2017's smythe, so he likely goes up higher now.

I feel as though Crosby will definitely go this round. I'm high on him myself - but others seem to be too. Discounting Lidstrom for now whose rank is a bit lower at #23 - we do have 3 other top 10 playoff performers of all time in Messier, Plante and Potvin according to this board. At first glance - all 3 are late additions to this round and don't necessarily look very good (Potvin seems to be the last defender by most, and Messier one of the last 2 forwards - and Plante simply not getting a lot of discussion so far).

In the last round we ranked Patrick Roy (2nd in playoffs ranking), Maurice Richard (3rd in playoffs ranking), Beliveau (4th in playoffs) and Harvey (6th) - in large part due to their playoff heroics.

Should Messier, Plante and Potvin be getting more discussion towards the top as well here? Or is the gap in their playoffs considerable from the aforementioned 4 despise being close in rank?

Plante has a very solid regular season resume with 7 Vezina trophies to go along his playoffs.
Messier has 2 harts and 2 pearsons and a lot of longevity, and Potvin has 3 Norrises himself, though not terribly much longevity vs other defenders here.

 

[ResilientBeast]

In the top 40 playoff project, the top performers from this round were:

Messier (7)
Plante (8)
Potvin (10

Then you also have Lidstrom (23) and Crosby (28) ranked. This was done before Crosby's 2017's smythe, so he likely goes up higher now.

I feel as though Crosby will definitely go this round. I'm high on him myself - but others seem to be too. Discounting Lidstrom for now whose rank is a bit lower at #23 - we do have 3 other top 10 playoff performers of all time in Messier, Plante and Potvin according to this board. At first glance - all 3 are late additions to this round and don't necessarily look very good (Potvin seems to be the last defender by most, and Messier one of the last 2 forwards - and Plante simply not getting a lot of discussion so far).

In the last round we ranked Patrick Roy (2nd in playoffs ranking), Maurice Richard (3rd in playoffs ranking), Beliveau (4th in playoffs) and Harvey (6th) - in large part due to their playoff heroics.

Should Messier, Plante and Potvin be getting more discussion towards the top as well here? Or is the gap in their playoffs considerable from the aforementioned 4 despise being close in rank?

Plante has a very solid regular season resume with 7 Vezina trophies to go along his playoffs.
Messier has 2 harts and 2 pearsons and a lot of longevity, and Potvin has 3 Norrises himself, though not terribly much longevity vs other defenders here.

Vezina meant something different back then, it was purely statistical

Plante in AST voting 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Are those your top 5 players here - or just 5 that are close to each other with a few other players above? Or - just 5 players you're comparing period, without necessarily all being close? Just curious.

They are not my top five players this round, they are just the five players with which I had the most struggle separating from one another.

"career services" - Bourque has one of the best careers/prime in the history of the game. ..I think Bourque should be top 2 easily, and probably #1.

Well, for the purpose of my exercise, Bourque came out on top- so if I were to agree with your conclusion, it would amount to a "distinction-without-a-difference" as pertains to my rankings.

Peak - surprised Bourque is so high. He did peak pretty high, but i'd think both Jagr and Ovi peaked higher than him. I suppose i do like offense though.

You can do a lot for your Cup run chances by nailing down your Stud #1 Shut-Down Defenseman.

5 year contract - assuming best 5 years (and even best consecutive 5 years) - shouldn't Lidstrom be dead last, and Hasek possibly still first?

You shouldn't have made that assumption. Remember, I'm taking the view of a coach. And, with that view, what is there about Lidström that you wouldn't want? He'll give you nearly 80 games. He'll stay fit. He has documented Monster-Neutralization capabilities. He'll be effective while staying out of the box. He'll play ANY situation. He'll play smart and be a role model to the rest of your corps. You can just show him at work and say "see? that's how you do it." Hašek? He's the caboose here. He has the weakest axle of the group. Who knows what kind of mess you have to clean up if he snaps. He's says he can't go tonight because he has a finger boo-boo. That's got to be just great for morale when your checking-line forwards are doing veterinary-ointment soaks so that they can answer the bell for the mid-February trip to the Garden. Won't necessarily leave him off my list because he can be a pain this way. You find a way to deal with PITAs if they can perform. And yes, he CAN perform.

Probably agree on the last category. Defenders tend to make teammates look good - but it's kind of subjective.

Yup- no doubt it's subjective. Still, grateful you agree.

 

[MXD]

One thing I have to say about Bourque, which might, or not, be worth a lot : he is the lone player so far to have some serious agitation skills. You could be sure that Bourque would always do something to provoke a dumb player (and I always think of Shayne Corson) and make him go to the box for a few minutes.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm torn here. I'd take prime/peak Potvin (and even prime/peak Robinston) over Lidstrom. However, since we're rewarding consistency and longevity, I cannot ignore all the Norris' (although I necessarily don't think he deserved seven of them) and the Conn Smythe. Judging by his body of work, I reluctantly put Lidstom ahead of Potvin.

However, if I had to choose one player in his prime in a best of seven, it would be Potvin all the way.

I agree. I think Potvin clearly had a higher peak that Lidstrom, and also had a higher peak than Bourque. The only defensemen who I can definitely say had better peaks were Orr (obviously) and Harvey (probably Shore too, but not fully convinced).

But Potvin has far less longevity than Bourque or Lidstrom (to be blunt, he accomplished little of note after age 30). I realize some of that was due to the grind of going for five Stanley Cups in a row. Still, his lack of longevity should push him comfortably behind the other two in an all-time ranking. Potvin will probably be in my bottom three this round.

I know we're trying to encourage inter-positional comparisons, but Shore versus Potvin would be interesting.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I know we're trying to encourage inter-positional comparisons, but Shore versus Potvin would be interesting.

yeah... but it seems that most of the posts concerning Shore seem to dismiss him as a creation of hype. I'm not convinced of that just yet... he has too many individual accolades to be merely an all sizzle and no steak type of player.

For me, I'm still ranking Shore ahead of both Potvin and Lidstrom until convinced otherwise. That is possible, but I still can't wrap my head around a defenseman from any era who collected four Hart Trophies as not being in the top five for his position. Even if it was more commonplace to consider d-men for the Hart in those days, he still beat EVERYBODY playing in the league during those seasons.

 

[Sentinel]

The point is that he looked bad at the start, and his team went down 0 games to 2, and he wasn't even the main guy for the turnaround (Holtby was). That's just not a very good look. Game 3 even went to double OT, Eller bailed them out. A series is best of 7, yes, but perhaps WSH should be happy they weren't up against a team with more killer instinct then CBJ.

I would imagine he simply thought that the goalie would fail him again. I vividly remember Vezina Holtby turning into a sieve before. When he realized Holtby was playing better, his own game picked up. He sure suffered many disappointments throughout his career.

 

[The Macho King]

In the top 40 playoff project, the top performers from this round were:

Messier (7)
Plante (8)
Potvin (10

Then you also have Lidstrom (23) and Crosby (28) ranked. This was done before Crosby's 2017's smythe, so he likely goes up higher now.

I feel as though Crosby will definitely go this round. I'm high on him myself - but others seem to be too. Discounting Lidstrom for now whose rank is a bit lower at #23 - we do have 3 other top 10 playoff performers of all time in Messier, Plante and Potvin according to this board. At first glance - all 3 are late additions to this round and don't necessarily look very good (Potvin seems to be the last defender by most, and Messier one of the last 2 forwards - and Plante simply not getting a lot of discussion so far).

In the last round we ranked Patrick Roy (2nd in playoffs ranking), Maurice Richard (3rd in playoffs ranking), Beliveau (4th in playoffs) and Harvey (6th) - in large part due to their playoff heroics.

Should Messier, Plante and Potvin be getting more discussion towards the top as well here? Or is the gap in their playoffs considerable from the aforementioned 4 despise being close in rank?

Plante has a very solid regular season resume with 7 Vezina trophies to go along his playoffs.
Messier has 2 harts and 2 pearsons and a lot of longevity, and Potvin has 3 Norrises himself, though not terribly much longevity vs other defenders here.

This is one of those times where I want to point out how underrated Bourque is as a playoff performer, since it's going to be the main argument that will be used to place Lidstrom over him.

First - the elephant in the room. The majority of those Boston teams were not very talented. Rick Middleton is okay, Barry Pederson was pretty good early in Bourque's career, and you have a few other decent players during the early parts of the 80s, but that still wasn't a super talented team. Until Adam Oates came to the team in 1992, Ray Bourque led the team in *scoring* five times, and was often in the top 3 (being a handful of points behind the top scorer). Even after that, Bourque often finished second or third in team scoring. This is in marked contrast with Lidstrom (who never led his team in scoring, was second a few times but often by pretty big numbers), and the only real comparable of the players available is Potvin's early years before Bossy and Trottier broke out. Despite being so reliant on Bourque for scoring, the Bruins made the playoffs every year of his career until 1997, and they didn't qualify his final year in 2000. 1997 is notable because Bourque missed 20 games (still put up 50 points), and 2000 was the year he was traded.

So I say that just to note that at times it was impressive that the Bruins *even made the playoffs* during almost the entire span of Bourque's career.

The other thing is - they actually went pretty damn deep considering. Of all those runs, they at least made the second round 10 times, the third round five times, and the Finals twice. Each time to the Finals they lose to the Oilers, and in one of their third rounds they lost to the dynasty Islanders (one of their second round eliminations was also to the dynasty Islanders). Then they got knocked out by the Pens in 91 and 92 in the third round (not a dynasty but probably should have ended up being one).

I say that to establish that the Bruins were not disappointments in the playoffs. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a run where you would say they disappointed. They lost four straight series to the Habs in the mid-80s (one of those Habs teams went on to win the Cup), but those Habs teams were pretty good.

So how was Bourque's performance in those runs? Well, you can track a deep run often by how well Bourque played. The first second-round lost he had 11 points in 10 games. When they got knocked out in the third to the last year of the dynasty Islanders, he had 23 points and was a +15 in 17 games. When they went to the Finals against the Oilers the first time he was 21 points in 23 games and a +16. Similarly in 1990 he was a PPG over 17 games and a +11. When they were getting rocked by the Pens? 25 points in 19 games, followed by 9 points in 12 (minus both of those playoffs, but considering the *insane* runs that Mario had I'm going to assume Bourque was tasked with shutting him down while also being the entirety of the offense).

Over his career in Boston, he played 180 playoff games and was a +14 with 161 points. While that's a slight dip back from his RS PPG, it's not significantly so (.89 PPG in the playoffs, .99 in the regular season). Additionally, in no fewer than four of the runs, he basically dragged the team as far as they could humanly go (Leading the team in scoring in one playoff, coming in second or third the other two). One season I'd note - in 88 Bourque was a +16, first on the team by 7 (and the top forwards were pretty far back with Linesman being +4, Neely being +1).

In this class of players - outside of Potvin who I think has a case for one of the greatest playoff performers of all-time and Plante (although once again on those Habs teams I have a hard time giving individual credit) - Bourque is at least on the same level as the best in this bunch.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Agreed, except when was Bourque ever physical. Ever?
Other than that, I concur.

20 career NHL fights.

 

[sr edler]

I would imagine he simply thought that the goalie would fail him again. I vividly remember Vezina Holtby turning into a sieve before. When he realized Holtby was playing better, his own game picked up. He sure suffered many disappointments throughout his career.

It was Grubauer in nets game 1 & 2.

 

[Canadiens1958]

While I don't have Messier this high in my list, I am still surprised at the constant stream of negativity (not by you per se, but in general) I read about him in this corner of the forums. The guy accomplished a helluva lot, and as someone who watched his entire career, I can attest that he lived up to his reputation. He had a ton of skill, and if Gordie wasn't knocked for physical intimidation that often went beyond the rule book, then neither should Messier. I think people remember his so-so Vancouver years.

Messier was a beast and a great player. Perhaps not worthy of getting in at this round, but he could skate, stickhandle and shoot, as well as crush.

Unlike Howe, Messier was a coward, stick man, who would turtle and run:

Unwilling to fight Larry Robinson man to man:

 

[The Macho King]

Unlike Howe, Messier was a coward, stick man, who would turtle and run:

Unwilling to fight Larry Robinson man to man:

I wouldn't fight Larry Robinson either.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Results of polls of NHL coaches and players 1971-1994:

Some of the finishes are ties.
Not including instances of a player receiving a single vote (which Messier in particular did a lot of).

1971 coach's poll:
Mikita - 2nd best on faceoffs

1974 coach's poll:
Mikita - 1st best on faceoffs, 1st best playmaker, 1st smartest player
Potvin - 1st best rookie, 3rd best young player

1976 coach's poll:
Mikita - 1st best stickhandler, 1st smartest player, 2nd best on faceoffs, 3rd best playmaker
Potvin - 2nd "1st player to build a team around," 2nd best young player, 3rd best bodychecker, 3rd best defensive defenseman,

1979 coach's poll:
Mikita - 3rd best on faceoffs
Potvin - 1st best bodychecker, 3rd "1st player to build a team around," 3rd most natural ability, 5th hardest shot

1981 player's poll
Potvin - 1st best offensive defenseman, 2nd best wrist shot, 2nd hardest hitter
Bourque - 2nd best young player

1984 coach's poll:
Potvin - 2nd best bodychecker, 2nd best bodychecker
Bourque - 3rd hardest shot

1989 Hockey News poll of players, coaches, and officials:
Bourque - 2nd hardest hitter, top 4 best defensive defensive defenseman, top 6 frequent diver, top 7 best shooter
Messier - 1st hardest hitter, 1st best cornerman, HM for strongest player

1990 player's poll:
Bourque - 2nd best offensive defenseman, 3rd best all-around player, 4th "to start a franchise," 5th best defensive defenseman
Messier - 1st best all-around player, 2nd best skater, 2nd toughest to defend against, 3rd "to start a franchise"

1993 coach's poll:
Bourque - 2nd best defensive defenseman, 2nd best offensive defenseman, 2nd smartest player, 4th best shot

Jan 1994 coach's poll:
Bourque - 1st best defensive defenseman, 2nd best offensive defenseman
Jagr - 1st best stickhandler

May 1994 coach's poll:
Bourque - 1st best defensive defenseman, 1st best PP point man, 1st "player you hate playing against"
Messier - 3rd best on faceoffs, 4th best power forward
Jagr - 4th best power forward

All info from this thread: Player Intangibles - resource

 

[MXD]

I wouldn't fight Larry Robinson either.

It's all fake... ?!?!?!?!

I KNEW IT!!!!!