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

[The Macho King]

Subtle holding only goes so far.

Zero Norris wins before Chelios arrived tells plenty.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think zero Norris wins before Bourque turned 40 *does* tell us something. Lidstrom's up so it's time for this, but his Norris competition is abysmal both historically, but most especially when compared to 77's competition during his peak. Scott f***ing Niedermayer? C'mon son.

 

[Sentinel]

It was Grubauer in nets game 1 & 2.

You are right, but it only proves my point. Once he got a whiff of better things to come, he exploded.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I mean we have to give Bourque at least some (even if just a small amount) of leeway comparing him to somebody like Lidstrom (who i LOVE as a complete dman) in terms of team successes.

When Ray entered the league at 19 with Boston in 79-1980 the Islanders dynasty was just taking off big time. Bourque had a tremendous run as a young 20 something in 82-83. 23 points and a crazy +15 in 17 games. Got knocked out by NY in the conference finals. Nothing to be ashamed of or knocked on IMO. BTW, RB was very good in that series against NY.

Nobody beat NY until......the Oilers dynasty arrived which lasted more or less through much of the 80's. Boston made it to the finals in 1988 and got swept by Edmonton. Again, completely over matched looking at the rosters, being wildly outclassed at F and G especially.

1990 Boston again went to the finals and ran into a once in a lifetime goalie performance by Bill Ranford. Bourque had an impressive run and led Boston in scoring in the Cup finals. Goes to show you how much Boston leaned on Ray for offensive output (similar to Karlsson's career in Ottawa in the more present day).

Early 90's they ran into the Pittsburgh monster.

But if you look at what Bourque did when he finally did get his Cup in Colorado he was still, at age 40, playing over 28 minutes a night. Scored 10 points and was a +9 in 21 games. He wasn't just some afterthought there. I remember that run pretty vividly. Ray still had it and played very good hockey. Obviously wasn't THE guy but a strong secondary contributor.

He certainly can't have a good/strong tag on him as far as postseason players go, but timing didn't help him and it's not like he routinely shit the bed relative to the teams he was on and facing. Certainly some lower hanging fruit in there but I do think a little context has to be applied to Bourque specifically.

 

[Sentinel]

Subtle holding only goes so far.

Zero Norris wins before Chelios arrived tells plenty.

Oh, gawd... Zero Cups for Lemieux until Jagr arrived.

 

[The Macho King]

Oh, gawd... Zero Cups for Lemieux until Jagr arrived.

Not a really good corollary? It'd be more salient to say "No Art Ross/Harts until Jagr arrived" (except that wouldn't be true). Cups are a team award and that's pretty widely acknowledged.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wouldn't go that far, but I think zero Norris wins before Bourque turned 40 *does* tell us something. Lidstrom's up so it's time for this, but his Norris competition is abysmal both historically, but most especially when compared to 77's competition during his peak. Scott ****ing Niedermayer? C'mon son.

Like Harvey (who also didn't start racking up the awards until his 30s), it was a combination of being a late bloomer and style of play of Lidstrom. By style of play, I mean he played a subtle, cerebral game that is hard to appreciate at first. IMO, like Harvey, Lidstrom's awards recognition took a couple years to catch up to his level of play. I mean, no offense to Rob Blake, but 1998 Norris anyone?

Young Lidstrom also competed against the best group of defensemen in history (including prime Bourque himself).

But yes, Bourque and Potvin did hit the league running more quickly than Lidstrom did

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Crosby's results are inconsistent. His results are stellar through 2010, and surprisingly bad after. I know that part of it is due to Malkin being a big part of the "R-Off" calculation, so he faces a similar problem as Messier and Lidstrom. But his performance in 2016 was disappointing (especially for a Smythe winner) - for all the talk of Crosby being a great two-way player, the Penguins were actually outscored at ES while he was on the ice, despite being a very strong club while #87 was on the bench. Crosby actually has a negative cumulative R-ON from 2010 to 2017, on a team that's been solidly positive over those years.

I think Crosby's numbers actually show the potential limitations of this analysis for a single postseason. We have advanced stats for the 2016 playoffs, so we really don't need to use a goals-only analysis, and Crosby's 5-on-5 on-ice numbers were actually very strong (source: Natural Stat Trick, so obviously using their definitions of scoring chances and high danger chances):

With Sidney Crosby on the ice in the 2016 playoffs (5-on-5):

Shots: 220 for, 159 against (58%)
Scoring chances: 216 for, 162 against (57%)
High danger chances: 85 for, 67 against (56%)

The problem was that his percentages were terrible:

On-ice shooting percentage: 7.27%
On-ice save percentage: .887
Goals: 16 for, 18 against (47%)

A full playoff season for a top line forward is still only about 400 or so total on-ice shots, and the normal variance on that can be insane, even between players on the same team. In the past three playoffs combined at 5-on-5, for example, Pittsburgh's save percentage is .899 with Crosby on the ice and .949 with Phil Kessel on the ice. The result is that Kessel is +18 at 5-on-5 compared to +10 for Crosby, even though Sid has 39 points at 5-on-5 compared to just 23 for Phil during that period (and despite Crosby having a better shot share, scoring chance share and high danger chance share as well).

Similar things likely happened to other elite players throughout history during specific playoff seasons, so I wouldn't be at all confident saying that a good or bad on-ice ratio necessarily reflects a player's actual two-way performance for a single playoffs, or even a couple of playoff seasons in a row. I think you need something on the order of at least 3-4 full regular seasons before you even start to get into something approaching an acceptable sample size for on-ice/off-ice goals numbers.

We all know what happened with Ovechkin. For years he was labelled a choker and a loser. Then he had a career-defining playoff run - the type he was always capable of having - and suddenly half of the main board is calling him a top ten player all-time. As you can seem I don't have the data for 2018. I know it was a very good run, but I can't tell you if it was historical or merely very good. Aside from that, Ovechkin had one extremely strong performance in 2009 (this was during his "Bobby Hull phase", and then three disappointments (thus was during his "Brett Hull phase"). It's a tale of two careers here. Ovechkin was stellar through 2010, then generally bad afterwards.

I don't think this is necessarily all that meaningful, but here are Ovi's 2018 playoff numbers for completeness' sake I guess (using the same method as for the others):

Ovechkin was on for 44 total GF, 16 total GA, 21 PPGF, 1 PPGA.
Washington was +63/-42 at even strength, with 1 SHGF and 1 SHGA.
After accounting for shorthanded goals, Ovechkin would get credit for +23/-14 at even strength.
Which gives: 1.64 on-ice, 1.43 off-ice

Pulling his 5-on-5 numbers only from the 2018 playoffs, Ovechkin had a 53% shot share, 54% scoring chance share, 55% high danger chances share, and 66% goal share (because he ran hot with a 10.9% on-ice shooting percentage and .935 on-ice save percentage), to go with his 15 even strength points, which is still all in all a decently impressive playoff run.

 

[The Macho King]

Like Harvey (who also didn't start racking up the awards until his 30s), it was a combination of being a late bloomer and style of play of Lidstrom. By style of play, I mean he played a subtle, cerebral game that is hard to appreciate at first. IMO, like Harvey, Lidstrom's awards recognition took a couple years to catch up to his level of play. I mean, no offense to Rob Blake, but 1998 Norris anyone?

I think that's a *bit* overstated. I mean, he played a different defensive game, sure - but he was runner up 3 times before a win. I have a hard time believing people just weren't appreciating him.

Look - Lidstrom can't help the era he peaked in, so I don't want to make too much hay from this at this point (I think I want to look at him season-by-season later rather than just pointing out LOLNiedermayer or whatever). But it's fair to say that - when Lidstrom was peaking/in prime, the Norris competition sucked. Now Orr didn't have spectacular Norris competition and it's not held against him (because he's winning no matter what). I don't think the same can be said of Lidstrom.

I point that out because the argument for Lidstrom over Bourque relies *entirely* on trophy counting - be it Norris' or Cups. And I think in both of these arguments, Lidstrom fans completely ignore the context that those trophies were won and the competition Bourque faced especially vis a vis Lidstrom.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You are right, but it only proves my point. Once he got a whiff of better things to come, he exploded.

So your point is, he was unwilling to lead change and be a difference maker first...? Instead he waited to see if they put in the goalie who under-performed all season long to help jump start Ovechkin...?

I'll buy that for a dollar...

 

[Sentinel]

I think that's a *bit* overstated. I mean, he played a different defensive game, sure - but he was runner up 3 times before a win. I have a hard time believing people just weren't appreciating him.

Look - Lidstrom can't help the era he peaked in, so I don't want to make too much hay from this at this point (I think I want to look at him season-by-season later rather than just pointing out LOLNiedermayer or whatever). But it's fair to say that - when Lidstrom was peaking/in prime, the Norris competition sucked. Now Orr didn't have spectacular Norris competition and it's not held against him (because he's winning no matter what). I don't think the same can be said of Lidstrom.

I point that out because the argument for Lidstrom over Bourque relies *entirely* on trophy counting - be it Norris' or Cups. And I think in both of these arguments, Lidstrom fans completely ignore the context that those trophies were won and the competition Bourque faced especially vis a vis Lidstrom.

You keep putting Niedermeyer down like he was some no talent flash in the pan. He was certainly no worse than Wilson, Carlyle, and Langway who beat Bourque. Your continuous omission of Pronger, Chara, Weber, and Keith is pretty ridiculous.

It's amazing how suddenly four Cups become less than one Cup, seven Norrises -- less than five Norrises, a Conn Smythe -- less than zero Conn Smythes, a better defenseman less than a worse defenseman, and having Chelios playing on a different pair -- more important than carrying Ian White.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Like Harvey (who also didn't start racking up the awards until his 30s), it was a combination of being a late bloomer and style of play of Lidstrom. By style of play, I mean he played a subtle, cerebral game that is hard to appreciate at first. IMO, like Harvey, Lidstrom's awards recognition took a couple years to catch up to his level of play. I mean, no offense to Rob Blake, but 1998 Norris anyone?

It’s been mentioned in other threads, but I think the Blake Norris had less to do with Lidstrom being misunderstood and more to do with the extent to which his goal totals flatlined around Christmas when he had really strong buzz. When juxtaposed with Blake - who was producing at half the rate at mid-season only to close the gap and create one of his own during a playoff push - I think voters understood both candidates but went with a hotter offensive hand.

 

[The Macho King]

You keep putting Niedermeyer down like he was some no talent flash in the pan. He was certainly no worse than Wilson, Carlyle, and Langway who beat Bourque. Your continuous omission of Pronger, Chara, Weber, and Keith is pretty ridiculous.

It's amazing how suddenly four Cups become less than one Cup, seven Norrises -- less than five Norrises, a Conn Smythe -- less than zero Conn Smythes, a better defenseman less than a worse defenseman, and having Chelios playing on a different pair -- more important than carrying Ian White.

QED.

 

[overg]

Subtle holding only goes so far.

Zero Norris wins before Chelios arrived tells plenty.

Only if you take an all-or-nothing approach, and completely ignore his three straight runner up finishes before then (one of which many believe Lidstrom rightfully deserved, perhaps offsetting his last one which many believe he didn't deserve). If you want to credit a teammate for Lidstrom's breakout, at least credit Murphy, who showed up the year before Lidstrom started contending.

But let's take a closer look at Lidstrom's early years.

The early 90's is often considered to be one of the deepest, most stacked eras for defensemen. How many players in history could have cracked the Norris voting in their first couple years of playing if they were up against a prime Bourque (won once), prime Leetch (won twice), prime Chelios (won twice), and renewed Coffey (won once), who were the guys dominating the Norris trophy voting from '92 through '97? These players were all more established than Lidstrom, and all had some incredible years during that time frame.

With respect to Bourque, in particular (since he was mentioned as a blocker to Lidstrom getting his first Norris), it's worth pointing out that after 1996 (2nd place), he never again finished above Lidstrom in Norris voting.

So yes, it's a mistake to say, Lidstrom won 7 Norris trophies, ergo he must be the second best defenseman of all time. All of those trophies need to be taken into context. But you *also* need to take into context Lidstrom's "slow start" toward accumulating Norris votes. While Lidstrom's prime may have been a down period for defensive stars (thus taking the luster off his 7 wins), his early years were some of the toughest in history. It did in fact take Lidstrom a number of years to hit his peak, but he was also chasing some great defensemen putting up some great years.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Blake was also one of these "high transaction" players that I talk about...big guy, big hitter, big shot...much easier to notice...generates more hype than the thinking man's players: Lidstrom among them...folks who think that Shea Weber was elite but Ryan Suter wasn't...etc.

 

[ted2019]

There seems to be too much "cherry picking" or only posts about their favorite team going on a lot lately in this project. You got the posts from one poster who only raves about players from Montreal or anyone that played before 1970. Another only posts positives about Penguins and another who only talks about Russians or European players being the cats meow. This is suppose to be a non-biased look at things and instead this has turned into "who can top who" type of posts. This is one reason on why I have stayed away from posting in this for the past 10 days. Get back to the mission of this project and leave your bias at the door.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Right now I'm leaning towards

1) Hasek
2) Bourque
3) Crosby
4) Morenz

As my top 4. I don't see any of the other forwards comparing favorably to Morenz and Crosby to dislodge them, and I'm fairly sure Lidstrom and Shore will be my 5/6

 

[sr edler]

Like Harvey (who also didn't start racking up the awards until his 30s), it was a combination of being a late bloomer and style of play of Lidstrom. By style of play, I mean he played a subtle, cerebral game that is hard to appreciate at first. IMO, like Harvey, Lidstrom's awards recognition took a couple years to catch up to his level of play. I mean, no offense to Rob Blake, but 1998 Norris anyone?

Young Lidstrom also competed against the best group of defensemen in history (including prime Bourque himself).

But yes, Bourque and Potvin did hit the league running more quickly than Lidstrom did

I wouldn't even call Lidström a late bloomer, he had 60 points and league 3rd best +36 in 1991–92 and only lost the Calder to Bure because the latter player scored 22 goals in the last 23 games of the season. Lids first two playoff showings are pretty bad (at least statistically), but other than that he was pretty much always the same type of quiet assassin.

 

[Khomutov]

So your point is, he was unwilling to lead change and be a difference maker first...? Instead he waited to see if they put in the goalie who under-performed all season long to help jump start Ovechkin...?

I'll buy that for a dollar...

You could say he was bad in Game 1, but in Game 2 Ovechkin scored two goals. Both games were decided in OT, it was close.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You could say he was bad in Game 1, but in Game 2 Ovechkin scored two goals. Both games were decided in OT, it was close.

Sure. But to be clear, this is not my point. I don't think Ovechkin just sat around waiting for Holtby to come back haha

 

[The Macho King]

Right now I'm leaning towards

1) Hasek
2) Bourque
3) Crosby
4) Morenz

As my top 4. I don't see any of the other forwards comparing favorably to Morenz and Crosby to dislodge them, and I'm fairly sure Lidstrom and Shore will be my 5/6

I think I'm exactly there, except I have Shore at 5. I think the players in this vote are appropriate, but I just think the top 5 here is a tier ahead.

 

[overg]

Before I give this credence - wtf is R-on. I'm assuming it's measuring *something* during the time a player is on ice versus off-ice, but what exactly is it measuring.

Moreover, does it factor in the quality of players a player is on ice *with* when quantifying their R-on. For instance, I'd much rather have Chris Chelios or Brian Rafalski as a D partner than whatever anchor Bourque was hauling around.

Per Hockey Observers post that I was referencing, R-On is the ratio of even strength goals for to even strength goals against while the player was on the ice. So it's really just +/- put into ratio form (which I presume is done to account for various levels in league scoring throughout the years). R-off is the same thing, only for when the player is off the ice. The "increase" column he includes just shows you how much, or how little, a player outperformed his teammates.

As far as the quality of line-mates affecting R-On, I'm quite sure it does, in the same manner that quality of line-mates can affect +/-.

Similarly, the quality of opposition makes a big difference too. For almost any player, you'd expect their R-On numbers to be better against weaker opponents. At least in theory, you'd guess players' playoff R-On would decrease for every round they advance, due to playing tougher competition. Now in practice this doesn't always happen, which is why we get players coming out of nowhere to win the Conn Smythe after a brilliant finals appearance. But the point still stands, the tougher the competition, the harder to rack up your R-On score.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I think I'm exactly there, except I have Shore at 5. I think the players in this vote are appropriate, but I just think the top 5 here is a tier ahead.

Right now, with plenty of time for mind-changing and movement...

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

According to my initial 120 I submitted, this order has Bourque move up seven spots, Crosby and Ovechkin move up one spot each, Morenz fall one spot and Shore fall back five spots.

 

[The Macho King]

Right now, with plenty of time for mind-changing and movement...

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

According to my initial 120 I submitted, this order has Bourque move up seven spots, Crosby and Ovechkin move up one spot each, Morenz fall one spot and Shore fall back five spots.

Yeah I'm far from set in stone here (although it's going to be hard to budge me from having Hasek and Bourque either 1 or 2 this round).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Potvin 2.034
Lidstrom 1.852
Mikita 1.834
Messier 1.708
Bourque 1.650
Jagr 1.290
Crosby 1.262
Ovechkin 1.15 (4 runs)

I haven't spot-checked the math, but these numbers look about right. The danger is just looking at the "R-ON" numbers is it doesn't take into account team context - someone playing in front of a strong goalie will have a better ratio than someone playing in front of week goaltending, all other things being equal (and yes, I realize we can't simply say "all other things being equal", because they usually aren't).

On the other hand, I recognized that looking strictly at the improvement (from when a player is on the ice to off the ice) is punitive to players who were on strong teams, like Lidstrom and Messier (which I talked about in my discussion of both).

As with any data I post, the intention is to start a conversation and maybe get people to consider things from a different perspective (which I think is happening). But I wouldn't take the data (the R-ON ratio, or the improvement, or some combination of the two) as definitive.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Oh, gawd... Zero Cups for Lemieux until Jagr arrived.

Oh, gawd... Zero Cups for Jagr after Lemieux retired.