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

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

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.

LOL Bourque was just a superior talent plain and simple no matter how many Cups Lidstrom has (he also played on better teams by the way).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

Thanks for sharing - good, thoughtful comments. One question - how much responsibility does any one player have for the on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage? My guess, given the small samples sizes, is probably not a whole lot - but fundamentally your point is true - a player can play well (or poorly) and have bad luck.

 

[overg]

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.

Absolutely agreed, and I for one love your info dumps. In this particular instance, just trying to work my way through the numbers and figure out what they all mean has already given me insights into the skaters up this round that I'd never really sat down and parsed out before. So for me at least, mission accomplished. You've got me discussing players in a way I've never done before.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So was Bourque.

Please don't deform my sentences if you are going to quote me

 

[daver]

I forgot Messier honestly. I disagree on Crosby. Crosby has quite a few disappointing runs (pretty much 12-15 were some variations of bad to very bad).

Disapppointing how?

And "bad to very bad" in comparison to whom? He had the 4th best playoff PPG (min. of 30 games) over that timeframe.

 

[The Macho King]

Disapppointing how?

And "bad to very bad" in comparison to whom? He had the 4th best playoff PPG (min. of 30 games) over that timeframe.

I'm not engaging people that come to shill for one or two players. I've addressed this already.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So is there any other reason to rank Bourque and Lidstrom over Potvin except longevity?

 

[VanIslander]

Let's take a basic look at the most prolific goal and assist getters (no double dipping - this is not a look at Art Ross totals but the two subcomponent performances). It's a glance at the forwards' best individual seasons in goals or assists.

Messier
Assists 2nd, 3rd

Morenz
Goals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd
Assists 1st, 3rd, 3rd*

Crosby
Goals 1st, 1st
Assists 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd

Mikita
Goals 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Assists 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd

Ovechkin
Goals 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd
Assists zilch elite (best: 6th, 6th)

Jagr
Goals 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Assists 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd

* please let's ignore 6ths in such a small league when looking at best of the best marginal top 10 all time candidates - heck let's ignore non-top3 for every era even though in bigger leagues a 6th is significant.

CONCLUSION:

Jagr has had the most dominant offensive seasons, Ovechkin goal seasons, Mikita better than Morenz and Crosby, Messier not to be scaled by these metrics in terms of his value, not to any degree.

 

[overg]

So is there any other reason to rank Bourque and Lidstrom over Potvin except longevity?

Here's what I've got off the top of my head. Although if you highly value peak (which seems implicit in your question), I'm not sure these will make the difference.
1. Lidstrom and Bourque had overall better health.
2. Lidstrom and Bourque took fewer penalties
3. Lidstrom (7) and Bourque (5) were both judged the best defenseman in the league more times that Potvin (3).

If you're really focused on peak, Potvin probably is your guy. Maybe Bourque's near-Hart years pull him even, and maybe Lidstrom's Conn Smythe at least gets him in the discussion. But Potvin has very strong arguments when ignoring longevity.

 

[VanIslander]

So is there any other reason to rank Bourque and Lidstrom over Potvin except longevity?

LOL. You make it seem like they just played longer. They had tons of elite seasons, not just peak and drop off.

Potvin did little ELITE level after the dynasty. His last five seasons after age 29 he had one 2nd team all star, no other relatively significant Norris vote seasons and five insignificant-if-not-bad-even playoffs.

Potvin is like Orr without the career ending injuries. Only Potvin's peak is not head and shoulders above those of Bourque or Lidstrom.

I cannot fathom how Potvin fares well against the duo overall.

Potvin vs. Shore would be more intriguing, eh? I would LOVE a Potvin vs. Lafleur study... we might still get that later.

 

[The Macho King]

So is there any other reason to rank Bourque and Lidstrom over Potvin except longevity?

So -

Gosh I really should work, but here's my quick take. Potvin has a great peak, but I think Bourque's is pretty damn close and with better competition. Raw point totals are obviously close, but Bourque's peak also lasted longer than Potvin's (although you can push back on this - Potvin's regular season peak kind of dropped off right when the dynasty took off, so you could argue that it's a continuation). Seriously - from 87-94 Bourque could have easily won 7 Norris trophies (won 5), and then he has some earlier seasons (1982 stands out the most, but I'd argue '84 is another one) where he probably *should* have won.

Playoffs I've detailed where I think Bourque's is better than reported, but Potvin is obviously ahead (although - I'd maintain that outside of Colorado Bourque never had another top 100 player with him while Potvin had 2 - one who may be discussed in the next vote and another one that isn't far off). But longevity kinda matters when it's valuable longevity. Messier - don't give a ton of longevity credit because outside of his prime he wasn't necessarily significantly above replacement value. Bourque (and Lidstrom)'s longevity allowed for more opportunities to build a quality team with them around them. Like we're not talking "stayed around a long time and just compiled stats" - Bourque was 1st or 2nd all-star over the span of his entire career - so that's a top 4 Dman for 19 seasons.

If you rate playoffs most highly, Potvin is defensible as #3 Dman. I think that's too myopic and ignores too much context (Bourque was dragging some bad teams deep in the playoffs while Potvin had some studs helping him carry the load). But ya know - you do you.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So is there any other reason to rank Bourque and Lidstrom over Potvin except longevity?

I'll take a stab that might be a little unpopular...but the era. Potvin does a lot of his individual work before the 80 to 85 era that kind of stinks...the game is kind of unruly then and I don't appreciate it nearly as much as the time surrounding it...all in all, Potvin doesn't play in the strongest time for players...the talent disparity is obvious watching the games.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Here's what I've got off the top of my head. Although if you highly value peak (which seems implicit in your question), I'm not sure these will make the difference.
1. Lidstrom and Bourque had overall better health.
2. Lidstrom and Bourque took fewer penalties
3. Lidstrom and Bourque were both judged the best defenseman in the league more times that Potvin.

If you're really focused on peak, Potvin probably is your guy. Maybe Bourque's near-Hart years pull him even, and maybe Lidstrom's Conn Smythe at least gets him in the discussion. But Potvin has very strong arguments when ignoring longevity.

1 is true, especially for Lidstrom, but the major difference between Potvin and Bourque is that Potvin missed a lot of time in 79-80, so it's wasn't a year to year problem (1060 vs 1100 games played in their first 15 years, entirely explained by 79-80).Point still holds, but...

2 is true, but then I see it as a negative, considering Potvin had a Stevens-like presence on the ice, which I see as an immense advantage in his favor.Especially since Potvin's penalties didn't get in the way of winning.

3 OK, though that sounds like a concentrated version of longevity.

So -

Gosh I really should work, but here's my quick take. Potvin has a great peak, but I think Bourque's is pretty damn close and with better competition. Raw point totals are obviously close, but Bourque's peak also lasted longer than Potvin's (although you can push back on this - Potvin's regular season peak kind of dropped off right when the dynasty took off, so you could argue that it's a continuation). Seriously - from 87-94 Bourque could have easily won 7 Norris trophies (won 5), and then he has some earlier seasons (1982 stands out the most, but I'd argue '84 is another one) where he probably *should* have won.

Playoffs I've detailed where I think Bourque's is better than reported, but Potvin is obviously ahead (although - I'd maintain that outside of Colorado Bourque never had another top 100 player with him while Potvin had 2 - one who may be discussed in the next vote and another one that isn't far off). But longevity kinda matters when it's valuable longevity. Messier - don't give a ton of longevity credit because outside of his prime he wasn't necessarily significantly above replacement value. Bourque (and Lidstrom)'s longevity allowed for more opportunities to build a quality team with them around them. Like we're not talking "stayed around a long time and just compiled stats" - Bourque was 1st or 2nd all-star over the span of his entire career - so that's a top 4 Dman for 19 seasons.

If you rate playoffs most highly, Potvin is defensible as #3 Dman. I think that's too myopic and ignores too much context (Bourque was dragging some bad teams deep in the playoffs while Potvin had some studs helping him carry the load). But ya know - you do you.

So you respond to me asking for any other reason other than longevity with... longevity?

 

[The Macho King]

So...you respond to me asking for any other reason other than longevity with... longevity?

I don't think "long prime" = "longevity". Length of peak years matter independent of any "longevity" criteria. Gretzky's peak is impressive *not only* for how high it reached, but how long it was.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't think "long prime" = "longevity". Length of peak years matter independent of any "longevity" criteria. Gretzky's peak is impressive *not only* for how high it reached, but how long it was.

Still longevity, albeit a concentrated version.

For me I think Potvin was the overall best D in the league from 75 to 84, 10 years window.Long enough for me.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Were there too many players from Denis Potvin’s generation (1948-1958 births) that had an incredible amount of longevity? Seems like a lot of the players dropped off after ~10 seasons.

Messier - don't give a ton of longevity credit because outside of his prime he wasn't necessarily significantly above replacement value.

What are we considering his prime? 1982-1997?

 

[The Macho King]

Still longevity, albeit a concentrated version.

For me I think Potvin was the overall best D in the league from 75 to 84, 10 years window.Long enough for me.

Like I said - folding the dynasty years into Potvin's peak years is totally justifiable despite his regular season drop. And if you really value playoffs, having Potvin over Bourque is certainly defensible.

I wasn't trashing your opinion. I don't agree with it but I put less stock on the playoffs (especially among stacked dynasty teams because it is hard to see where one players contributions begin and another's ends), but that's me.

 

[The Macho King]

Were there too many players from Denis Potvin’s generation (1948-1958 births) that had an incredible amount of longevity? Seems like a lot of the players dropped off after ~10 seasons.




What are we considering his prime? 1982-1997?

That sounds about right. I'm comparing him directly w/ Bourque and Lidstrom as I say this - his final 7 seasons don't move the needle at all to me. I don't care if he played until he was 50 when he stopped being an impact player at like 35 (which is still great).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Like I said - folding the dynasty years into Potvin's peak years is totally justifiable despite his regular season drop. And if you really value playoffs, having Potvin over Bourque is certainly defensible.

I wasn't trashing your opinion. I don't agree with it but I put less stock on the playoffs (especially among stacked dynasty teams because it is hard to see where one players contributions begin and another's ends), but that's me.

Fair enough.I do believe the dynasty years is a prolongement of his reign as the top D in the league, and I do value playoffs, hence I prefer Potvin.

Potvin is the only one in that group who had everything:

Playoffs (check)
Physicality (check)
Offense (check)
Defense (check)
PK (check)
PP (check)
Leadership (check)

He had it all.A perfect prototype of a #1 defenseman.Harvey and Orr are somewhat unattainable.Shore is a special case and I won't go there now.Otherwise, he is the one with everything.He's the true prototype IMO.

 

[MXD]

To be honest, Potvin has the "Peak" argument and the "Leadership" argument over Bourque, but Bourque is about 3 Nordschleife laps ahead in longevity, so every slight concession everywhere else isn't quite relevant.

 

[VanIslander]

Were there too many players from Denis Potvin’s generation (1948-1958 births) that had an incredible amount of longevity? Seems like a lot of the players dropped off after 10 years...

Phil Esposito had five 80+ point seasons after his first 10 years, including 1st star, 2nd star honours, Hart trophy...

Check that. Espo was born in 1942. So, not part of the post-war baby boom generation as you define them.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Were there too many players from Denis Potvin’s generation (1948-1958 births) that had an incredible amount of longevity? Seems like a lot of the players dropped off after ~10 seasons.

That's a good point.I think his era was low on longevity.Someone with better knowledge as to why that is could chime in.Probably the salaries weren't enticing enough? Pretty sure Potvin could have played for another 6 years.It's even likely he would have bounced back, because it's understandable that he had a few low years after the dynasty and his entire team declining.A rejunevating could have occur the further we go from the dynasty.

 

[The Macho King]

Fair enough.I do believe the dynasty years is a prolongement of his reign as the top D in the league, and I do value playoffs, hence I prefer Potvin.

Potvin is the only one in that group who had everything:

Playoffs (check)
Physicality (check)
Offense (check)
Defense (check)
PK (check)
PP (check)
Leadership (check)

He had it all.A perfect prototype of a #1 defenseman.Harvey and Orr are somewhat unattainable.Shore is a special case and I won't go there now.Otherwise, he is the one with everything.He's the true prototype IMO.

I guess Bourque wasn't as physical, but I don't see how he isn't also the "perfect prototype #1 Dman". Hell, you could even apply that to Lidstrom (who was particularly well suited to post-lockout play).

I don't think we can really knock for a lot of these factors until we start getting to players like Coffey.

 

[The Macho King]

That's a good point.I think his era was low on longevity.Someone with better knowledge as to why that is could chime in.Probably the salaries weren't enticing enough? Pretty sure Potvin could have played for another 6 years.It's even likely he would have bounced back, because it's understandable that he had a few low years after the dynasty and his entire team declining.A rejunevating could have occur the further we go from the dynasty.

It is weird... I mean, the generation ahead seemed fine for longevity. Generation that followed you have guys like Bourque, Chelios, Messier, etc. that played forever. But that short period you seem to have the best players in the league with relatively short careers (and short primes).

 

[MXD]

Well, Potvin is a contemporary of Robinson, who had better longevity all things considered (also with a non-negligible adavantage in games played : if we stick to his career as a Hab, he played 200+ games more than Potvin -- including playoffs). I'm reluctant to bring Borje Salming into this, considering he's clearly a level a two or five below Potvin and Robinson, and that a better team could've "masked" his decline better than the Leafs did.