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

[BenchBrawl]

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.

Robinson's longevity advantage over Potvin consists of his rookie season, his last MTL year and his LA years.All completely useless to his resume and legacy, unless you want to give him a handful of points for mentoring Rob Blake.

edit: I take that back, he did have the 89 playoff run.So I guess I was wrong, but it's still not a huge advantage.

 

[VanIslander]

In Dionne's 16th season he scored 84 points in 81 games ( lol.. his lowest total in 8 years). That was in 1987 at age 35. He had scored more points than anyone over 1975-85 and was 2nd all time in career points at one point.

Born in 1951, he is part of the generation you are talking about, but he bucked the trend.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In Dionne's 16th season he scored 84 points in 81 games. That was in 1987 at age 35. He had scored more points than anyobe over 1975-85 and was 2nd all time in career points at one point.

Born in 1951, he is part of the generation you are talking about, but he bucked the trend.

True he bucked the trend.Then again, he didn't play a Potvin-like physical game throughout a dynasty.He was well rested that Dionne.

 

[VanIslander]

Dionne was hard working, physical, imagine Theo Fleury as a center with Forsberg-like trunk strength on his skates and determination to play in traffic.

Let's not excuse Potvin or Lafleur for their dip after their dynasty team success.

Robinson also bucked the trend (his career offensive year and a Norris trophy finalist in his 14th season - the following year he scores 20 points in 17 playoff games!).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Dionne was hard working, physical, imagine Theo Fleury as a center with Forsberg-like trunk strength on his skates and determination to play in traffic.

Let's not excuse Potvin or Lafleur for their dip after their dynasty team success.

Robinson also bucked the trend. Indeed.

Robinson has barely more longevity than Potvin.If Robinson is the best we can find, then that's in favor of Potvin.

A mini-study on this would be interesting.Take all the stars who were born in a 3 years radius from Potvin, Bourque and Lidstrom, and check their relevant longevity as a top (or impact) player.Then check how each fared against their peers.I fully expect Bourque to win, but I'd be curious to see the "adjustment".I might do it later.

 

[bobholly39]

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 mean going back to your initial question why wouldn't longevity matter? If longevity doesn't matter - maybe you should be arguing Connor McDavid over some of the forwards in this round.

To me when someone says added longevity i think of Jagr coming back from the KHL and adding good years in his 40s. Very respectable years - but doesn't necessarily move the needle a whole ton when his peak was so fantastic. Sticking to Potvin - longevity is maybe 1985-88.

Lidstrom and Bourque have no "added longevity". All they have is an extended prime.
Bourque was a top 7 norris votee every single season of his 21 year career. In his last year he was top 2 in Norris.
Lidstrom won a Norris at age 40, and was 5th in his next and final year. In his last 16 years he was top 6 in Norris voting 16 times.

That's not just longevity - that's some significant career worth they're adding each and every year. Isn't that why Roy was voted ahead of Hasek, or Howe ahead of Lemieux? Enough longevity should absolutely matter.

As to your checklist.

- Physicality is a means to an end, not an end. The "end" is defending. Make the case that Potvin was a better defender than Bourque and/or Lidstrom thanks to hitting and maybe it counts. But Lidstrom in particular hit very little but was super effective at his job. What counts is defending - less so how you defend.

As for the rest of your checklist - both Bourque and Lidstrom also had everything in your list.

 

[overg]

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.

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

I'm always perplexed by this sort of attitude. Do you think Lidstrom's and Bourque's lack of penalties hurt their teams? Do you think forwards were actively challenging their side of the ice because they played relatively clean? I just don't see it. Bourque actively controlled both ends of the ice on his side . . . opponents sure as heck were game-planning around his side of the ice. And you can find all sorts of quotes from forwards becrying their lack of success at avoiding Lidstrom's poke checks on his side of the ice.

Physicality is a means to an end. It absolutely can be effective, but I am hard pressed to believe that taking penalties deters more goals against than it creates. Especially when in this particular case, you're looking at your best defensive player being off the ice while you're shorthanded.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

Jagr perhaps the most diversified scoring. Ovechkin the least.

Others defined their era.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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).

I would agree that his play in what were his 20th-26th professional seasons probably aren’t too relevant to his case - but I also don’t know that his or Dominik Hasek’s longevity are necessarily any worse than anyone else’s in this round. 10 seasons top-10 in points/points-per-game across a range of 15 seasons is abnormally strong, and Hasek’s 2006-07 is probably more anomalous than Bourque’s 2000-01 or Lidstrom’s 2010-11 in terms of a last gasp, which we’ve seen from a handful of Defensemen on the edge of 40.

I remember it coming up before how few players were Hart nominees in Year Eighteen or beyond (Beliveau was another one).

 

[The Macho King]

I'm always perplexed by this sort of attitude. Do you think Lidstrom's and Bourque's lack of penalties hurt their teams? Do you think forwards were actively challenging their side of the ice because they played relatively clean? I just don't see it. Bourque actively controlled both ends of the ice on his side . . . opponents sure as heck were game-planning around his side of the ice. And you can find all sorts of quotes from forwards becrying their lack of success at avoiding Lidstrom's poke checks on his side of the ice.

Physicality is a means to an end. It absolutely can be effective, but I am hard pressed to believe that taking penalties deters more goals against than it creates. Especially when in this particular case, you're looking at your best defensive player being off the ice while you're shorthanded.

I agree - means to an end. Although it's an effective way to control the ice (especially in certain eras). That Messier/Robinson video that was posted earlier... I was afraid for Messier there. Robinson's physicality is going to be a big mark in his favor when he comes up.

I don't think Potvin has a Robinson-level intimidation factor though. Then again I don't really know who does.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

No but at the forefront of the post depression era. First group to benefit from post WWII progress in education and recreation in Canada.

 

[overg]

One more point about Lidstrom, which I think Canadiens1958 has actually raised in the past. Although he sure wasn't chippy, and may not have thrown a single body check in his career, he was surprisingly good at pinning opponents to the boards. Not usually what you think of when you consider physical play, but Lidstrom was extremely adept at tying players up when the situation called for it (and doing so without getting penalized, for the most part).

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I don't think Potvin has a Robinson-level intimidation factor though. Then again I don't really know who does.

Scott Stevens?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Physicality is a means to an end. It absolutely can be effective, but I am hard pressed to believe that taking penalties deters more goals against than it creates. Especially when in this particular case, you're looking at your best defensive player being off the ice while you're shorthanded.

So is finesse a means to an end. Just a question of what is the best choice for each opponent.

Recognized in the rule book. Two minutes for misapplied finesse or physicality.

Regardless your abstraction fails the "on ice" test. During Lidstrom's Norris years the Red Wings never had the NHL total lowest PPA. Disconnect between theory and results.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Someone put up a statistic showing that Lidstrom was noted for more hits his last few years than Duncan Keith generally has been not that far ago IIRC.

Now, Keith delivered a few nasty hits but it's not like Lidstrom was this cindarella on ice.

 

[Canadiens1958]

One more point about Lidstrom, which I think Canadiens1958 has actually raised in the past. Although he sure wasn't chippy, and may not have thrown a single body check in his career, he was surprisingly good at pinning opponents to the boards. Not usually what you think of when you consider physical play, but Lidstrom was extremely adept at tying players up when the situation called for it (and doing so without getting penalized, for the most part).

O6 physicality = good physicality?

 

[The Macho King]

Scott Stevens?

Maybe in hitting, but I don't really recall Stevens being a feared fighter or anything like that (at least after his first few seasons in the league).

I don't know - I'm probably stupid, but I see Robinson as just... the scariest mother f***er out there.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Robinson was not as dirty as Potvin, so the psychological factor is not there as much from shift to shift.He's more of an end boss than Potvin for sure, but otherwise Potvin was more of a threat shift by shift.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Someone put up a statistic showing that Lidstrom was noted for more hits his last few years than Duncan Keith generally has been not that far ago IIRC.

Now, Keith delivered a few nasty hits but it's not like Lidstrom was this cindarella on ice.

That was me. Keith was not physical but suspendable.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Maybe in hitting, but I don't really recall Stevens being a feared fighter or anything like that (at least after his first few seasons in the league).

I don't know - I'm probably stupid, but I see Robinson as just... the scariest mother ****er out there.

Hahaha I just love your quote, but no you are not stupid to see Robinson this way, he was really so intimidating, just ask the Broad Street Bullies and Dave Schultz. Robinson is my favorite Montreal Canadiens defenseman and the greatest in team history for me even ahead Harvey.

I agree with you, Stevens was a feared hitter but not so much as a fighter, Lindros was a more feared fighter than him.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Robinson was not as dirty as Potvin, so the psychological factor is not there as much from shift to shift.He's more of an end boss than Potvin for sure, but otherwise Potvin was more of a threat shift by shift.

This is why he was so intimidating, no one wanted to poke him, he was one of the most respected players ever. I remember a video of him when he tried to calm down Tiger Williams when the latter chased a referee, nobody else in an opponent team could have done that except him.

 

[overg]

So is finesse a means to an end. Just a question of what is the best choice for each opponent.

Recognized in the rule book. Two minutes for misapplied finesse or physicality.

Regardless your abstraction fails the "on ice" test. During Lidstrom's Norris years the Red Wings never had the NHL total lowest PPA. Disconnect between theory and results.

/sigh. Is there any stat you won't cherry pick? Are you attempting to suggest that Lidstrom's penalty minutes contributed to the Wings' placement in PPA against?



Lidstrom's penalty minutes during his Norris years

'01 18
'02 20
'03 38
'06 50
'07 46
'08 40
'11 20

Of note with respect to that breakdown was the "obstruction" crackdown after the '05 lockout. Lidstrom's jump in penalty minutes (a whopping 12 minutes from the previous season) is probably partially attributable to him adjusting to the new rules. Watching his pre-2005 play, and Lidstrom relied heavily on exactly the sort of obstruction which the league cracked down upon.

The Wings' penalty killing during Lidstrom's Norris years

'01 6th
'02 8th
'03 6th
'06 3rd
'07 6th
'08 8th
'11 17th

Here are the Wings Goals Against finishes

'01 8th
'02 4th
'03 8th
'06 2nd
'07 4th
'08 1st
'11 8th


Here are their actual regular season finishes during those years.

'01 2nd
'02 1st (Cup Champs)
'03 3rd
'06 1st
'07 1st
'08 1st (Cup Champs)
'11 3rd


Over the course of his 7 Norris seasons, across three different "results" metrics, the Wings had a single year where they weren't in the top 8 of the league. Those seven seasons included two Stanley Cups, and three President's trophies.

So yeah, I'd say Lidstrom's methods worked out pretty okay for the Wings, and I'm not seeing any evidence at all that his lack of physical play was negative for Detroit. But I suppose it's possible that if he'd started throwing elbows at age 41, the Wings' PK would have done better in 2011.

 

[Canadiens1958]

/sigh. Is there any stat you won't cherry pick? Are you attempting to suggest that Lidstrom's penalty minutes contributed to the Wings' placement in PPA against?



Lidstrom's penalty minutes during his Norris years

'01 18
'02 20
'03 38
'06 50
'07 46
'08 40
'11 20

Of note with respect to that breakdown was the "obstruction" crackdown after the '05 lockout. Lidstrom's jump in penalty minutes (a whopping 12 minutes from the previous season) is probably partially attributable to him adjusting to the new rules. Watching his pre-2005 play, and Lidstrom relied heavily on exactly the sort of obstruction which the league cracked down upon.

The Wings' penalty killing during Lidstrom's Norris years

'01 6th
'02 8th
'03 6th
'06 3rd
'07 6th
'08 8th
'11 17th

Here are the Wings Goals Against finishes

'01 8th
'02 4th
'03 8th
'06 2nd
'07 4th
'08 1st
'11 8th


Here are their actual regular season finishes during those years.

'01 2nd
'02 1st (Cup Champs)
'03 3rd
'06 1st
'07 1st
'08 1st (Cup Champs)
'11 3rd


Over the course of his 7 Norris seasons, across three different "results" metrics, the Wings had a single year where they weren't in the top 8 of the league. Those seven seasons included two Stanley Cups, and three President's trophies.

So yeah, I'd say Lidstrom's methods worked out pretty okay for the Wings, and I'm not seeing any evidence at all that his lack of physical play was negative for Detroit. But I suppose it's possible that if he'd started throwing elbows at age 41, the Wings' PK would have done better in 2011.

No cherry-picking, just recognizing that there are multiple factors unlike you focusing on one factor.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, when looking at Hart records of defensemen and forwards pre-Norris Trophy, we should always assume that it was much easier for defensemen to get Hart nods, and conversely, there were fewer Hart spots available for forwards. In other words, Howie Morenz had competition for the Hart from all the defensemen in the league, in addition to the forwards.

But let's not forget that Shore still led all defensemen in All Star/Hart voting 8 times, AKA 8 Norris Trophy equivalents. And while defensemen during Shore's era racked up Hart voting, none of them but Shore was actually able to win the trophy more than once. Shore won it 4 times himself. All other pre-Norris defensemen won the trophy 5 times total (Herb Gardiner 1927, Babe Seibert 1937, Ebbie Goodfellow 1940, Tom Anderson 1942, Babe Pratt 1944).

It was absolutely much easier for defensemen to get Hart recognition in Shore's day. But, compared just to other defensemen, he destroyed his competition.

Exactly. Nice post.

Should also note that the big rap against Shore here has been the allegation that he was not good defensively. However, in 3 of the 4 seasons Shore won the Hart, the Bruins allowed the least goals in the league. Considering Shore played most of the game, its hard to imagine him being poor defensively but the Bruins being that good defensively.

 

[seventieslord]

Exactly. Nice post.

Should also note that the big rap against Shore here has been the allegation that he was not good defensively. However, in 3 of the 4 seasons Shore won the Hart, the Bruins allowed the least goals in the league. Considering Shore played most of the game, its hard to imagine him being poor defensively but the Bruins being that good defensively.

Because he obviously wasn't poor defensively.