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

[quoipourquoi]

Things you want to hear from the project administrator: um, the past 500 posts are kind of a blur to me. Is anyone still un-sold on Howie Morenz being towards the top of their ballot this round?

Based on last round’s voting results, we’re probably going to see a tight race of Bourque, Crosby, Hasek, and Morenz - barring one of the newer candidates piggybacking off of a comparison (Jagr and Ovechkin off of Crosby, Plante off of Hasek, Messier and Lidstrom off of Bourque... Mikita and Potvin might be my unlisted players this vote).

We got a lot of Crosby/Morenz, but how does everyone feel about their arrangement of Bourque/Crosby/Hasek - three players that we’ve probably all seen?

 

[Sentinel]

Jagr played for horrible Pens that were not far away from bankrupcy in the late 90's, Ovechkin on the multiple president trophy winners. If one Smythe is everything he has on Jagr, well, it doesn't close the gap for me.

Those "horrible Pens teams" had Nedved / Kovalev Straka, Lang, and Lemieux until 97. Titov and Morozov too (good enough for the Russian NT). Those teams played like crap, but it wasn't because they had bad rosters.

 

[The Macho King]

I think Hull has a shot to add 1 or 2 more if he doesn't jump to the WHA...he has an undeserved Smythe (if Crosby gets slagged for being the 2nd best player in the playoffs in 2016 then Ovechkin should for being 3rd best in 2018)...

To play devil's advocate..."When Hasek was THE man in Buffalo, they didn't win anything" (even though Jagr was a best man in 1992) - yet we're falling all over ourselves to put him in the 10 items or less line...

Jagr's the better player, more dynamic, more adaptable, better playoff resume, better international resume, better longevity, was the best player in the world for half a decade...he could be the best in goals and best in assists...and he played on teams far worse than Ovechkin and dragged them into the playoffs and he could play with inferior linemates to try to push depth to lower lines (Jan Hrdina, Kip Miller, etc.)...Ovechkin always with Backstrom or Kuznetsov, almost never used to bring along young or incomplete talent (like Andre Burakovsky or Jakub Vrana), instead insulated with more defensive conscience players (Mike Knuble, Chris Clark, etc.)...

It's definitely not Ovechkin time for me.

This brings up an issue with Ovechkin for me - lack of international success.

He's a guy that played in the WC every year he physically was able. Despite that (and despite the crappy competition in the WC), Russia rarely did well. They Olympics have steadily been disappointment after disappointment for the Russians (who shouldn't be *that* far behind any of the other countries outside of Canada), and the same for the World Cup. Russia - with Ovi leading them - has sucked in international play. That is a big negative against him IMO.

Additionally - if you take out the last playoffs, Ovi has been inconsistent/bad in the playoffs as a whole. He was fine before 2010, but after that Montreal series Ovechkin as an individual was a detriment to the team in the playoffs - despite some pretty good teams. 40 points in 60 games with a -8 (only 21 goals). Ovechkin did a lot to answer some criticism with his Cup run, but let's not forget the years leading up to it - especially 2011-2017. He has to be at the very bottom for playoff performers this round.

 

[MXD]

Things you want to hear from the project administrator: um, the past 500 posts are kind of a blur to me. Is anyone still un-sold on Howie Morenz being towards the top of their ballot this round?

Based on last round’s voting results, we’re probably going to see a tight race of Bourque, Crosby, Hasek, and Morenz - barring one of the newer candidates piggybacking off of a comparison (Jagr and Ovechkin off of Crosby, Plante off of Hasek, Messier and Lidstrom off of Bourque... Mikita and Potvin might be my unlisted players this vote).

We got a lot of Crosby/Morenz, but how does everyone feel about their arrangement of Bourque/Crosby/Hasek - three players that we’ve probably all seen?

- Yeah, I absolutely wanted to hear that from the project administrator.

- Totally sold on Morenz between 2 and 5. I entered this one with Morenz being a Top-3 skater. He will remain such. Crosby might just be 2018-2019 away from making any discussion W/R/T Morenz a waste of time, but 2018-2019 didn't happen yet.

- Bourque and Crosby is going to the wire.

 

[K Fleur]

I don’t think when anyone is referring to Jagr’s “horrible Pens teams” that they are referring to the teams in the 90’s that iced both Jagr and Mario Lemieux.

 

[MXD]

Jagr played for horrible Pens that were not far away from bankrupcy in the late 90's, Ovechkin on the multiple president trophy winners. If one Smythe is everything he has on Jagr, well, it doesn't close the gap for me.

If that Penguins team was horrible, then the NHL was composed of 20 horrible teams. Those teams weren't horrible by any stretch. They had depth issues and D issues, but they weren't horrible.

 

[daver]

So where do people ultimately stand on Ovechkin vs. Jagr?

Edge to OV for playoffs, bigger edge to Jagr for regular season and longevity. Very close.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Those "horrible Pens teams" had Nedved / Kovalev Straka, Lang, and Lemieux until 97. Titov and Morozov too (good enough for the Russian NT). Those teams played like crap, but it wasn't because they had bad rosters.

Everyone recognizes they were a top-six and virtually nothing else team (sometimes goaltending)...no bottom six, no defense...this is obviously what we're talking about.

 

[VanIslander]

Nice work Seventieslord. I'm not sure those are the same stats I was originally talking about, but they're telling a very similar story, which is that Bourque was roughly Lidstrom's equal, if not better, when it comes to the defensive side of the ice... it might be an interesting deep dive discussion some day to try and explain why Bourque compares so well to Lidstrom defensively...

I could dig up a good description of the much-admired skill Bourque had of physically checking his man off of the puck and simultaneously taking away the puck and heading the other way. Some great dmen poke check the puck away with finesse (Lidstrom); others bodycheck opposing players out of the play and away from the puck (Chelios); Bourque combined both skills into one incredible combination. His eye-hand coordination was legendary and his commitment to hard work and physical play where needed was unyielding. There's a lot of ink on him.

He was as boring as Toews in interviews. He didn't have "star power" off the ice. But he was heralded for what he could do on the ice.

 

[The Macho King]

Nice work Seventieslord. I'm not sure those are the same stats I was originally talking about, but they're telling a very similar story, which is that Bourque was roughly Lidstrom's equal, if not better, when it comes to the defensive side of the ice. Would it be possible to add Potvin to the mix and see how he fares?

I'm not sure this is the place for it, but it might be an interesting deep dive discussion some day to try and explain why Bourque compares so well to Lidstrom defensively. Just watching them, Lidstrom appeared to be more conservative and more positionally sound, so I think Lidstrom is generally considered a step up from Bourque in their own zones. But these results don't seem to match that narrative. Why not?

Are we misusing the stats? Is there something off about the stats themselves? If the stats are correct and we're interpreting them correctly, where is the eye test failing? Is the best defense actually a good offense (see also, Orr)? Was Bourque better in his own end than we give him credit for? Lidstrom worse? Were they situationally used much differently? What differences were there between how they defended, and which of those differences gave better or worse results? Is a body check worth more than a poke check? Mobility superior to positioning?

I freaking love stuff like this, when new statistical information just opens the door to so many more questions. Thanks again for doing the math, Seventieslord.

So my remembrance is this - Lidstrom played *mistake free* defense. It wasn't flashy, it wasn't visually impressive, but he was great positionally and had a tremendous stick. Bourque did not play mistake-free defense. I think he skated more in the defensive zone. It still wasn't flashy (he wasn't knocking guys on their asses or anything), but it was more *active* than Lidstrom, so when he f***ed up it was pretty clear he f***ed up.

The numbers suggest they were equally effective, but I think one of the most common (not necessarily correct) ways of eye-testing defense is finding where you blew a coverage, without factoring in that it may have been a risk/reward move that on balance ends up being a better play the majority of the time.

I want to caveat this by saying this is just my memory though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's basically right ^

On the whole, Lidstrom was better defensively than Bourque. Bourque was better offensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Edge to OV for playoffs, bigger edge to Jagr for regular season and longevity. Very close.

Depends on how you define "longevity."

This is how I see it:

Ovechkin has more elite seasons, so more longevity as an elite player.
Jagr has more seasons as a useful/productive player, so more longevity as a productive player.

I personally care a lot about longevity as an elite player, not as much about longevity as a productive player.

I'm also unconvinced that Jagr's best regular seasons are better than Ovechkin's, but I know others differ.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re: @seventieslord's numbers that tend to show Bourque was marginally better defensively than Lidstrom. They don't account for Lidstrom's penalty avoidance, which was insanely good for a defensive defenseman. Bourque was pretty good at playing stellar defense while avoiding penalties, but Lidstrom was otherwordly at it.

I still prefer Bourque overall to Lidstrom, but I do prefer Lidstrom defensively by a tiny margin.

 

[The Macho King]

That's basically right ^

On the whole, Lidstrom was better defensively than Bourque. Bourque was better offensively.

So you go a bridge farther than I would. I think there was a method to Bourque's more active style. A more aggressive defensive play turns into offense faster, and when you don't have Yzerman and Federov and Datsyuk and Zetterberg as forwards who can create on their own, maybe the chance for overplaying on D is more than balanced by the opportunity to quickly turn the puck up ice.

 

[Sentinel]

Everyone recognizes they were a top-six and virtually nothing else team (sometimes goaltending)...no bottom six, no defense...this is obviously what we're talking about.

Other than loaded Detroit, who was NOT top-loaded? Colorado had Corbet and Ricci. NJ had Brylin and Pandolfo. Washington, Philadelphia, and Buffalo were not exactly known for their 3rd and 4th lines, yet they all reached the Finals. Pittsburgh actually had good rosters. That underperformed. How much of it can be pinned Jagr, I don't know.

 

[overg]

We got a lot of Crosby/Morenz, but how does everyone feel about their arrangement of Bourque/Crosby/Hasek - three players that we’ve probably all seen?

Right now, I'd go Hasek, Bourque, Crosby. Which I'm not sure is internally consistent, but it just feels correct.

Hasek's peak was just something else. When you're curb-stomping Patrick Roy (to say nothing of the rest of the league) for that many years in a row, that's just ridiculous. That mid to late 90's run by Hasek gets him my vote, as I think it's the highest level of sustained play we've seen in the league since Lemieux's peak.

On the other hand, Bourque's almost career-length prime is also absurd. When you've got a "best ever at X" list, and the only name above you is Gordie Howe, you're doing something very, very, very right. Similar to Hasek's peak, Bourque prime is historically significant to an incredible degree.

If Crosby's health had held, he might very well have trumped Hasek's peak. And he of course loses the longevity war to Bourque, almost by default since he's still playing. He's already got an edge over the other two when it comes to playoffs, and that seems like the most likely route to him definitely jumping the other two in my mind. But that's a discussion for a future project.

 

[K Fleur]

Penguins defenseman with the highest avg TOI each season Jagr was the man in Pittsburgh:

97-98: Kevin Hatcher
98-99: Kevin Hatcher
99-00: Jiri Slegr
00-01: Darius Kasparitis

Also got to play with notable defenseman like Ian Moran, Brett Werenka, Hans Jonsson, even a little stretch with Canadiens all time great GM Marc Bergevin.

 

[bobholly39]

"Deserved" Conn Smythe or not (I think it was deserved), Ovechkin's 2018 was still a "Smythe-worthy" run (so was Kuznetsov's) and it was definitely a signature playoff run. And it is a plus in any comparison with Jagr. It's up to the individual voters to decide how much weight to give a single signature playoff run.

I value "smythe worthy runs" very highly in my playoff assessment. There's worth in actually differentiating between top runs too (like a Lemieux or Gretzky top top run in round 1, or Roy last round - maybe even Sakic 96 when he comes up) - but for me i like looking at quantity first.

Ovechkin 2018, Crosby 2016 - both absolutely smythe worthy runs. It's a team game, and maybe a heroic herculean individual effort (see 99, 66) can tip the scales and win a cup for your team almost on its own - but for the most part qty over quality. Get a lot of these "smythe worthy runs" and you'll win likely a few cups. Messier and Potvin do good in that sense too.

Jagr has none of those. This hurts him. Especially considering how high I am on his overall peak - i maintain it's possibly the 5th highest peak in hockey after the big 4. Maybe lack of good team/teammates hurt him and that's fine - but he still doesn't have those smythe worthy runs and vs players in this group, it hurts him.

Things you want to hear from the project administrator: um, the past 500 posts are kind of a blur to me. Is anyone still un-sold on Howie Morenz being towards the top of their ballot this round?

Based on last round’s voting results, we’re probably going to see a tight race of Bourque, Crosby, Hasek, and Morenz - barring one of the newer candidates piggybacking off of a comparison (Jagr and Ovechkin off of Crosby, Plante off of Hasek, Messier and Lidstrom off of Bourque... Mikita and Potvin might be my unlisted players this vote).

We got a lot of Crosby/Morenz, but how does everyone feel about their arrangement of Bourque/Crosby/Hasek - three players that we’ve probably all seen?

Morenz near the top yes - but behind Crosby. I'd be interested in seeing a Morenz vs Jagr/Ovi comparison. I'm honestly likely going to rank Morenz ahead of both for form - but if someone can do a more in-depth comparison, i could be convinced about seeing him fall back.

Bourque/Crosby/Hasek. I think a lot of talk has been shed on those guys. In my opinion it'll come down to how much weight you put towards some factors. To me - Crosby has by far the least weaknesses vs the other 2 (Bourque is missing signature playoff runs, league-wide mvp/best players even if you give him 1990/bias vs defenders), (Hasek is missing mostly playoffs, but also # of quality seasons is low) and i'll rank him first. Hasek > Bourque is also where i'm at.

This brings up an issue with Ovechkin for me - lack of international success.

He's a guy that played in the WC every year he physically was able. Despite that (and despite the crappy competition in the WC), Russia rarely did well. They Olympics have steadily been disappointment after disappointment for the Russians (who shouldn't be *that* far behind any of the other countries outside of Canada), and the same for the World Cup. Russia - with Ovi leading them - has sucked in international play. That is a big negative against him IMO.

Additionally - if you take out the last playoffs, Ovi has been inconsistent/bad in the playoffs as a whole. He was fine before 2010, but after that Montreal series Ovechkin as an individual was a detriment to the team in the playoffs - despite some pretty good teams. 40 points in 60 games with a -8 (only 21 goals). Ovechkin did a lot to answer some criticism with his Cup run, but let's not forget the years leading up to it - especially 2011-2017. He has to be at the very bottom for playoff performers this round.

I know me and you are clashing a lot lately with how we view and weight things - but I wanted to comment yet again here because I disagree with some of this.

Ovechkin - lack of international success. Yes, that's a knock against him. As inconsistent and almost "cherry-picking" like as it might sound - i'm more inclined to count as "big positives" the great international successes (Crosby has some, Hasek, in this round) but i won't necessarily put much weight in failures. So for example internationally:

Crosby + 5
Hasek + 5
Morenz - 0 (lack of opportunity)
Ovechkin... +1? NOT a negative.

So although Ovechking internationally might be disappointing - i'd rather highlight the great performers, and still consider Ovi's international resume a positive vs those who lack anything in that area - and certainly not a negative.

Regarding the playoffs - I know i specifically responded to one of your posts earlier about Crosby 2012-2015 being bad but - I think we need to be careful in holding too much against more modern players we saw "live" when it comes to bad performances. How much of you saying Ovechkin 2010-2017 playoffs is bad due to you seeing him play being an active hockey fan during that timeframe - and if you can't make the same assessment of guys like Potvin, Plante or Morenz because you didn't see them play - I feel as though you are deducting additional points from Ovi that maybe past players also deserve but won't get because we're only judging off of stats and testimony.

 

[DannyGallivan]

We got a lot of Crosby/Morenz, but how does everyone feel about their arrangement of Bourque/Crosby/Hasek - three players that we’ve probably all seen?

In a nutshell: Crosby - Bourque - Hasek (with the occasional player in between). At least for now. I keep getting sold more and more on Bourque, and Crosby still has a lot of career left. But I've always been very impressed by Crosby.

 

[The Macho King]

So although Ovechking internationally might be disappointing - i'd rather highlight the great performers, and still consider Ovi's international resume a positive vs those who lack anything in that area - and certainly not a negative.

Regarding the playoffs - I know i specifically responded to one of your posts earlier about Crosby 2012-2015 being bad but - I think we need to be careful in holding too much against more modern players we saw "live" when it comes to bad performances. How much of you saying Ovechkin 2010-2017 playoffs is bad due to you seeing him play being an active hockey fan during that timeframe - and if you can't make the same assessment of guys like Potvin, Plante or Morenz because you didn't see them play - I feel as though you are deducting additional points from Ovi that maybe past players also deserve but won't get because we're only judging off of stats and testimony.

So first - we're talking here. We can disagree and be chill, so don't worry about it.

But second - I think if you look at a player of Ovechkin's caliber, a one-way forward and goal scorer, and note that he scored 2/3 ppg and 1/3 gpg despite playing on a good team... that is unequivocally a bad stretch. I think the statistics bear that out. And we're not talking about one run here - we're talking about a long stretch that included numerous severe playoff disappointments. Three President's Trophies - zero trips to the Conference Finals. Objectively bad.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So my remembrance is this - Lidstrom played *mistake free* defense. It wasn't flashy, it wasn't visually impressive, but he was great positionally and had a tremendous stick.

Sticks were lighter. Best pokechecker of his generation, no doubt, but he also came in at a time that pokechecking became much more viable.

 

[The Macho King]

Sticks were lighter. Best pokechecker of his generation, no doubt, but he also came in at a time that pokechecking became much more viable.

When did composite sticks become standard?

Also - there was an interview with one player on the Lightning (think it might have been Gourde?) who used a wooden stick when messing around and loved it. He was considering using it full time (the dude scores all of his goals from three inches in front of the net so it probably wouldn't hurt him much).

 

[ImporterExporter]

The Penguins were never really horrible with Jagr. It's a fantasy to suggest otherwise. I'm a Pens diehard. Watched them often during this time.

96-97 they still had Mario, Francis, Nedved, Hatcher, Kasper, Barrasso, and finished 2nd in the division

97-98 they lost Mario but still had Francis and most of the other guys listed while adding Straka and Robert Lang and finished 1st in their division

98-99, lost Francis but added Kovalelv, still had Straka, Lang, Hatcher, Barrasso, and made the 2nd round. Still nowhere near horrible.

99-99, still had all the forwards, but their defense was finally looking a bit bleak relative to the better teams in the league at the time. But again, this wasn't a team that was void of talent beyond Jagr.

00-01, Mario returns, forward group is very solid, D looks porous, but they still win 42 games because again, this wasn't a poor team. Behind the top tier franchises? Absolutely but nowhere near a bottom dweller.

Jagr is traded....Lemeiux more or less done after the 03 season.

There is really no reason to suggest Jagr was playing on absolute shit teams in Pittsburgh during the late 90's. It wasn't until 2001-02 that the Pens really started tanking, which is not surprising given their financial troubles and having no real talent outside Straka and Kovalev.

To me, Jagr was an amazing, self serving offensive talent who never really lifted the Penguins in the absence of Mario. He flashed those abilities a few times in the postseason but people talk about Bourque being average or worse than as a postseason performer and at least he led Boston to multiple Cup final berths. The only proponents of Jagr point to about a 5 year offensive peak, but beyond that, there isn't a ton of big moments going on with JJ.

I have no ill will towards him as a Pens fan, I simply think he was a guy who was all about himself, was certainly a brilliant offensive mind, but beyond that, there isn't much that excites me. The postseason is a big black mark on Jagr's career. Players with his talents should have done more. Period.

 

[DannyGallivan]

When did composite sticks become standard?

Also - there was an interview with one player on the Lightning (think it might have been Gourde?) who used a wooden stick when messing around and loved it. He was considering using it full time (the dude scores all of his goals from three inches in front of the net so it probably wouldn't hurt him much).

That's an interesting take on which stick to use. Try stick-checking a wooden stick with a composite... good luck. A wooden stick makes perfect sense for hacking and slashing at a loose puck three feet from the crease.

 

[DannyGallivan]

When did composite sticks become standard?

Also - there was an interview with one player on the Lightning (think it might have been Gourde?) who used a wooden stick when messing around and loved it. He was considering using it full time (the dude scores all of his goals from three inches in front of the net so it probably wouldn't hurt him much).

Al MacInnes also used an old fashioned wooden stick for most - if not all - of his career. This included when virtually all other players were using composites. And he still had the hardest and fastest shot from the point.