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

[overpass]

Not to be a dick, but 14 > 10. I don't know how we should adjust longevity for era. I mean Howe came in 10 years after Shore retired and I think he is still playing to this day years after he died. It seems kind of lazy to say "well he's from an older era so that means 10 > 14."

Plenty of guys were impact players into their mid 30s back then. Nighbor, Cleghorn, and Clapper were all playing at a high level at 36-37.

At age 36 (1938-39), Eddie Shore was the best defenceman in the league (5th in Hart voting) and the best player on arguably the best team of all time (at that point).

He stopped being an impact player in the NHL because he took the opportunity to launch his post-playing career by purchasing the Springfield franchise. Not because he couldn't play in the league anymore. This is a big reason why players didn't play to age 40 back then -- once they reached their mid 30s they were looking out for their next career.

Not sure what Cleghorn or Nighbor's age 36 seasons have on Shore's.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Not to be a dick, but 14 > 10. I don't know how we should adjust longevity for era. I mean Howe came in 10 years after Shore retired and I think he is still playing to this day years after he died. It seems kind of lazy to say "well he's from an older era so that means 10 > 14."

Plenty of guys were impact players into their mid 30s back then. Nighbor, Cleghorn, and Clapper were all playing at a high level at 36-37.

Also what is being neglected is Shore's season out west in the WHL where he was on the first All Star Team for a league that was comparable in quality at the top to the NHL at the time. So add another season onto the count for Shore.

So if the difference is 3 seasons, I'd be inclined to give the nod to the player who had 11 excellent season in the 20s-30s over the guy with 14 in the 90s-00s

 

[bobholly39]

Its as if some posters dont believe there were medical advances since the 1930s that helped players play longer. (Not just you).

Obviously.

But when we're evaluating careers - shouldn't more be better? It seems like we're just justifying the less if not. Not sure I agree with that.
10 high value seasons > 8 high value seasons regardless of era imo. Same idea for playoff runs.

 

[DannyGallivan]

At age 36 (1938-39), Eddie Shore was the best defenceman in the league (5th in Hart voting) and the best player on arguably the best team of all time (at that point).

He stopped being an impact player in the NHL because he took the opportunity to launch his post-playing career by purchasing the Springfield franchise. Not because he couldn't play in the league anymore. This is a big reason why players didn't play to age 40 back then -- once they reached their mid 30s they were looking out for their next career.

Not sure what Cleghorn or Nighbor's age 36 seasons have on Shore's.

Good on you to bring up a forgotten reality - player salaries. There was a time when some very good players had to decide between the NHL or a better, more secure job in the "real world". Phil Esposito was still driving a truck in the offseason after he won the Art Ross.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Obviously.

But when we're evaluating careers - shouldn't more be better? It seems like we're just justifying the less if not. Not sure I agree with that.
10 high value seasons > 8 high value seasons regardless of era imo. Same idea for playoff runs.

8 high value seasons with practically no knowledge of sports medicine 70 years ago is at least even in my mind to 10 high value seasons within the last 2 decades.

Edit: Hell not even just sports medicine, real medicine

 

[DannyGallivan]

8 high value seasons with practically no knowledge of sports medicine 70 years ago is at least even in my mind to 10 high value seasons within the last 2 decades.

There were other issues too... players played through injuries because of the fear of losing a spot on the team. Even stars like Elmer Lach, who played through two severed veins in his foot one game, knew that there were some very good players in the minors waiting for their shot.

And of course, the equipment they used back then (never mind the absence of helmets) made a long career somewhat difficult, especially since the salaries were so (comparing to today) low that many of them could make almost as much - or more money off the ice.

 

[The Macho King]

Should it? We're already ignoring length of seasons (70+ games to half of that). I don't know that i believe in discounting qty of seasons too.

The way I read your post, it sounds like you're saying "If in Morenz's era 12 seasons was a lot and in Mikita's season 15 was a lot - 12 = 15". I think # of seasons can absolutely be compared at face value. More seasons = better and it can be used to differentiate.

I honestly don't know how to handle it. It's not a determining issue for me this vote, but going forward it might be (especially across eras).

There's lots of reasons for less longevity in the previous ages. More physical game, worse medical technology, smaller league means for fewer jobs to go around, smaller rosters, more ice time. On the other side, there were fewer games per season, although the schedule wasn't spread from October to June either.

Maybe you do it in a relative way? Players playing to 40 wasn't uncommon when Lidstrom finished his career. During Shore's? Maybe 35?

But there are random periods where that doesn't hold. Mid-50s players seemed (don't have the stats to back this up, just an impression) relatively long careers in relation to guys who started in the 70s. Anyway - it's an interesting question and I'd like to hear good arguments on how to adjust for it.

 

[MXD]

But there are random periods where that doesn't hold. Mid-50s players seemed (don't have the stats to back this up, just an impression) relatively long careers in relation to guys who started in the 70s. Anyway - it's an interesting question and I'd like to hear good arguments on how to adjust for it.

That's because the back end of their career coincided with expansion.

... Well, that's a frequently raised factor.

 

[overpass]

Good on you to bring up a forgotten reality - player salaries. There was a time when some very good players had to decide between the NHL or a better, more secure job in the "real world". Phil Esposito was still driving a truck in the offseason after he won the Art Ross.

Yeah, salaries were definitely a factor in career length.

Player salaries really increased in the early 70s and then again in the late 90s. Those time periods also saw more players than ever playing into their 40s. Because they could sign a contract in their late 30s that would mean a significant increase in their lifetime earnings.

 

[ResilientBeast]

So if I made a mistake in this somewhere feel free to call it out. I looked at Hockeyreference data for HHOF members, it conveniently lists the first year they played in the NHL and the last year they did. I calculated the average length of an NHL career for a player who debuted in each decade from 1910-1990. If I can find reliable data I hope to expand this more but it's difficult finding good data for either seasons played in the NHL or years debuted and retired from the NHL (If anyone can help me that would be awesome)

*1920s number likely somewhat deflated due to players who started in the PCHA/WCHL/WHL

Decade	# Players	Average Length
1910	21	9.2
1920	45	10.5
1930	24	13.7
1940	28	14.8
1950	28	18.5
1960	18	15.5
1970	20	15.1
1980	37	19.8
1990	18	17.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Outstanding post. But let me present the counterargument to the claim that Ovechkin is supremely valuable on the power play, because I think there is evidence to suggest that his usage rate is extremely beneficial relative to other players around the league (particularly as a goal scorer) and there is a legitimate argument that Ovechkin is not even the most valuable player on his own team's power play unit. I'm not doing this to criticize Ovechkin either, but to perhaps shed some further light on his value, as I'm guessing the truth might well be somewhere in the middle between what you wrote and what I'm about to argue based on the statistics.

Generally at even strength, players have to take whatever chances or shots are available to them, or often the chance will quickly disappear. On the power play, however, teams can maintain puck possession and thereby choose what patterns to run with the goal of setting up specific players to take shots from particular spots on the ice. The result is that special teams stats will be disproportionately affected by a player's role on the unit, and I think that matters when evaluating them.

I ran the numbers for 17 top NHL forwards on the power play between 2012-13 and 2017-18, the period of peak Washington power play dominance (source: Natural Stat Trick):

Power Play Points per 60 Minutes, Top NHL Forwards (2013-18):

Rank	Player	TOI	PPG	PPA	PPP	PPP/60
1	Backstrom	1493.4	30	156	186	7.47
2	Malkin	1397.9	56	106	162	6.95
3	Giroux	1646.0	47	142	189	6.89
4	Kucherov	1019.6	39	73	112	6.59
5	Crosby	1647.6	57	116	173	6.30
6	Kane	1407.2	53	93	146	6.23
7	Voracek	1556.2	38	116	154	5.94
8	Stamkos	1203.4	64	55	119	5.93
9	Kopitar	1307.8	33	94	127	5.83
10	Kessel	1608.1	46	109	155	5.78
11	Seguin	1438.0	60	78	138	5.76
12	Tavares	1454.9	56	83	139	5.73
13	Pavelski	1534.4	66	80	146	5.71
14	Ovechkin	1912.4	118	63	181	5.68
15	Thornton	1436.2	24	104	128	5.35
16	Benn	1476.3	56	74	130	5.28
17	Simmonds	1505.3	75	52	127	5.06

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nicklas Backstrom was clearly the best power play scorer in the league on a per-minute basis. Backstrom also outscored Ovechkin in overall power play points by 186-181, despite playing significantly less time on the power play unit. Now, a per-minute comparison is not entirely fair to Ovechkin since he spends a lot more time with the second unit than anyone else. But since he's not even the #1 point scorer on his team, you have to really be banking on Ovechkin's gravity effects on the rest of the unit or assuming that Ovechkin's goals are more valuable than the playmaking efforts of Backstrom.

Some people will write off Backstrom's production as a product of Ovi, but I don't think that's correct at all. Definitely if Ovechkin is the guy driving the bus, then it would make sense that would impact Backstrom's numbers (particularly his assists), but there is a very curious pattern with Ovechkin's power play goal scoring in his time spent with Nicklas Backstrom. It appears that the best predictor of Ovechkin's power play goals is Backstrom's secondary assists on the power play. Not primary assists (which have roughly zero correlation), secondaries only. There is actually a stronger correlation with Backstrom's A2s than the number of power play shots taken by Ovechkin:

Year	Ovi PPG	Ovi S	Nick PPA1	Nick PPA2
2008	22	125	8	14
2009	19	178	17	11
2010	13	102	26	17
2011	7	98	12	6
2012	13	81	10	6
2013	16	78	2	13
2014	24	137	15	23
2015	25	134	14	16
2016	19	142	11	16
2017	17	99	12	15
2018	17	117	9	10
Correl	1.00	0.59	-0.05	0.69

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That might seem random, but it actually makes a lot of sense if you are familiar with the primary pattern of the Washington power play. The puck goes to Backstrom on the opposite side of the ice as Ovechkin, he draws the coverage towards him, then passes to whichever teammate is best set up to immediately throw the puck over to Ovechkin for the one-timer (often the guy at the point). If you watch the entire sequence of the Kuznetsov goal that Dr John Carlson linked in his post, I don't think that it is necessarily the best example of Ovechkin's gravity effects, but I do think it is a great example of how Backstrom's puck movement can unbalance the entire PK unit. At the start of the sequence when Kuznetsov has the puck at the half boards, Ovechkin is just as open as Kuznetsov would be later in the play, the defence just isn't worred about him because they don't think Washington can get the puck to him yet. But Backstrom's one-time pass from down low across to Ovechkin nearly creates a point-blank scoring chance, and it still ends up leaving the PK unit vulnerable for the play (and don't underestimate the threat of John Carlson faking a shot from the point either in helping further free up Kuznetsov). Moving the puck through the seam on the power play is crucial for creating high danger chances, and Backstrom is a passing virtuoso. If your analysis is that Ovechkin created that play, then I think you're significantly underselling the other four guys on the ice wearing white.

I think the main reason that defending teams can't take away Ovechkin from the Washington power play is that the rest of the power play unit won't let them get away with it because they create too many shots and chances on the other side of the ice. Not every power play unit can do that with the same success, even ones that also have great shooters who are fully capable of occupying the defence's attention. It isn't a secret what Washington does on the power play, plenty of other teams have tried 1-3-1 setups designed to feed pucks to the left side for their best right-handed shooter, but if the defence doesn't respect the 4-on-3 possibilities on the other side of the ice then that shooter will not be able to get off a high volume of shots no matter how good he is.

In the above group of forwards, the two other guys who most closely fit the Ovechkin mould of high-volume shooters who take most of their shots from distance are Stamkos and Seguin. Here are their individual power play shooting percentages, as well as the percentage of their team's shots they take while they are on the ice with the man advantage, and the number of power play shots their teams take overall per 60 minutes with each of them on the ice:

2013-2018:

Ovechkin: 16.7 Sh%, 36.5% of on-ice SF, 60.8 on-ice SF/60
Stamkos: 19.0 Sh%, 33.6% of on-ice SF, 49.8 on-ice SF/60
Seguin: 12.4 Sh%, 33.0% of on-ice SFs, 61.0 on-ice SF/60

(Note: I didn't include Patrik Laine here because he didn't have enough overall games to qualify, but he's been 22.9%, 30.7% and 61.9 for his career so far).

Clearly Seguin is just not as good of a finisher as the others, which is the main reason he can't match their power play goal production. You can't just plug anybody into the Ovechkin role and assume they will score a ton of goals, he's definitely providing a lot of finishing value even relative to other elite forwards and I would never argue otherwise. But it certainly appears that the most significant difference between Stamkos and Ovechkin is that Washington was much better at creating shots overall on the power play. The bottom line is that Ovechkin's slice of the shot pie ends up being much bigger overall (Ovechkin's PP ice time advantage over everyone else also plays in here). That was true compared to a lot of other teams as well, and the effect of this has actually been pretty significant:

Power Play Shots on Goal, NHL Forwards (2013-18):

Rank	Player	GP	PP Shots
1	Ovechkin	450	707
2	Seguin	435	483
3	Voracek	449	429
4	Malkin	357	389
5	Tavares	426	375

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It's a pretty massive advantage to be taking 46% more shots than anybody else. Some of that is absolutely deserved, because any team with Ovechkin on it would certainly be trying to get him the puck on the power play. And I do agree that great players have gravity effects on defensive coverage, and help free things up to an extent for their teammates. We also know from basketball analytics (which have some very useful analogies to power play analysis in hockey) that the higher a player's usage rate, the more impressive it is to maintain a high percentage because there are less selection effects in play (i.e. Ovechkin is hammering everything whereas other shooters might only be taking more open shots or only shooting when the pass is perfect, for example). But I still think it's fair to say that without Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Green, Carlson, et al, that puck wouldn't get onto Ovechkin's stick nearly as often as it has, and that means he wouldn't have hit the stat sheet as often and his goal scoring numbers would not have been as historic as they have been from 2013-2018.

The value you put on Ovechkin's power play scoring ends up being pretty crucial to his case, because as an even strength scorer Ovechkin is not that impressive at all outside of his absolute peak (he's 13th in the league in even strength points since 2013, for example). I'm open to being convinced that Ovechkin's power play impact is more valuable than I'm giving him credit for, but I still struggle to rate him that far above Backstrom on the power play. And you have to keep in mind that an individual player's power play point numbers really overstate the actual value they delivered in terms of marginal goals for a team's power play results, because every team is putting out their best players on the power play (in technical terms, the hurdle rate is very high).

For example, Washington scored 339 power play goals from 2013 to 2018, while a team that scored the league average PPG every year would have 269. That's 70 extra goals over six seasons, 12.5 goals per 82 games, and you have to somehow divvy that up between Backstrom, Ovechkin, Mike Green, John Carlson, Evgeni Kuznetsov, and everyone else. Does that end up being more valuable to a team in terms of net goals than, say, an elite two-way defenceman who has a defensive impact at 5-on-5, is maybe not as good on the power play but still contributes, plus also kills penalties at a high level? I think it's not actually super easy to make the case for the scoring winger in that comparison, even if they are very good on the power play.

A lot of good points here.

Like you said, Backstrom deserves a lot of credit. He's very clearly not a product of the power but rather is another one who is integral to its success. But my opinion is that his skillset is more replaceable than Ovechkin's. Every player on Washington's powerplay has a very defined role... Ovechkin the triggerman, Carlson the secondary triggerman, Backstrom as the halfwall quarterback, Oshie as the slot presence, and Kuznetsov as the utility guy. Backstrom is excellent at what he does for the powerplay, definitely one of the best in the league. But there are more players who can be a halfwall quarterback of roughly Backstrom's caliber than there are who can be the triggerman of Ovechkin's caliber IMO. You brought up Stamkos, Seguin, and Laine but discounted Seguin regarding similar players to Ovechkin, I'd also discount Stamkos... his one timer is excellent but I feel like his wrist shot isn't of the same quality as Ovechkin's, he also has the added benefit of having another sniper on the other side of the ice in Kucherov who attracts PKers to his side as well. Washington saw the full brunt of this dynamic in last year's playoffs as two of Stamkos's PP goals in the series came via cross-ice passes from Kucherov on the halfwall, who had been overplayed by the PK due to his shooting ability. Compare this to Backstrom who rarely shoots from his halfwall position which allows the PK more breathing room when he has the puck, and it's a real advantage for Stamkos. Laine, I concede, is the 'heir apparant' to Ovechkin in this regard though. Excellent wrist shot and slap shot. Time will tell if he can remain consistent.

Here's what I mean by Backstrom being more replaceable... In 2012-2013, Mike Ribeiro split time nearly equally with Backstrom as the halfwall QB, and he actually tied for the league lead in PP points with Ovechkin while Backstrom finished 11th in PP points (both playing 48 games, both only playing the first unit). That year, their PP was 1st in the league with a 26.8% rate. So Ribeiro was at least capable of replicating Backstrom's ability on the PP... Looking at last year combined with the this year so far, PP1 has had Kuznetsov and Backstrom rotating between halfwall and goalline, I'd say Kuznetsov's been the halfwall QB about 35-40% of the PP time compared with Backstrom at 60-65%... during this time period (~100 games) Kuznetsov actually has more PP points than Backstrom in slightly fewer games. Kuznetsov's style is slightly different; he prefers finding/forcing creative plays more than Backstrom who goes for safer options, he also is a much greater shooting risk than Backstrom is, but Backstrom is more composed and better at drawing PKers to him... the powerplay percentage has actually gone down to 5th in the league over the same span but that is entirely attributable to their PP2 being terrible.

The reason their 2nd unit isn't good is mainly because of one factor: the Capitals powerplay mostly relies on one designated puck carrier to enter the zone. Evgeny Kuznetsov is very good at controlled zone entries and is their main option for entering the zone with possession, this is one of his best skills. Since he only plays on PP1 this leaves Jakub Vrana or Lars Eller as the 'zone entry guys' and while they are both excellent skaters, their puck handling and composure isn't great. This leads to a lot of failed zone entries that otherwise wouldn't happen on PP1. The drop off in their PP% from 2013-2017 to last year was mainly because Kuznetsov used to play PP2 and Marcus Johansson, another excellent zone-entry specialist, was on PP1. This gave each unit a designated go-to player for entering the zone. With their one remaining option now used solely on PP1, the 2nd unit suffers as a result despite Ovechkin being out there much of the time. This reduces Ovechkin's PPP/60 through no real fault of his own, and doesn't affect Backstrom's PPP/60.

My main point here is that I firmly believe the difference between Ovechkin and some average first line goal scorer is a lot greater than the difference between Backstrom and some average first line play maker, at least as far as the PP is concerned. Seguin isn't as effective, Stamkos's wrist shot isn't as dangerous and he has the benefit of Kucherov on the other side, Phil Kessel can't one-time a puck to save his life... only Laine is in the ballpark. On the other hand, Mike Ribeiro was roughly equal to Backstrom, so is Kuznetsov... I imagine plenty other left-handed shot, playmaking Cs would have no problem fitting in to the Capitals' powerplay too. You could say then that Ovechkin doesn't depend on Backstrom but rather just depends on an elite QB on the other side, which I'd agree with, but all great powerplays rely on a great QB. Ovechkin just makes it that much greater. I can't dispute that he gets more shots than a lot of others but like you said, if you've got 7-time Rocket winner Ovechkin on your powerplay, you're doing whatever you can to get him the puck. And as I noted, they've enjoyed a lot of success recently with this powerplay being Washington's lifeblood, so I think Ovechkin should get his due credit.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

From 1990 to 2006, Jagr's ESG per game rate was 0.37, 2nd was Hull was at 0.34

OV's career ESG per game is 0.37, 2nd is Crosby as 0.34

Very impressive that Crosby is that close to Ovechkin in a goal scoring stat.

 

[VanIslander]

Phil Esposito was still driving a truck in the offseason after he won the Art Ross.

For a star (like Hull) to jump to the WHA was most often because they were so good. People forget how little the NHL used to pay.

 

[VanIslander]

Very impressive that Crosby is that close to Ovechkin in a goal scoring stat.

Indeed.

As a Caps fan since Langway in '82 (I was in junior high), I am pained as an OV fan to recognize that - as I have been to see Malkin outperform Alex on the Russian international squad.

As a Marleau fan since the draft, it hurt to see Thornton hit 400 NHL goals this season! (JT has a tepid shot, like Getzlaf in passing awesome/trigger misery.)

 

[seventieslord]

Captain Obvious Non-Controversial Statements

(or, at least they should be non-controversial)

1. All other considerations equal, a goal is more valuable than an assist.

Haven't you ever seen a goal scored where the guy who touched it last was only the 3rd or 4th most important participant in the goal? I see it often.

 

[seventieslord]

I understand he was saying that - I just don't get why. A goal counts as much if you're a man up as it does if you're at evens.

it's not just a question of how much they count for, it's about what it says about the players scoring them. One kind of goal is more challenging than the other.

 

[VanIslander]

Haven't you ever seen a goal scored where the guy who touched it last was only the 3rd or 4th most important participant in the goal? I see it often.

Bears repeating.

I've seen Recchi make a career off of it.

 

[seventieslord]

Bears repeating.

I've seen Recchi make a career off of it.

Not sure why we talking about this, but Recchi was primarily a playmaking winger. A guy who did the work so other players could cash in on relatively easy goals. Basically exactly what we both agreed on a second ago.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

it's not just a question of how much they count for, it's about what it says about the players scoring them. One kind of goal is more challenging than the other.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is how failure to score on a PP in a close game can cost your team momentum. The ability to cash in PP opportunities is a worthwhile trait to have, but seems to get downplayed. In a vacuum, I don't see why scoring twice at ES while your team went 0/4 on the PP (if you are getting considerable amounts of PP ice time) is inherently worth more than scoring twice on the PP and going goal-less at ES.

We all understand the idea that ES scoring is more valuable when entering an unknown situation. Afterall, you are assured a significant portion of the game will be played 5-on-5, while you may not get any PPs. But as @bobholly39 points out, we are not dealing with unknowns here. We have the advantage of hindsight. A heavily PP-dependent player who was shutout during a game where his team received few/no PPs is still going to get dinged for his lack of output. I don't see any need to go a step further and also put an asterisk next to his PP production.

To sum up my thoughts using a real world example, Ovechkin became a significantly PP-dependent producer in more recent seasons. But I think the takeaway should be that he was no longer tilting the ice at even strength. Rather than supposing that his PP goals are actually worth less than ES goals.

 

[VanIslander]

Seventieslord (yeah i break my word and address you directly), there's nothing I've found more puzzling about the differences in our thinking than observations about Recchi. I played golf with the guy in high school when he was with the Blazers in Kamloops. He has stopped me on the street to say hi when I didn't recognize him! (after his Pittsburgh days). I have apologized to him personally for dissing his career as due to a lucky horseshoe up his Pennsylvania ***, and he just smiled.

I have walked up Mark Recchi Way in my Kamloops, BC., and man, if marijuana had been legal back then, U would have howled to the moon about two other Ken Hitchcock greats from the Kamloops Blazers!

Anyways,... my point is more about luck than lack of desert. I'd never stand up to take away from Mark's career now. But he himself has admitted to being lucky, and like Coffey has always played with the best ice mates possible!!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Potvin liked to hurt people. Robinson could hurt people (and sometimes did), and everybody knew it. He was the great equalizer against the Flyers and Bruins. The Habs had guys who would fight effectively - Trembley and Risbrough were tazmanian devils, and Guy Lapointe was underrated as a fighter (he was tough). Pierre Bouchard was the champ until Stan Jonathon beat him up. But nobody got the better of Big Bird. We can expand on this when Robinson's name comes up officially.

I think you are way overrating Robinson's fighting ability.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Adjusted plus/minus per game*100

1. Orr 76.86. 7. Bourque 31.51
2. Lindros 39.21 8. G Howe 30.8
3. Bossy 36.33. 9. Jagr 30.9
4. M Howe 35.52 10. Datsyuk 27.97
5. Mario 34.86 11. Clarke 27.37
6. Crosby 33.75 12. Datsyuk 27.97

Some others:
Robinson 26.01, Trottier 24.69, Gretzky 24.3, Lafleur 23.44, Mikita 23.18, Lidstrom 21.99, Bobby Hull 19.6, Potvin 22.8, Ovechkin 18.56, Sakic 12.26, Yzerman 8.6, Esposito 9.4, Beliveau 10.1, Messier 6.2,
Crosby looks much better on a per game basis than raw numbers. Clarke blows Messier away, Bourque beats Lidstrom and Potvin handily.

I don't know why, but I really like this.

Even though Datsyuk is 10th and 12th.

 

[seventieslord]

Seventieslord (yeah i break my word and address you directly), there's nothing I've found more puzzling about the differences in our thinking than observations about Recchi. I played golf with the guy in high school when he was with the Blazers in Kamloops. He has stopped me on the street to say hi when I didn't recognize him! (after his Pittsburgh days). I have apologized to him personally for dissing his career as due to a lucky horseshoe up his Pennsylvania ***, and he just smiled.

I have walked up Mark Recchi Way in my Kamloops, BC., and man, if marijuana had been legal back then, U would have howled to the moon about two other Ken Hitchcock greats from the Kamloops Blazers!

Anyways,... my point is more about luck than lack of desert. I'd never stand up to take away from Mark's career now. But he himself has admitted to being lucky, and like Coffey has always played with the best ice mates possible!!

We can talk about this another time.

 

[VanIslander]

We can talk about this another time.

Indeed. There's no way Recchi made your 120-name list, is there?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Very impressive that Crosby is that close to Ovechkin in a goal scoring stat.

I'm not that surprised. Crosby's a pretty damn underrated goal scorer. He's got a pair of Rocket's and was on pace for a ridiculous 64 goals in 2010-11 over 41 games before he got ran by that plug Steckel.