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

[DannyGallivan]

WHAT on these threads convinced you to vault him to top-12 status, ahead of even Hasek?

I didn't... that's just where his name ended in this round. He never rose above 30 for me. Hasek and Roy were 15th and 16th on the list I handed in. It's the compilation of lists, not mine. In this round, I have Plante last on the latest list that I will likely hand in when I vote before the end of the business day today.

 

[BenchBrawl]

@The Macho Man and @VanIslander if you guys have a problem with me and how I vote, contact the administrator.

I'm honestly fed up with the innuendos and disrespect.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I won't lie - I feel that there are some posters here that are inflating dynasty-Habs players absent solid arguments to support them. Richard got a 5th place vote last time. That's nuts.

How about no? The Hockey News released a list early in 1998 about the 100 greatest players of all time and the Rocket was ranked 5th just behind the Big Four. Therefore some posters here are not the only one to see the Rocket so high in the all-time greats list.

 

[sr edler]

he eagerly gave me his undivided attention for a couple of minutes of chatting.. before returning to signing robotically those in line

You stole this line from Jackie Collins, didn't you?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Deposition got pushed back an hour, so I can at least reply to this part now.

I don't know of anyone making that argument. Some of what you say has a lot of merit - just counting AS nods (when 4 D versus 2 C get picked every season, and for a good stretch of that time the 2C that pretty much monopolized those spots were two of our top 4 players of all time). And I also don't think I saw anyone use the above logic when choosing Bourque over Messier.

My issue with looking at media reports is this - if we're going to give them so much weight, why don't we just reprint those reports and be done with it? Messier and Bourque both had their primes in probably a plurality if not majority of voters memory, and their games are pretty easy to find online (versus say - a game with Morenz or Fred Taylor) so it's pretty easy to judge them as contemporaries *for ourselves*. I think media rankings regularly undersell Dmen, because the focus is on how many goals go in and not how many don't.

Messier was a great two-way player though, so I don't mean to discount him here. And I also don't think anyone is just measuring trophy cases to make their call. The media has regularly underrated Dmen though. The guy out there 30-35 minutes a night, tasked with (in Bourque's case) of both being the driver on offense AND being their primary defensive tool, and *excelling in that role* - him not winning some Harts (or at least non-99/66 retro-Harts) is kind of nuts.

Also - I mean look at this vote:

1989-90 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

Messier over Bourque had the same # of first place votes, fewer second place votes, but Bourque didn't appear on numerous ballots for third place votes while Messier did. If that's not close to conclusive evidence of anti-Defenseman bias among Hart voters (to go along with Orr not winning the Hart one of the years he won the Art Ross), I don't know what is.

I don’t feel like I’m making an argument that is dependent upon Messier winning the Hart in 1990. Or 1992. Or having the 1996 runner up selection to match Bourque’s in 1987 (which would have been interesting since Mark Messier was the best non-Gretzky/Lemieux player offensively).

However I would suggest that the closeness of the vote in 1989-90, which is largely agreed to be both of their best seasons, is a good indicator that they peaked at a very near-identical level. I don’t think my opinion on that would change if it was Ray Bourque getting passed the 1990 Hart by Kiefer Sutherland instead of Mark Messier.

I mean, I would totally use it against players this round who are not Ray Bourque.

And I’m not saying we have to match media lists either, but if every media list says the same thing, and we cannot establish that Bourque peaked higher given the closeness of 1990, and the 1982-1997 and 1980-1996 time frames of their primes are close enough that probably only the more common longevity from the Defensive position specifically in that era makes any difference, and Mark Messier was better in the playoffs on top of everything else, then they should be right next to each other with Messier ahead if someone considers violence a plus or marginally behind if one does not.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What party line????????

Gawd Farkas... you are just fueling fears now.

Huh? You have called out Montreal homers the entire project...

 

[quoipourquoi]

I’m trying to clean up as much as I can but I’m on a cellphone. Everyone chill.

 

[The Macho King]

I don’t feel like I’m making an argument that is dependent upon Messier winning the Hart in 1990. Or 1992. Or having the 1996 runner up selection to match Bourque’s in 1987 (which would have been interesting since Mark Messier was the best non-Gretzky/Lemieux player offensively).

However I would suggest that the closeness of the vote in 1989-90, which is largely agreed to be both of their best seasons, is a good indicator that they peaked at a very near-identical level. I don’t think my opinion on that would change if it was Ray Bourque getting passed the 1990 Hart by Kiefer Sutherland instead of Mark Messier.

I mean, I would totally use it against players this round who are not Ray Bourque.

And I’m not saying we have to match media lists either, but if every media list says the same thing, and we cannot establish that Bourque peaked higher given the closeness of 1990, and the 1982-1997 and 1980-1996 time frames of their primes are close enough that probably only the more common longevity from the Defensive position specifically in that era makes any difference, and Mark Messier was better in the playoffs on top of everything else, then they should be right next to each other with Messier ahead if someone considers violence a plus or marginally behind if one does not.

I think I grasp your argument, and I'm not saying you're wrong (at least not by an objective measure - I clearly disagree but your position is certainly defensible). I don't think their peaks and primes are particularly close personally - I think Bourque's is superior. I would contend that the fact that their Hart vote *was* so close, and the media lists *are* so close, when factoring in a positional bias that I believe exists to the detriment of defenseman most notably - establishes to me that Bourque was significantly ahead in terms of peak and prime.

But I think to have my position, you have to believe there is a media bias against Dmen, and if you don't I'm not the least bit convincing I'm sure.

 

[VanIslander]

1. I have no idea who jackie collins is bit it sounds like a novelist?

2. I was in ottawa to present an academic paper at a grad conference in philosophy (wittgenstein's psychology actually) when i came across accidentally a loooooong line of autograph seekers by Dryden who GM'd the visiting Leafs for a playoff game later that day (forgive me at 2:55 am friday morning here with a bottle of wurzlepeter in me for.not recollecting exactly which year that was).

3. I don't lie. I know it's unfathomable given a certain political climate, but whatever falsehoods I've uttered have come from misunderstandings, typos or some kind of mistake rather than intention.

 

[sr edler]

I have no idea who jackie collins is bit it sounds like a novelist?

She puts out literature, that is correct.

Comment in question wasn't meant in any form of distrust.

 

[seventieslord]

I only said he "did nothing" in one 2 game series. I didn't/don't literally mean he did nothing throughout the span I was highlighting.

But breaking down each series, especially over the 6 year span I focused on shows that others repeatedly produced more and in some cases a good bit more than Morenz. He rarely had a series beyond the 1st round (called semi's then) that one would consider good or better, especially considering his skill and expectation of someone with his skill.

The other issue is we're talking about 90 years ago. All we have, unfortunately are game write ups from the newspapers and maybe a few recollections of former players, coaches or refs. So when I see series where others are producing a great deal more (think the Gagnon finals) I have to weigh that more heavily than players today, when we have TV, DVR, an insane amount of information and analysis to go off of. I can see Crosby's impact beyond the stat sheet, or any player for that matter. Same with Messier, even though his exploits are 30ish years old now. It sucks, but unless specifics are mentioned in the newspapers (generally from a Montreal perspective btw) we're more dependent on the numbers to reach conclusions for players during Morenz's time. Not wholly dependent but more so than today because of limited resources.

I see often that Morenz was stymied against the better C's of that era in the postseason. Obviously 1924 was a high water mark and an elite one at that. Even 1925 he was quite good in a losing effort but beyond that there isn't a ton to go on. Morenz lagged well behind others during the back to back runs in 30 and 31, at least in terms of producing offense for Montreal. Whether we're talking pre or post forward pass. I know he was a good defensive player. But how good? He was lightning fast and back checked hard, often. There is some information in general but in the grand scheme it's not THAT much. I've seen him compared to Babe Ruth. But was he really anywhere near that impactful both individually or team wise? No. Not even close, cross sport comparison aside.

This still feels like a bit of a cop out. You're saying that because you couldn't see the game yourself, the fact that he got no points in a game, must mean that he did nothing. But when it comes to other elite players when you do see them play, you know that this is not the case. they don't just stop being Elite. Yes, for most players there are good games and bad games, but for elite players of this caliber, they are typically always the best player, it just doesn't always mean that they get the most points in a game. if we are playing the odds and determining what most likely happened in a game that we don't have film for and it involves Howie morenz and it involves him not scoring a single point, we can probably assume that it was very similar to one of the many playoff games in which Crosby did not score a point.

 

[MXD]

We were having this discussion on Plante, started by @BM67 long post (link below). Some messages might have not been reproduced.

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

Not to be a punk, but Plante's Vezinas border on irrelevant for me. He was behind a truly great defensive forward for a lot of his time in Richard, a solid two way 1C in Beliveau, one of the best defenders of all-time in Harvey. Of course he's going to win some Vezinas in a 6-team league. I think the *lack* of 1st AS in those years isn't a lack of respect for Plante as much as an acknowledgement that other players (I'm guessing he lost most of these to Hall?) were doing if not more - almost as much - with much less.

But to your overall point - Plante is up for this vote while Hall and Sawchuk are not. So... I think the majority agree with this take.

Plante raises the question whether a goalie can truly be great when playing behind a great team. Plante has always left me the impression he was the best netminder his time (and of all-time) in an abstract/skill sense, but who ended up being passed due to a few other netminders having more opportunities to show their true worth.

There aren't many players whose case is really bolstered by what they did past 35 years old. Jacques Plante is one of those few players.

That's one of the main reasons I placed Dryden so low on my list. I lived and breathed the Habs as a kid growing up in the 70's, and saw almost all of Dryden's televised games (French or English CBC in the Winnipeg area) from the time he returned from his one year off to his retirement. I don't think that he ever stole a game for Montreal (never had to) in those years. In fact, he often let in some questionable goals because, probably because of boredom. He was a goalie who, IMO, was overrated due to the amazing defensive team in front of him, among other reasons.

Therefore, I have to look at Plante sideways a bit. No doubt he was a great goaltender, but I tend to agree that the Vezinas and Stanley Cups are a reflection of the team as a whole more than the goaltender.

Because most goalie achievements of that day were team achievements, such as the Vezina. Now, Plante does have that Hart Trophy which helps his case a lot.

I'm specifically talking about our list - not voting patterns at the time. We seem to be fine with representing the 50s Habs heavily - including Plante. He is going to place well ahead of his contemporaries despite backstopping a dynasty.

We haven't discussed a ton on Plante this round, but if someone wants to make a case as to where he should lie, I'm all ears. He obviously is a great playoff performer, he backstopped a dynasty, and he had a good twilight (in direct competition with Hall which even further bolsters his case). Is there an argument for putting him over Hasek here?

Why not? Take a great goalie first.OK, you have him.Then just put a great team in front of him.Mission accomplished.

Clint Benedict, Ken Dryden, Terry Sawchuk, etc.

Well...
I know that what I'm about to say isn't TOTALLY accurate, but it's quite accurate.

Harvey, Beliveau and Richard (and Petit Richard and Moore and Geoffrion and non-Top-100-worth-mentionning-here Tom Johnson and Bert Olmstead) are what made this team what it was. It made it a team that could basically not fail.

Plante? Well, sure, he was there when the reminder of the team "failed" (to a certain extent : allowing shots doesn't equate to failures), but he didn't always had to be the star. Plante played some great hockey before and after the dynasty, so we know that he wasn't totally a passenger. But we can say that the eight players named above are a big reason why that team was so good. And they had good depth too.



Dryden does have a few things that clearly points that he wasn't quite what you're describing though (a bit like Plante). Let's revisit in due time though, since we're (really) not there yet.

Again : How can we be so sure a goalie was so great if he has as much leeway as Plante did?

(That's something of a metaphysical question actually)

I agree with you, and that's why I think Roy and Hasek are being discussed now and Plante is kind of an afterthought this round. They excelled as *the* guy on their team, while Plante didn't have that same opportunity.

In a mirror universe Hall and Plante are on different teams and the Blackhawks have four Cups in the 60s probably. But in this universe - yeah, I ding Plante for his situation. If Roy didn't have the Habs years to show what he was made of and only backstopped the stacked Avs, we wouldn't have placed him in the top 10 either.

Not sure this applies to Plante, since he's probably a Top 3 player of the mega-dynasty, but I guess you'd have to go with his raw talent in that case.I agree it's not ideal to judge someone that was never tested.Guess this is what we means by "in a vacuum".

There are other questions about ranking players that are metaphysical.For example, if you had to throw the "in a vacuum" specimen that are Potvin and Lidstrom into thousands of different hockey career circumstances in alternate universes (different teams, different teammates, different coaches, different towns, different X or Y, but the players remain the same specimen), who does better? I guess this is sort of the same question.

(p.s. Potvin would win)

The logic as I see it is that Potvin (especially) and Lidstrom (kinda?) played in numerous different situations, so we have a pretty good idea of how they translate. This applies less to Plante than to a guy like Dryden, but the majority of Plante's prime also is in a similar situation. IMO Plante has enough on each side of his career to show that he wasn't just a product of a good team in front of him, but it's also hard to see how much credit he should get when the majority of his accolades were achieved in what can only be described as the best situation a goaltender has ever been in (except for *maybe* Dryden).

 

[ImporterExporter]

This still feels like a bit of a cop out. YourYo saying that because you couldn't see the game yourself, the fact that he got no points in a game, must mean that he did nothing. But when it comes to other elite players when you do see them play, you know that this is not the case. they don't just stop being Elite. Yes, for most players there are good games and bad games, but for elite players of this caliber, they are typically always the best player, it just doesn't always mean that they get the most points in a game. if we are playing the odds and determining what most likely happened in a game that we don't have film for and it involves Howie morenz and it involves him not scoring a single point, we can probably assume that it was very similar to one of the many playoff games in which Crosby did not score a point.

I don't think it's a cop out at all. It's just an unfortunate reality of looking back 80 to 90 years.

I don't like to assume anything when it comes to matters like these projects. Generalized blurbs in things like the Trail of the Stanley Cup aren't the same thing as an in depth write up in a newspaper. Just as that isn't the same thing as having modern TV and the ability to actually see what a player is doing, with or without the puck, every shift , every time. We aren't reliant on others to give us the scoop on players today. Even the most in depth papers from Morenz's era are only one person's account. One. Some of them, as you know are quite thorough. Others aren't.

Those, IMO, are the facts.

Unless there are in depth accounts of games where Morenz didn't score or was bested by multiple others, it's hard to come to the conclusion, for me, that he was doing a ton of other positive things. He may have. Hell, he probably did. But in some cases we simply don't know or may only know part of the story.

Again, I'm not dumping him into the abyss. I thoroughly appreciate all those neat newspaper and magazine/book write ups you presented earlier. Those are great finds. Certainly helps me appreciate a player like Morenz more. I'm actually planning on moving him up a few spots from where I had him originally because of stuff like that. I simply have him just a smidgen behind Bourque and Sid for starters. And likely Hasek. We're not talking any noticeable gap. As we get further along the difference between players really starts to shrink in many cases.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is a compilation of some of my posts from the original HOH Top 100 project. I've updated some of the numbers with the new NHL data (mostly the missing charts), but some of it has not been updated.

-

Plante was short changed on all-star selections because he played on a stacked team. Plante led Montreal to 5 straight Vezinas and Stanley Cups but was only voted 1st all-star twice during that run. When he won the Vezina after Harvey was traded, he won the Hart. No one thought he'd win it without Harvey, but before that he was expected to win the Vezina because of Harvey.

Plante's top 5 Hart record has to be looked at in the same light as his all-star teams. Beliveau is the only Canadiens to win the Hart during their 5 straight Cup run. In fact Beliveau and Harvey are the only Canadiens to finish in the top 5 more than once.

He was a 7 time all-star, and won the Hart Trophy in 1962. His 6 Stanley Cup wins, 10 Finals appearances, and 7 Vezina Trophies are all records for goaltenders. A Retro Conn Smythe win in 1960 also makes him the one of only two goalies with both a Hart and a Conn Smythe. Chuck Rayner is the other.

According to the unofficial SV% numbers, Plante had a SV% over .900 every year, regular season and playoff, until the playoffs of 72. He led the NHL in SV% 5 times in the regular season, and 4 times in the playoffs, including a record .944 in 70-71. He had a high peak, consistency, and longevity like no other. (Plante's quality of competition played a big part in his post expansion SV%, but he still put up very good playoff numbers, and his RS numbers truly are incredible.)

As good as Roy was in the playoffs, his W% dropped from .618 to .616 in the playoffs, while Plante's climbed from .614 (.628 in playoff seasons) to .664.

Know something? While Blake at times hated Plante, he always insisted he was the best goaltender he'd ever seen.

"Especially those five years we won the Cup, eh?" Blake said. "I played with (Bill) Durnan, and he was the best I'd ever seen up to that time. Plante was better during those five years."

Blake knew it and so did Plante. His teammates knew it, even though he stretched their patience from time to time. It's true he played behind many of hockey's best players, starting with Doug Harvey on defence, Jean Beliveau, Dickie Moore, Maurice and Henri Richard, Boom Boom Geoffrion and others. The result was that on some nights, Plante's work was minimal because his colleagues controlled the puck most of the game, but he always made the big stops when the Canadiens needed them. No goaltender I have ever known was more confident in his ability to win.​

- Red Fisher - The man in the mask

"If Jacques was in the nets today, I'd still be playing. That's how good he was." - Bob Plager, Hockey Digest 1981

Plante was in net as a junior team beat the Soviet National Team.

"Jacques Plante is the best goaltender I've ever seen." - Anatoli Tarasov

"He did it his own way, and he was so damn good, he could do it his way." - Red Fisher

-

Glenn Hall is the only goaltender to ever be voted the NHL's best 7 times. He won a Smythe and was further voted #2 goaltender in the league 4 times.

At first glance it looks like Hall should be ahead of Plante, but you have to look beyond the awards, and playoffs also factor in, and Hall doesn't shine there career wise.

Two of Hall's 1st team nods came over Plante by a combined voting margin of 5 points, 108 to 104 in 57-58 and 106 to 105 in 59-60. 7 to 3 doesn't tell the whole story. Plante was hurt because of the team he played on. He was not getting enough credit for helping his great team, until Harvey left, then he got the Hart. From 56 to 60 he won 5 Vezinas, 5 Stanley Cups, and gave the best goaltending that Toe Blake every saw, but was only a 1st team all-star twice.

Hall and Plante played together in St. Louis for 2 years, lets compare:

Hall RS 69 GP 26 W 20 L 11 T 3360 Min 134 GA 9 SO 2.39 GAA 1559 SOG .914 SV%
Plante RS 69 GP 36 W 21 L 11 T 3976 Min 137 GA 10 SO 2.07 GAA 1854 SOG .926 SV%
Hall PO 10 GP 4 W 5 L 550 Min 26 GA 0 SO 2.84 GAA 272 SOG .904 SV%
Plante PO 16 GP 12 W 3 L 912 Min 22 GA 4 SO 1.45 GAA 381 SOG .942 SV%

Plante is 2 years older than Hall and came out of a 3 year retirement, and out performed Hall. Hall played in St. Louis for 4 years and Plante for 2, yet they both had 12 playoff wins while there.

Compare Hall's Conn Smythe playoff to Plante's of the next season where he didn't win.
Hall 18 GP 8 W 10 L 535 Min 45 GA 1 SO 2.44 GAA 490 SA .916 SV%
Plante 10 GP 8 W 2 L 589 Min 14 GA 3 SO 1.43 GAA 264 SA .950 SV%

Based on their play in the Finals, Hall deserved the Conn Smythe and Plante didn't, but based on the entire playoffs, Plante was just as deserving. Basically the difference is that Montreal was pumped to play against Plante much more than they were against Hall.

Compare Plante in 71 when he was a 2nd team all-star to Hall in 69 and Worsley in 68 when they were 1st team members.

Worsley 40 GP 21 W 7 L 8 T 2211 Min 73 GA 6 SO 1.98 GAA 937 SA .922 SV%
Hall 41 GP 19 W 12 L 8 T 2351 Min 85 GA 8 SO 2.17 GAA 1186 SA .928 SV%
Plante 40 GP 24 W 11 L 4 T 2323 Min 73 GA 4 SO 1.89 GAA 1297 SA .944 SV%

Hall won the Conn Smythe in 68, and was a 1st team all-star in 69. Plante on the same team played better in 69 & 70. Plante was better from 69 to 71 than Hall was from 68 to 70, but Hall has a Conn Smythe and a 1st team all-star to Plante's 2nd team all-star. I'm not saying take away the awards, but look beyond them.

Having a better year doesn't always get you a better award. Plante's numbers were better and he played behind a worse team in 71. If Plante had played the same in 68 or 69 he would have been the 1st all-star, so just pointing at 1st vs 2nd doesn't tell the story.

Playoff vs regular season career comparison:

(Missing chart)

I'll have to do a version of this chart removing non-playoff seasons.

-

When Goalie's World did their all-time goalie ranking in 2000, they said their biggest argument against Sawchuck being #1 is that he was never a 1st All-star after Hall and Plante were in the NHL.

Sawchuck first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (15 years, from 55-56 on)
345 games 199 wins 57 shutouts 1.94 GAA 3 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 3 Cups
626 games 248 wins 46 shutouts 2.82 GAA 0 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 1 Vezina 1 Cup

Plante first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 59-60 on)
331 games 187 wins 44 shutouts 2.02 GAA 2 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 4 Vezina 5 Cups
506 games 250 wins 38 shutouts 2.61 GAA 1 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

Hall first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 60-61 on)
358 games 154 wins 31 shutouts 2.52 GAA 3 1st A-S 1 2nd A-S 0 Vezina 0 Cups
548 games 253 wins 53 shutouts 2.48 GAA 4 1st A-S 3 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

-

It's been pointed out that Plante didn't do much with the Rangers. Let's take a look.

Compare Worsley and Plante before and after the trade.

Worlsey 62-63 67 GP 22 W 34 L 10 T 3980 Min 217 GA 2 SO 3.27 GAA 2317 Saves .914 SV%
Plante 63-64 65 GP 22 W 36 L 7 T 3900 Min 220 GA 3 SO 3.38 GAA 2222 Saves .910 SV%

Hmm... Doesn't look good for Plante, but what else changed?

Doug Harvey 62-63 68 GP 4 G 35 A 39 Pts 92 PIM
Doug Harvey 63-64 14 GP 0 G 2 A 2 Pts 10 PIM

I wonder how many GA 54 games of Harvey are worth?

Of course the next year there was no Harvey, and Plante had a knee injury that required surgery and he went into his three year retirement.

Thanks for reposting this. It's too bad those save percentage tables are damaged, but overall, one is left with the impression that Plante was a close second behind Glenn Hall for the best overall regular season goalie of the Original 6 era.

 

[seventieslord]

Mark Messier vs. Ray Bourque

So I kinda peaked four months early on this one, because I didn't expect these two players to be available at the same time. At any rate, to recap where we left off in August, ol' quoipourquoi took on the value of All-Star selections at Center, Left Wing, and Defense (and talked some general **** about Defensemen).

For the voting group and future readers, here's a few excerpts from that discussion followed by some new content:

*********

THN (1998)
12. Messier
14. Bourque

ESPN (2004)
11. Messier
12. Bourque

THN-60 Since 67 (2007)
4. Messier
8. Bourque

The Score (2017)
5. Messier
17. Bourque

USA Today (2017)
8. Messier
16. Bourque

Don’t get me wrong; all of these lists since their careers are, as a whole, pretty awful and inconsistent. But there’s not going to be anyone who has seen Mark Messier and not Ray Bourque or vice-versa because it’s the same career overlap. And yet, there may be a complete absence of a media list with the reverse order - that is to say, Bourque over Messier.

If the gap between the two is that big, how did it escape basically every collective assigned with the same task except this forum? Pretty similar Hart distribution. Probably no way to present a playoff argument for Bourque. The chief difference in Bourque’s favor seems to be that there are fewer Bourque-level defensemen historically than there are Messier-level forwards. Which probably would be huge had they not played at the exact same time over which Messier was received marginally better.

It’s just asking for a lot of people to have been completely wrong in their assessment in the moment, immediate aftermath, and the decades-after reflections. I’ve seen it characterized as 1997ish Messier-mania, but... it hasn’t ended in establishment circles. They gave him an award. Throughout NHL 100, they brought him alongside Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux now that Howe has passed. How many times has he presented the Hart Trophy? He’s that guy.

If he was competing for awards against Bourque’s competition for accolades (1982 Doug Wilson, 1987 Mark Howe, 1988 Scott Stevens, 1990 Al MacInnis, 1992 Brian Leetch, 1996 Chris Chelios, and 1997 Brian Leetch) would he have any less than the equivalent to what amounts to five Norris Trophies?

*********

So let's dive into the individual seasons of my theory that Mark Messier = Value of 5-7 Norris Trophies if he competed against the same field against which Ray Bourque competed for his positional awards.


1989-90 (Al MacInnis): A lock

Probably the easiest season of the comparison - one where Mark Messier took the first of two 1st Team selections at Center. Had he been competing against Bourque's field of competition led by Al MacInnis, Messier would have clearly come out on top.


1991-92 (Brian Leetch): A virtual lock

The near-unanimous Hart season in Messier's second of two 1st Team selections at Center. I'd say it's a virtual lock because while the Hart was won with a 67 to 2 vote over everybody, the All-Star selection over Lemieux, Gretzky, and Roenick was 38 to 20, 3, and 4 respectively; so there was definitely an element of "most valuable" vs. best. However, Ray Bourque's top competition for the Norris was Mark Messier's own teammate, so I can't see Messier not being rated higher if put to a vote.


1995-96 (Chris Chelios): Incredibly likely

Mark Messier had some legit Hart buzz going into the final stretch of 1995-96, ultimately finishing 2nd in Hart voting to Mario Lemieux, and 3rd in All-Star voting to the other Hart nominee, Eric Lindros.



However this wasn't exactly a light year for Bourque's Norris competition, seeing Chris Chelios take the trophy in a 72-point campaign. The Blackhawks did take somewhat of a step back as this was the first time since 1989-90 that they didn't lead the Western Conference in GA (finishing 39 GA back of Detroit), but practically none of the blowback went on Chelios. Even still, given that Messier finished 1st (10) or 2nd (15) on 46% of the Hart ballots in Lemieux's 161-point season, I don't see the voters not siding with him over the field of defensemen.


1986-87 (Mark Howe): Incredibly likely

For clarification, this is not the signature Mark Howe season (that was in 1985-86) but rather the season where Howe played in 69 games with split attention with Ron Hextall. Messier, in what could be considered his wait-I-thought-you-already-had-a-breakout-season-what's-this season, finished 3rd in points as well as 3rd in points-per-game to Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux - who naturally finished with the 1st and 2nd Team selections at Center.


1987-88 (Scott Stevens): Incredibly likely

For his next trick, Messier finished top-5 in scoring again in Mario Lemieux's 168-point Art Ross season, but this time, placed 3rd in even-strength scoring behind just Gretzky and Lemieux - recording 70 even-strength points in 77 games to Lemieux's 74 even-strength points in 77 games.



Now I make it a policy not to say anything bad about Scott Stevens (and I certainly wouldn't say his name three times while looking into a mirror), but I don't think he would edge out Messier here. I wouldn't give it the ol' Mark Messier guarantee though, because in Wayne Gretzky's absence, you'd like to see Messier pick up the spare Hart votes that instead went to 75-GP Grant Fuhr.


1996-97 (Brian Leetch): Likely

The second of Messier's late career goal-scoring-resurgence seasons, which saw him finish marginally ahead of 2nd Team All-Star Center Wayne Gretzky in points-per-game production (71 games vs. 82 games - so it wasn't a substantial absence by any means). But rather than Mario Lemieux and Messier's teammate Wayne Gretzky, Bourque's top competition was Messier's other teammate, Brian Leetch, who while winning pretty decisively over Sandis Ozolinsh was somewhat taking a backseat to the Messier/Gretzky tandem.



While Messier's 11-games spread across forced timeouts and back issues resulted in him conceding the 2nd Team All-Star selection to Wayne Gretzky, if put head-to-head against Brian Leetch instead, I would bet on Messier.


1981-82 (Doug Wilson): Coin Flip

The first Messier breakout, where as a Left Wing, Messier's 50-goal season (3rd in even-strength goal-scoring behind Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy) secured a 1st Team All-Star selection with 25/63 1st-place votes while Doug Wilson edged out 65-GP Bourque with 29/63 1st-place votes. The first of three-consecutive All-Star selections on Left Wing, this pre-peak Messier probably could have coasted to several more had he never been switched to a more difficult position to acquire these accolades (which is kind of the point of this exercise).


...so am I crazy? Would four-time 1st Team All-Star Mark Messier, if held against the same competition against which five-time Norris winner Ray Bourque competed for his positional accolades, have been selected the top player in 5-7 seasons?

Can I ask if anyone is finding this that compelling? I'm not, and I'd like to take a stab at addressing it, but I don't see myself having the time to put it together as well as doing everything else I want to do before voting opens. I'm just wondering if it would be a worthwhile use of my time. I mean, it sure looks like Bourque is getting in and Messier isn't, but I thought I'd take the temperature of the room here.

First quick point I want to make: We are historians. The people making those lists, for the most part, are not. I would consider the 1998 THN list to be the most "definitive" of the pile that was trotted out here, and this is the one that has Messier and Bourque closest, and it's also the oldest. Bourque played four more seasons at a high level after this list was voted on.

The other lists? How big were the panels? who was on them? Do all the other rankings make sense? Where's Yzerman compared to Sakic? Stevens compared to Chelios? And so on. Even the THN top-60 since 1967 is very suspect. I don't own it but I spent a long time reading it in a store once, and I think it was the work of one writer, correct me if I'm wrong. You say we should be careful not to try to force a certain positional ratio; I say we should be careful not to put too much weight on the opinions of people we all know damn well we know better than.

The rest of this looks like just arbitrarily saying "this defenseman did this, that forward did that, and I think that what the forward did was more impressive" - I realize we should be trying to do cross-position comparisons, but it just seems really arbitrary and to be honest, has a lot of pro-forward, anti-defense bias baked right into it. I'm not saying it's a deliberate ploy or agenda, I'm saying that it's so pervasive in the hockey world (in terms of published lists and voting on awards that are multi-positional) that you can't help but be influenced by it.

So again, just curious, is anyone out there really thinking Messier over Bourque now? I want to see if this is worth more than the ten minutes I just spent.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Statistically, Jacques Plante was the best playoff goalie to play before the 4 round playoffs, and it isn't close.

I posted this table in the 2012 HOH Top Goalies project, so it hasn't been updated since then. But it doesn't need to be to show just how good Plante is compared to his peers.

_______________________________

REPOST FROM HOH TOP GOALIES PROJECT:

Goals versus threshold (GVT) is a stat that basically tries to show how many goals a player creates or prevents relative to an average player. For goalies, it is mostly composed of save percentage and minutes played. Some of the criticisms of save percentage are still there, but GVT removes one of them - it is a cumulative stat, is not an averaging stat like save %.

In other words, if save % is like points-per-game for goalies, GVT is like points.

Here are the career playoff GVT leaders among goalies:

1. Patrick Roy 119.3
2. Ed Belfour 71.2
3. Billy Smith 59.5
4. Ken Dryden 57.4
5. Martin Brodeur 56.9 (as of 2011, my guess is 2012 bumped him to #3)
6. Dominik Hasek 56.3
7. Jacques Plante 49.4
8. Curtis Joseph 42.6
9. Grant Fuhr 33.6
10. Johnny Bower 31.3
11. Bernie Parent 31.1
12. Tom Barrasso 25.7
13. Chris Osgood 25.1
14. Tony Esposito 24.2
15. J.S Giguere 24.0
16. Olaf Kolzig 23.8
17. Felix Potvin 22.7
18. Mike Richter 22.0
_______
Glenn Hall 13.8
Terry Sawchuk -3.8

Like playoff wins, playoff GVT tends to favor goalies who played post-expansion, when there were more rounds. Jacques Plante is literally the only pre-expansion goalie with a GVT value higher than 20, and his is almost 50! edit- ahem, Johnny Bower would probably count as pre-expansion. I would imagine that @Doctor No 's variation of the stat (goals above replacement" would show the same thing.

GVT is only available starting in 1950-51, so one of Sawchuk's best years was cut off. But still..

FWIW, Plante also led all pre-expansion goalies in playoff wins by a healthy margin.

 

[The Macho King]

This is a raw stat, correct? So it is going to benefit those with more raw games than fewer?

Could explain Plante's placement vis a vis other O6 players (although I think even absent that Plante is widely considered to be the best playoff O6 goalie so it still reflects reality).

Name that shocks me the most is Ed Belfour though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Statistically, Jacques Plante was the best playoff goalie to play before the 4 round playoffs, and it isn't close.

I posted this table in the 2012 HOH Top Goalies project, so it hasn't been updated since then. But it doesn't need to be to show just how good Plante is compared to his peers.

_______________________________

REPOST FROM HOH TOP GOALIES PROJECT:

Goals versus threshold (GVT) is a stat that basically tries to show how many goals a player creates or prevents relative to an average player. For goalies, it is mostly composed of save percentage and minutes played. Some of the criticisms of save percentage are still there, but GVT removes one of them - it is a cumulative stat, is not an averaging stat like save %.

In other words, if save % is like points-per-game for goalies, GVT is like points.

Here are the career playoff GVT leaders among goalies:

1. Patrick Roy 119.3
2. Ed Belfour 71.2
3. Billy Smith 59.5
4. Ken Dryden 57.4
5. Martin Brodeur 56.9 (as of 2011, my guess is 2012 bumped him to #3)
6. Dominik Hasek 56.3
7. Jacques Plante 49.4
8. Curtis Joseph 42.6
9. Grant Fuhr 33.6
10. Johnny Bower 31.3
11. Bernie Parent 31.1
12. Tom Barrasso 25.7
13. Chris Osgood 25.1
14. Tony Esposito 24.2
15. J.S Giguere 24.0
16. Olaf Kolzig 23.8
17. Felix Potvin 22.7
18. Mike Richter 22.0
_______
Glenn Hall 13.8
Terry Sawchuk -3.8

Like playoff wins, playoff GVT tends to favor goalies who played post-expansion, when there were more rounds. Jacques Plante is literally the only pre-expansion goalie with a GVT value higher than 20, and his is almost 50! I would imagine that @Doctor No 's variation of the stat (goals above replacement" would show the same thing.

GVT is only available starting in 1950-51, so one of Sawchuk's best years was cut off. But still..

FWIW, Plante also led all pre-expansion goalies in playoff wins by a healthy margin.

Great stuff. Plante is one of the few players this round that I can definitively say was at least good or better in both the regular season and postseason. A lot of the players (Jagr, Mikita, Hasek, Ovechkin, Shore, Morenz) are much more slanted towards higher regular season standings than playoffs. Messier is elite as a postseason player but lags in the regular season. I personally think Bourque was a good playoff player who simply ran into multiple dynasties and doesn't have the Cup counting to go with his name but I understand if people want to put him in the first group.

Plante was also a hellova innovator. Skating outside the crease to handle the puck. Designed different mask prototypes. And his postseason play as a 40 and 41 year old with an expansion St Louis team was legendary, in losing efforts. Not many players can claim such elite play at that age.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

More Plante posts from the HOH Top Goalies project:

"After all these years I have a real chance to prove myself," he said. "When we had the great defense with Doug Harvey, a lot of fans and writers said anybody could play goals for the Canadiens and still finish with the best record. Now that Harvey is gone and the defense is not what it used to be, what can they say?"

Here's an article from 1959 suggesting that Plante was penalized in All-Star voting for his team's greatness:
The Windsor Daily Star - Google News Archive Search

This column is about " plante's innovative style and importance to habs' transition game. it also mentions a change of rules regarding freezing the puck behind the net." (via @nik jr)

The Windsor Daily Star - Google News Archive Search

_________________________________

@overpass transcribed some Sports Illustrated articles about Plante:

Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

There is an article from 1959 about the Canadiens' style (not defense-first), ones from the early 60s about their slump, one from 1968 about Plante's usage in St. Louis, and finally a retrospective. I don't have time to transcribe all of them (click above link to read them), but here is the retrospective:

In the weeks after his death, I reflected on Plante's contributions to goaltending and on my long fascination with the man. Even without his introduction of the revolutionary roving style, or his popularization of the goalie mask, or his advocacy of goalie coaches—unheard of back then—Plante's records and statistics alone marked him as one of the greatest goalies ever. He won a record seven Vezina Trophies (then awarded to the goalie allowing the fewest goals). He was the only goalie in the last 32 years to win the Hart Trophy (1962) as league MVP. His name was inscribed six times on the Stanley Cup. He had a glittering 2.37 average in 837 regular-season games and an even better 2.16 in 112 playoff games. Only fellow Hall of Famers Terry Sawchuk (103) and Glenn Hall (84) had more career shutouts than Plante (82).

But Plante had more than talent. He had genius. He was a virtuoso and a stylist who, finding it insufficient to merely master one of the toughest positions in sport, went out and re-created it in his own flamboyant image.

Plante shattered what for decades had been the first commandment of goaltending—thou shalt not bother a puck that is not bothering you—in favor of leaving the net to intercept passes and gain possession of the puck for his defensemen. Goalies were supposed to wait for trouble, then try to deal with it as best they could. Thanks to Plante, goalies today can stop trouble before it happens. But, as with most innovations, it was not always well received.
With Montreal ahead three games to two in the best-of-seven series and with Penney playing spectacularly, I speculated (correctly, as it turned out) that Penney and Montreal would eliminate Quebec in the next game. "He'll wrap it up Friday," I said to Plante and then added—I don't know why, other than to make conversation—"if his friends don't let him down."

Plante said nothing. The elevator arrived at his floor. The door slid open and Plante put his arm in front of it, holding it back while his wife stepped off. Then Plante stepped out and, with his arm still holding the door, smiled and said, "A goalie has no friends. Good night." The door slid shut.​

_________________
​

Finally, here's a comparison I made between Plante and Sawchuk. Details here: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

These are the conclusions:

This is a relatively simple look at stats, but it supports the narrative that

1) Sawchuk had the better regular season peak during the dynasty years
2) Plante had the better playoff peak during the dynasty years. Sawchuk has the single best playoffs between them (one of the very best single season playoff runs of all time), but he also had two down playoffs during the dynasty years, and was arguably part of the reason Detroit lost two Cups they should have won. Plante was consistently very good to excellent in the playoffs during the dynasty years.
3) Plante was more consistent and therefore more valuable outside the dynasty years.

#3 is why Plante ranks comfortably ahead of Sawchuk for me.

Overall, I think Plante has a legit case for top 5 this round - He was very easily the best playoff goalie to play prior to expansion (and really, before Patrick Roy came around), while being a close second to Glenn Hall as a regular season goalie.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Can I ask if anyone is finding this that compelling? I'm not, and I'd like to take a stab at addressing it, but I don't see myself having the time to put it together as well as doing everything else I want to do before voting opens. I'm just wondering if it would be a worthwhile use of my time. I mean, it sure looks like Bourque is getting in and Messier isn't, but I thought I'd take the temperature of the room here.

First quick point I want to make: We are historians. The people making those lists, for the most part, are not. I would consider the 1998 THN list to be the most "definitive" of the pile that was trotted out here, and this is the one that has Messier and Bourque closest, and it's also the oldest. Bourque played four more seasons at a high level after this list was voted on.

The other lists? How big were the panels? who was on them? Do all the other rankings make sense? Where's Yzerman compared to Sakic? Stevens compared to Chelios? And so on. Even the THN top-60 since 1967 is very suspect. I don't own it but I spent a long time reading it in a store once, and I think it was the work of one writer, correct me if I'm wrong. You say we should be careful not to try to force a certain positional ratio; I say we should be careful not to put too much weight on the opinions of people we all know damn well we know better than.

The rest of this looks like just arbitrarily saying "this defenseman did this, that forward did that, and I think that what the forward did was more impressive" - I realize we should be trying to do cross-position comparisons, but it just seems really arbitrary and to be honest, has a lot of pro-forward, anti-defense bias baked right into it. I'm not saying it's a deliberate ploy or agenda, I'm saying that it's so pervasive in the hockey world (in terms of published lists and voting on awards that are multi-positional) that you can't help but be influenced by it.

So again, just curious, is anyone out there really thinking Messier over Bourque now? I want to see if this is worth more than the ten minutes I just spent.

I would think if there were any other overlapping players for which there was a strong media lean towards one of those players specifically and seemingly no suggestion of a strong sentiment (...or even a passive one) of the inverse other than this very forum, we, as historians, would address it.

 

[MXD]

Anyone knows/is aware of tangible drawback that can be directly linked to Plante being something of a flake? I keep seeing things on this but I can't exactly point to anything specific as a result. I mean, that's arguably why he was traded to the New York Rangers, but I don't think that's quite the type of consequence we should bother with.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Anyone knows/is aware of tangible drawback that can be directly linked to Plante being something of a flake? I keep seeing things on this but I can't exactly point to anything specific as a result. I mean, that's arguably why he was traded to the New York Rangers, but I don't think that's quite the type of consequence we should bother with.

Particularly not for the era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is a raw stat, correct? So it is going to benefit those with more raw games than fewer?

Yes, it's a career stat, so playing more games is better.

Name that shocks me the most is Ed Belfour though.

Belfour played a lot of playoff games and his playoff peak in Dallas was amazing in terms of save percentages.

I don't think GVT or Goals Above Replacement includes any puck handling component, so Brodeur would likely be a little underrated by the stat, and you know what? So would Jacques Plante, who was an innovator at puck handling - I love the quote, "Plante shattered what for decades had been the first commandment of goaltending—thou shalt not bother a puck that is not bothering you."

 

[overpass]

Even the THN top-60 since 1967 is very suspect. I don't own it but I spent a long time reading it in a store once, and I think it was the work of one writer, correct me if I'm wrong.

The THN top 60 since 67 explicitly deferred to the 1998 THN list for players whose careers ended before 1998 and did not reorder them. I’m not sure it’s an independent source for Messier over Bourque. While in theory both played after 1998 and the list author could have moved Bourque over Messier, both had the vast majority of their accomplishments by 1998 and he was probably reluctant to overrule the 1998 consensus.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Anyone knows/is aware of tangible drawback that can be directly linked to Plante being something of a flake? I keep seeing things on this but I can't exactly point to anything specific as a result. I mean, that's arguably why he was traded to the New York Rangers, but I don't think that's quite the type of consequence we should bother with.

Totally irrelevant. You often read about how goalies are a "different breed", especially back then. You have the angry/depressed Sawchuk, the pseudo-bulimic Hall, the narcissist Roy, Mr. Public Disturbance Belfour...

naw, being a flake is mild.