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

[BenchBrawl]

I'm pretty sure this is the footage I was referring to (and can't read for whatever reason)

Man Morenz's rush at 0:43 looks great.The way his skates penetrate the ice when he tries to dodge the player and turn rapidly at the end of his rush, or just the way he handles the puck at the beginning of it, he looks like a modern player.Clearly a great natural talent.He easily looks like the best player on the ice from that short sample size.

The video quality is very good.

Such a shame that there's no video of the Ottawa dynasty and Nighbor's famous poke check.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Man Morenz's rush at 0:43 looks great.The way his skates penetrate the ice when he tries to dodge the player and turn rapidly at the end of his rush, or just the way he handles the puck at the beginning of it, he looks like a modern player.Clearly a great natural talent.He easily looks like the best player on the ice from that short sample size.

The video quality is very good.

Such a shame that there's no video of the Ottawa dynasty and Nighbor's famous poke check.

Too bad there's no video of Hobey Baker.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Too bad there's no video of Hobey Baker.

Yeah but Nighbor and the Sens won the cup 5 years prior to the video posted above.So close.

I still wonder whether a tape exist of them, somewhere.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah but Nighbor and the Sens won the cup 5 years prior to the video posted above.So close.

I still wonder whether a tape exist of them, somewhere.

They still find Rembrandts in someone's attic occasionally. I'd bet there is video of the Sens somewhere.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I agree players really do need some time for their careers to breathe for us to better understand or appreciate them, however the challenge is trying to analyze them now without the breathing room, not just ignoring them all together.

I'm comfortable that I rated Crosby high... he deserves it. Right now, I'm uncomfortable at how high I rated Karlsson (that'll come up later, of course).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interestingly, Mike Keenan intentionally matched up Messier (along with Gartner and Anderson) against the Soviets' KLM line in the 1987 Canada Cup final. Despite having highly regarded defensive center Sutter on the roster, Keenan believed (rightly) that Messier's, Gartner's and Anderson's speed and aggressiveness would be more effective than Sutter's more "typical" defensive style, despite any real or perceived defensive shortcomings of those three players. So, you're right; Messier didn't play a classic style of defensive hockey, like a Bergeron or Carbonneau, but he was a great skater, was incredibly strong, and at that point in his career would essentially do whatever was needed to win hockey games

Messier's strength defensively was the ability to wear down the opposing center. Similar to Joel Otto but with much more offence and skill.

 

[The Macho King]

Why Not to Vote For This Player in the Upcoming Vote. Listed according to era of prime, from earliest to latest. Tie goes to the older player.

Howie Morenz - Somewhat a playoff disappointment (or at least it's not a huge mark in his favor). Trophy case seems a little light for someone regarded so highly in a historical sense.
Eddie Shore - Playoff disappointments and penalty-prone. Hart voting was different back when he was winning.
Jacques Plante - Not the best regular season goalie in his era, and it's tough to say how much of his postseason success was due to backstopping a stacked team.
Stan Mikita - Playoff disappointments (One Cup with that BHs squad seems bad), and benefited significantly from Bobby Hull taking the tough match ups.
Denis Potvin - He lacks the longevity of a lot of the other players here. The Islanders also didn't start winning until Trottier and Bossy started peaking.
Ray Bourque - Fewer Norris' than some of his competition this round, and only won the Cup when he went to a stacked team.
Mark Messier - Benefited from playing on stacked teams, especially behind Gretzky. Never won the Art Ross or a goal-scoring title. He's given a lot of credit as a two-way player but that's probably overstated, as he never generated serious Selke consideration.
Dominik Hasek - The issue with Hasek is and will always be that he quit on his team on at least two occasions. Hasek at 90% was a better option than his backup at 100% (or shit, probably 200% in most situations), but Hasek would not play if he wasn't 100%.
Jaromir Jagr - One-way player with middling postseason numbers.
Nicklas Lidstrom - Didn't start winning Norris' until guys like Bourque, MacInnis, and Chelios were in their 40s. His Norris competition during his peak was pretty shallow, and is a clear rung below the other Dmen in this vote offensively.
Alex Ovechkin - International and postseason disappointments litter his resume. Additionally, he's a one-way player.
Sidney Crosby - Injuries robbed him of a (stat-watching) impressive peak. As such, his trophy case seems surprisingly bare for a guy who many call the consensus best player of the generation.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

They still find Rembrandts in someone's attic occasionally. I'd bet there is video of the Sens somewhere.

somewhere in the alps there’s a nazi bunker full of confiscated chagall paintings and 1930s hockey film.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Like McDavid, Morenz had speed with the puck. Others from the era - George Mantha, Hec Kilrea - also a champion speed skater, had without the puck speed.

 

[MXD]

Awesome @The Macho Man . I can vote now.

One thing though :

Nicklas Lidstrom - Didn't start winning Norris' until guys like Bourque, MacInnis, and Chelios were in their 40s. His Norris competition during his peak was pretty shallow, and is a clear rung below the other Dmen in this vote offensively.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that he's below the other D-Men in this vote at ES?
I'm not quite sure he's actually inferior to the D-Men available offensively (but I'm totally he is if only ES is considered; we don't have all of Shore numbers, but he apparently scored only one goal on the PP from 1933 up to his retirement)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why Not to Vote For This Player in the Upcoming Vote. Listed according to era of prime, from earliest to latest. Tie goes to the older player.

Howie Morenz - Somewhat a playoff disappointment (or at least it's not a huge mark in his favor). Trophy case seems a little light for someone regarded so highly in a historical sense.
Eddie Shore - Playoff disappointments and penalty-prone. Hart voting was different back when he was winning.
Jacques Plante - Not the best regular season goalie in his era, and it's tough to say how much of his postseason success was due to backstopping a stacked team.
Stan Mikita - Playoff disappointments (One Cup with that BHs squad seems bad), and benefited significantly from Bobby Hull taking the tough match ups.
Denis Potvin - He lacks the longevity of a lot of the other players here. The Islanders also didn't start winning until Trottier and Bossy started peaking.
Ray Bourque - Fewer Norris' than some of his competition this round, and only won the Cup when he went to a stacked team.
Mark Messier - Benefited from playing on stacked teams, especially behind Gretzky. Never won the Art Ross or a goal-scoring title. He's given a lot of credit as a two-way player but that's probably overstated, as he never generated serious Selke consideration.
Dominik Hasek - The issue with Hasek is and will always be that he quit on his team on at least two occasions. Hasek at 90% was a better option than his backup at 100% (or ****, probably 200% in most situations), but Hasek would not play if he wasn't 100%.
Jaromir Jagr - One-way player with middling postseason numbers.
Nicklas Lidstrom - Didn't start winning Norris' until guys like Bourque, MacInnis, and Chelios were in their 40s. His Norris competition during his peak was pretty shallow, and is a clear rung below the other Dmen in this vote offensively.
Alex Ovechkin - International and postseason disappointments litter his resume. Additionally, he's a one-way player.
Sidney Crosby - Injuries robbed him of a (stat-watching) impressive peak. As such, his trophy case seems surprisingly bare for a guy who many call the consensus best player of the generation.

Fewer Norris than only Lidstrom.

As mentioned before, when Bourque was traded that "stacked team" was 4 games over .500.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Let's agree to agree on that, but do they win without Leetch? No.

Well of course haha. I do think Messier being the "hired help" was what put them over the top. Leetch was a Ranger from day 1, although still fairly young in 1994.

Either way, they were all critical to that team. I just think Messier's leadership and "run through a brick wall for his team" style was the last block of the pyramid for that early 90's squad.

 

[The Macho King]

Fewer Norris than only Lidstrom.

As mentioned before, when Bourque was traded that "stacked team" was 4 games over .500.

Shore leads in "Retro-Norris" counts, I believe with 8.

Awesome @The Macho Man . I can vote now.

One thing though :



Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that he's below the other D-Men in this vote at ES?
I'm not quite sure he's actually inferior to the D-Men available offensively (but I'm totally he is if only ES is considered; we don't have all of Shore numbers, but he apparently scored only one goal on the PP from 1933 up to his retirement)

I quibbled over that because Shore's numbers are kind of tricky. I think I stand by it, though. If nothing else, it seems like Shore drove the offense for the Bruins, while Lidstrom didn't have the same responsibilities. But yeah - it's kind of a moving target.

He's at least a clear rung below Potvin and Bourque. Shore is a tougher one to peg.

 

[The Macho King]

What about when compared to the #6 player - Jean Beliveau?

I don't engage with homers who only comment on their favorite players evar.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Three points re your excellent post(s).

Stan Mikita was Top 4 on Chicago, between 2 and 4 depending on how Pilote and Hall rank. Morenz was #1 on the Canadiens, possibly the league.

Shore and Mikita had problematic playoffs from the standpoint of penalties, namely 1965 for Mikita, Clancy for Shore. Mikita had a post 1965 epiphany. Still.

Length of videos. Odds of a video catching a "one of" are very small. Technical flaws that a player has are like DNA. One or multiple swabs will not change the DNA. No need for daily videos of the sun rising east or the effects of gravity to affirm each.

Agree with everything you said but to be fair Morenz had some postseason's where he was in the box more than you'd want to see from a top end player, especially with series lasting only 2 and 3 games some years.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Shore leads in "Retro-Norris" counts, I believe with 8.


I quibbled over that because Shore's numbers are kind of tricky. I think I stand by it, though. If nothing else, it seems like Shore drove the offense for the Bruins, while Lidstrom didn't have the same responsibilities. But yeah - it's kind of a moving target.

He's at least a clear rung below Potvin and Bourque. Shore is a tougher one to peg.

Fair enough.

 

[MXD]

Shore leads in "Retro-Norris" counts, I believe with 8.


I quibbled over that because Shore's numbers are kind of tricky. I think I stand by it, though. If nothing else, it seems like Shore drove the offense for the Bruins, while Lidstrom didn't have the same responsibilities. But yeah - it's kind of a moving target.

He's at least a clear rung below Potvin and Bourque. Shore is a tougher one to peg.

Hummm.... Actually, one could argue he's also ahead of Potvin, by virtue of longevity/adding up numbers for longers.
But in the "absolute" sense, you're right.

 

[Theokritos]

There was some footage of a Canadiens - Rangers game available on HOH at some point. It's still probably available. I clearly remember a Canadiens being VERY fast, but if my memory doesn't fail me (as it sometimes does), the player whose speed really struck me wasn't Morenz, but his teammate Georges Mantha.

Canadiens - Rangers (1932):

Canadiens - Maple Leafs (1933):

 

[bobholly39]

Why Not to Vote For This Player in the Upcoming Vote. Listed according to era of prime, from earliest to latest. Tie goes to the older player.

Howie Morenz - Somewhat a playoff disappointment (or at least it's not a huge mark in his favor). Trophy case seems a little light for someone regarded so highly in a historical sense.
Eddie Shore - Playoff disappointments and penalty-prone. Hart voting was different back when he was winning.
Jacques Plante - Not the best regular season goalie in his era, and it's tough to say how much of his postseason success was due to backstopping a stacked team.
Stan Mikita - Playoff disappointments (One Cup with that BHs squad seems bad), and benefited significantly from Bobby Hull taking the tough match ups.
Denis Potvin - He lacks the longevity of a lot of the other players here. The Islanders also didn't start winning until Trottier and Bossy started peaking.
Ray Bourque - Fewer Norris' than some of his competition this round, and only won the Cup when he went to a stacked team.
Mark Messier - Benefited from playing on stacked teams, especially behind Gretzky. Never won the Art Ross or a goal-scoring title. He's given a lot of credit as a two-way player but that's probably overstated, as he never generated serious Selke consideration.
Dominik Hasek - The issue with Hasek is and will always be that he quit on his team on at least two occasions. Hasek at 90% was a better option than his backup at 100% (or ****, probably 200% in most situations), but Hasek would not play if he wasn't 100%.
Jaromir Jagr - One-way player with middling postseason numbers.
Nicklas Lidstrom - Didn't start winning Norris' until guys like Bourque, MacInnis, and Chelios were in their 40s. His Norris competition during his peak was pretty shallow, and is a clear rung below the other Dmen in this vote offensively.
Alex Ovechkin - International and postseason disappointments litter his resume. Additionally, he's a one-way player.
Sidney Crosby - Injuries robbed him of a (stat-watching) impressive peak. As such, his trophy case seems surprisingly bare for a guy who many call the consensus best player of the generation.

I really like this exercise and i'll take the time to respond to all of them like i did last round.

Morenz - Agreed on playoffs (within reason though).
Shore - I definitely agree the huge component here is "Hart voting was different back then". I still need to decide how to weight this.
Plante - Very hard to answer questions. But I figure Harvey gets a pass maybe Plante too? (or maybe both shouldn't have?). I still give a lot of importance to "wins" for goalies.
Mikita - I think the Bobby Hull factor helps him a lot. I think this is the first "weaker" of a duo player we have. We discussed Orr vs Espo in round 1, but not yet Espo vs Orr. I think Mikita benefits from Hull, need to figure out how much.
Bourque - I think 5 Norris is plenty. Lack of cups probably hurts him more. Very strong resume, very few weaknesses. I was going to write his peak is a weakness but i couldn't make myself do that. Maybe it's not the strongest peak overall in this round - but he's still excellent for peak.
Messier - His offense is clearly lacking vs other top forwards. Agreed on Ross/Rocket. When he gets ranked - he'll be the forward with the worst offense ranked the highest. I mean this as a compliment.
Hasek. Quit on his teams i don't think should get as much weight as it does by some voters. For me it's more lack of longevity. More longevity he looks better.
Jagr - "Middling postseason numbers" is incredibly unfair. His post-season numbers are fantastic. What's lacking is the heroic individual playoff run. I assume that's kind of what you meant.
Lidstrom - Low peak, is his issue. One of the lowest peak in this poll. 7 norris is 7 norris, arguing when he won them as a negative i think is a stretch, since he still has 7...
Ovechkin. Probably agree. Within reason (especially on playoffs). You can't win every year - i'd rather you have bad runs and truly great ones and win (like in 2018) than a bunch of ok/good runs and never win (like Jagr - and yes i know he won in 91-92).
Crosby. I think his lack of peak is probably why he's in this vote vs in the last one. If he had achieved his peak at the highest of projections (obviously an unknown)- he'd be ranked already. I don't think his lack of peak or trophies is a problem at all in this round. They both look quite strong vs other players.

 

[MXD]

... You realize that TMM is trying to come up with reasons to not vote for/dislike a player, right?

 

[Theokritos]

... You realize that TMM is trying to come up with reasons to not vote for/dislike a player, right?

I think he does realize that, but tapping the suggested negatives for their validity is fair game.

 

[The Macho King]

I think he does realize that, but tapping the suggested negatives for their validity is fair game.

Definitely point out inaccuracies, I agree. This shit is mostly off the cuff and "perception" based, rather than the result of some rigorous process, so if I get something wrong I want to know about it.

As far as countering particular things on a judgment level - yeah, do that too. I try to kind of pull what most people bring up as criticisms for a player over 4 days of discussion and put it all in one place. Most of it I think has been countered at length already, but additional push back isn't bad. And frankly, a lot of these guys were barely discussed this round. Crosby barely came up, and Potvin or Lidstrom didn't get a ton of talk either. I don't think anyone mentioned Hasek one way or another, so some of this is repetitive.

But to @bobholly39 - I felt pretty comfortable dinging Hasek last round for the playoff thing, because it was the main thing that separated him from Roy. This round - eh we have a few other playoff duds in here, so the drag is less of a drag in this company without the likes of Roy, Beliveau, Harvey, and Richard. I fully expect him to end up top 3 in the voting this round.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm sorry but Jagr does not have fantastic postseason numbers. His raw point total looks "great" at 5th all time but his points per game there doesn't add up....and yes I realize he played until he was like 545 years old haha. Still, he's well behind others this round as far as postseason careers go. And he DID have ample opportunities to rise up. Never truly did.

Jagr has an elite offensive regular season resume but beyond that I'm not impressed with him this round. He was never the difference for his team(s) and that matters when we're talking about spots 9-15.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think he does realize that, but tapping the suggested negatives for their validity is fair game.

Not quite. Using his Hasek analogy. How many games did Hasek play since the last round? Exactly, so all posts and points raised last round stand without contradiction.

Normal for new players or data to draw attention which is happening.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm sorry but Jagr does not have fantastic postseason numbers. His raw point total looks "great" at 5th all time but his points per game there doesn't add up....and yes I realize he played until he was like 545 years old haha. Still, he's well behind others this round as far as postseason careers go. And he DID have ample opportunities to rise up. Never truly did.

Jagr has an elite offensive regular season resume but beyond that I'm not impressed with him this round. He was never the difference for his team(s) and that matters when we're talking about spots 9-15.

I mean - i can agree with the bolded - he certainly doesn't have any heroric individual playoff runs where he carried a team. But that doesn't mean his raw stats aren't great in the playoffs either.

From 94 to 2007 (his prime) his PPG in playoffs if 1.18. That's first in that stretch, above Forsberg, Messier, Sakic, Fedorov and a few others (sample size of over 50 games). That's really strong. Yes it's cherry picking his best years - and maybe if you pick Forsberg of Sakic or other player's best years they also look good - but the point is Jagr himself looks really strong in offensive output during his playoff prime.

So yes his raw career playoff numbers look great. But so does his point per game during his prime for playoffs.