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

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Bourque's peak is still getting severely underrated here.

Not at all, but Potvin still peaked a little bit more higher than Bourque even if Bourque's peak was outstanding.

 

[sr edler]

He didn't take important face offs.

Not many wingers did though?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Denis Potvin's main achievement each year in his prime

74-75: 2nd in Norris behind 135 points Bobby Orr
75-76: 1st in Norris
76-77: 3rd in Norris behind the spike (absolute peak) seasons of both Robinson and Salming
77-78: 1st in Norris
78-79: 1st in Norris
79-80: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (only 30 games in RS, named Captain)
80-81: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (2nd in Norris by a few votes)
81-82: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (60 games in RS, 8th in Norris)
82-83: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup
83-84: 4th in Norris

Considering that Potvin is usually regarded as having peaked higher than Lidstrom (and probably Bourque), that he had more of a presence on the ice, I would at least argue that he belongs in the same tier as them, regardless of how you end up ranking them.

His somewhat ''off-years'' in 81-82 and 82-83 can be explained by him knowing he's in the middle of a dynasty and saving himself a bit for the playoffs (like Crosby in recent years).

Trivia: Potvin won the cup in the first four years of his captainship.

 

[The Macho King]

Denis Potvin's main achievement each year of his prime

74-75: 2nd in Norris voting behind prime Bobby Orr
75-76: 1st in Norris
76-77: 3rd in Norris voting behind the spike season of both Robinson and Salming
77-78: 1st in Norris
78-79: 1st in Norris
79-80: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (only 30 games in RS, named Captain)
80-81: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (2nd in Norris)
81-82: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup
82-83: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup
83-84: 4th in Norris

Yeah I mentioned it earlier, but I am prime for a Potvin v. Lidstrom debate.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Playoffs will always hurt jagr. He has no place over Crosby and now Ov

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bourque's peak is still getting severely underrated here.

He's getting shit on more than he deserves.

He played through the golden age for defensmen, at least in terms of depth.

And all he did was:

-5 Norris wins with TEN MORE FINALIST NODS.

-Runner up in Hart twice with 5 top 5 finishes.

-19 time AS from the time he was 19 to aged 40. 13 first team, 6 second.

-75.3 VsX (7 year score)

-Led all defensemen in scoring twice and was runner up another SEVEN times. SEVENTEEN times in the top 5.

-GREATEST ADJUSTED PLUS MINUS PLAYER EVER AT +586

-88% usage on the PP and 58% on the kill, both elite numbers.

 

[sr edler]

Ovechkin played on teams which won three Presidents' Trophies, and made it out of the 2nd round once. Let's not exaggerate his playoff endeavours.

Jagr played on some really suspect teams when it comes to overall defensive structure.

 

[overg]

Denis Potvin's main achievement each year in his prime

74-75: 2nd in Norris behind 135 points Bobby Orr
75-76: 1st in Norris
76-77: 3rd in Norris behind the spike (absolute peak) season of both Robinson and Salming
77-78: 1st in Norris
78-79: 1st in Norris
79-80: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (only 30 games in RS, named Captain)
80-81: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup (2nd in Norris)
81-82: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup
82-83: Smythe-level playoff run, wins Stanley Cup
83-84: 4th in Norris

What exactly are you considering a "Smythe-level playoff run," given that Potvin never won the Smythe? And how does he stack up against the rest of this field using your criteria?

 

[Orange Dragon]

Some posters make it look Hasek and Jagr played for potential dynasties during their peaks and not for teams that had no business even being in play offs without them.

 

[BenchBrawl]

What exactly are you considering a "Smythe-level playoff run," given that Potvin never won the Smythe? And how does he stack up against the rest of this field using your criteria?

That can be debated, and whether each of Potvin's runs qualifies can also be debated.But as a general rule, a PPG, physical, good defensively, high ice-time, leader-type of #1 defenseman is a guaranteed ''Smythe-level run'' for the victors as far as I'm concerned.I can't think of any that satisfies those criterias that wouldn't be.

We could also go with the ''Top X'' player on his team, but that ignores the possibility that 5 of them could be extremely close, and forces a ranking on us.But that's another way to do it too.

 

[The Macho King]

What exactly are you considering a "Smythe-level playoff run," given that Potvin never won the Smythe? And how does he stack up against the rest of this field using your criteria?

Potvin never winning the Smythe is one of the greatest crimes in modern history. His best cases are probably '81 (25 points in 18 games, but it inexplicably went to Butch Goring), and '83 (ppg in 20 games, +20, but it went to Billy Smith). '82 Bossy was almost a goal per game in the playoffs - hard to argue with him winning. And '80 you get a fantastic run by Trottier who deserved it (although I don't think Potvin would be an off-the-board pick).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

BLAST FROM THE PAST!

Previous posts from the HOH Top Defensemen project that may be useful:

My comparison of what I felt were the pros, cons and historical significance of Harvey, Bourque, Shore, and Lidstrom:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/39082495/

HO's argument for Harvey over Shore (already settled in this current project, but useful for future readers):
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/39081563/

HO's argument for Bourque over Lidstrom:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/39082603/

Overpass's summary of the statistical achievements of the top defensemen from the project (including Bourque, Shore, Lidsrrom, and Potvin from this round): https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/39110567/ (Unfortunately, the tables showing the raw data were destroyed during the hfboards site migration).

If anyone wants to browse the whole thread, here it is: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/round-2-vote-1-hoh-top-defensemen.1023709/

 

[BenchBrawl]

Also, Potvin's weak final run when the Islanders got defeated by the Oilers to end the dynasty in 83-84 can be partially (or completely?) explained by the deteriorating health and eventual death of his father.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Some posters make it look Hasek and Jagr played for potential dynasties during their peaks and not for teams that had no business even being in play offs without them.

Nobody here is saying that. But Jagr didn't start playing on expansion level rosters until the very late 90's. Without Mario he never carried Pitt, even before the team went into the dumps. Certainly never did in NY or beyond.

Hasek wasn't playing for crap teams either. Buffalo was obviously not on the level of the actual dynasties that were around, but that narrative can go both ways.

89-90 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
90-91 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
91-92 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
92-93 Buffalo was in the playoff with Hasek but he wasn't their full time starter yet.

Dom needed to actually join a dynasty to finally win a Cup btw. Ironic.

 

[overg]

Potvin never winning the Smythe is one of the greatest crimes in modern history. His best cases are probably '81 (25 points in 18 games, but it inexplicably went to Butch Goring), and '83 (ppg in 20 games, +20, but it went to Billy Smith). '82 Bossy was almost a goal per game in the playoffs - hard to argue with him winning. And '80 you get a fantastic run by Trottier who deserved it (although I don't think Potvin would be an off-the-board pick).

I'm certainly not going to argue that Potvin would have been an out-of-place Smythe winner. Just that several other players on this list (including guys who do have at least one Smythe to their name) might also have "Smythe-level" playoffs on their resumes.

Off the top of my head, Messier, Bourque, Lidstrom, and Hasek all had very strong runs that didn't result in Smythe's. Bourque and Hasek both pulled weaker teams to the finals, while Messier and Lidstrom both had strong runs (outside of their actual Smythe's), but lost out to some pretty decent competition.

89-90 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
90-91 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
91-92 Buffalo was in the playoffs without Hasek.
92-93 Buffalo was in the playoff with Hasek but he wasn't their full time starter yet.

On the flip side, Buffalo lost a ton of offensive firepower right after that. LaFontaine missed massive time with injuries before leaving in '96-97, Mogilny was traded after the '94-95 season, and Andreychuk was traded midway through the '92-93 season. The teams Hasek led looked pretty different from the early 90's squad.

 

[The Macho King]

Also, Potvin's weak final run when the Islanders got defeated by the Oilers to end the dynasty in 83-84 can be partially (or completely?) explained by the deteriorating health and eventual death of his father.

I mean - and also it was the fifth straight final and it was an aging team being replaced by a new dynasty. I don't hold that against Potvin in the least.

@overg I think the difference is Potvin's "Smythe-level" runs came in winning runs, while for the most part at least Bourque and Hasek's came in losing efforts. Messier... it's funny I *don't* think he should have won the Smythe he did (he had half the points of Gretzky...), but probably should have won in 90.

Lidstrom... what Smythe should he have won? I can't think of a time where he got robbed.

But at the same time, I think Hasek (especially) and Bourque (frankly not enough) *do* get credit for their good runs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What happened when Jagr and Ovechkin were asked to play defensive hockey?

Jagr in Washington under Ron Wilson (2001-02, 2002-03, and part of 2003-04): More or less refused to play the same team defensive game demanded of everyone. This was one factor in turning a perennial playoff team into a doormat for a few years, until they wanted to get rid of Jagr so badly that they traded up to the NY Rangers for Anson Carter AND agreed to pay a portion of his salary to be rid of him.

Jagr still finished 5th in scoring in 2001-02 (his best finish in 2.5 years in Washington), but was there any value whatsoever in that scoring finish?

Ovechkin under Dale Hunter (2011-12):

Clearly not a good fit, but Ovechkin played the good soldier and never complained. In the playoffs, Ovechkin was kind of used as an "offensive ringer," who only played in certain situations, rather than the star of the team. I didn't watch enough regular season Capitals to comment on his usage.

This would be the only season between 2007-08 and 2014-15 when Ovechkin wouldn't finish top 10 in point scoring.

This is what Hunter said about Ovechkin:

(Ovechkin) never said anything back to me. He never back-talked. He listened to the video. He never said nothing. So definitely he was coachable that way where he tried to do what I told him. He could have given me attitude – he had none. He listened

Dale Hunter: Ovechkin isn’t going to win the Selke, but he’s ‘coachable’

Whats the point of this? Both men played in a similar situation. Jagr put himself first, and racked up a 5th place scoring finish for his efforts, as his team imploded around him. Ovechkin put team first, and did his best to play Hunter's system. He wasn't very good at Hunter's system, but he tried, and the team didn't suffer.

Or to put it another way: Jagr's 5th place finish in 2001-02 should NOT be counted as a great season in any longevity-related arguments vs Ovechkin.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Messier... it's funny I *don't* think he should have won the Smythe he did (he had half the points of Gretzky...), but probably should have won in 90.

It wasn’t half (26 vs. 35).

Some newspaper articles at the time:

Should they prevail, [Mark Messier] stands to reap rewards beyond the shared glory of the Cup. As the triggerman of the Oilers' offense - and the neutralizing force that has helped shackle the Islanders' superlative center, Bryan Trottier - Messier has emerged as the frontrunner for the Conn Smythe Trophy, which is awarded to the most valuable player in the playoffs.

Exploiting his Mr. Universe physique and style, Messier has led an unprcedented Edmonton attack that has throttled the Islanders in Games 1 (a 1-0 victory), 3 and 4. As Wayne Gretzky, another Edmonton center, observed, "Forechecking is the best defense." And Messier has been the Oilers' foremost forechecker.

With 15 games left before the playoffs, Oilers coach Glen Sather decided to shift Messier to center on a line with Glenn Anderson and Willy Lindstrom. On the surface, it seemed like turning Barbra Streisand into a pantomimist, but Sather had his reasons.

There are goals and there are goals. There are goals that nobody sees, and there are goals that nobody forgets. There are shots that carom off skate, pad and armpit on their way to the red light, and there are majestic offensive feats on which you could base a movie. Last night in Northlands Coliseum, it was Mark Messier of the Edmonton Oilers, screen-testing for Chariots of Ice.

He is an intimidating sight, Mark Messier is - the new wave leader of hockey's new wave. He has been the most intimidating sight for New York Islanders.

"If the series ends Saturday, he will win the Conn Smythe Trophy," said teammate Dave Lumley.

The myths that have long surrounded Edmonton Oilers are quickly disappearing as are the myths that have surrounded Messier.

Long considered to be living and playing on the fringe, Messier not only has established himself with his Stanley Cup play, but has put to rest any of the Team Gretzky, Edmonton Gretzkys, one-man team commentaries that have so often afflicted the Oilers.

Yesterday morning, [Mark Messier] began communicating again. "He told me, I'm going to go out and lead this hockey team," recalled Kevin Lowe, Messier's teammate and housemate. "He's always determined, but he seemed especially so this morning."

It took Trottier, the game's star, exactly 60 minutes and 10 seconds to get into the spirit of the final. The first 60 came in the first game when he made a negligible contribution to the Islanders' 1-0 loss. The 10 seconds came last night, when the Oilers' Mark Messier flattened him with one of the hardest playoff checks in the first minute of the game.

And, unlike last spring, forward Mark Messier is healthy. Playing left wing last spring, Messier labored with a separated shoulder in the final and was easily nullified by the hard-checking Islanders.

"Gawd, it's nice to be going into the Stanley Cup final healthy," said Messier, now playing centre. "Last year I was hurt but I really didn't think much about it. I found myself getting caught up in the excitement. Still, the shoulder was significant."

This year the shoulder has been significant because of the solid hits it has been handing out. Those hits, the Oilers realize, will be essential in the final, especially if they again meet the Islanders.

"Mark is so strong and against their big guys, (Bryan) Trottier and (Denis) Potvin especially, that's important," Lowe said.

He was likely the front-runner going into the 1988 Finals, 1990 Finals, and 1994 Finals as well, but on each of those occasions a teammate turned on the jets. But whether he has one Conn Smythe or four or none, he’s probably got a margin over every other eligible player in terms of the playoffs.

 

[overg]

I mean - and also it was the fifth straight final and it was an aging team being replaced by a new dynasty. I don't hold that against Potvin in the least.

@overg I think the difference is Potvin's "Smythe-level" runs came in winning runs, while for the most part at least Bourque and Hasek's came in losing efforts. Messier... it's funny I *don't* think he should have won the Smythe he did (he had half the points of Gretzky...), but probably should have won in 90.

Lidstrom... what Smythe should he have won? I can't think of a time where he got robbed.

But at the same time, I think Hasek (especially) and Bourque (frankly not enough) *do* get credit for their good runs.

I'm not sure I'd say Messier and Lidstrom were ever outright robbed of a Smythe, but was Potvin robbed all four years he didn't win?

If we are talking "should have won the Smythe," I don't think you can give Potvin credit for four of those. On the flip side, if we're only talking about "played at a high enough level that a Smythe wouldn't look historically crazy," then I think the field gets a few of those too.

With respect to Lidstrom, in a vacuum (e.g., looking at only his level of play, not his teammates), he probably could have won a Smythe in any of the Wings four playoff victories. His play against Lindros in the '97 finals was certainly a historically noteworth finals performance, he picked up the slack for a missing Konstantinov in '98, and he was an anchor for Detroit in '08. Once again, I'm not saying he deserved the Smythe over the actual winners those years, just that he was among a small handful of Wings who should have at least been considered for the Smythe each year. Having said all of that, all of those Wings teams pretty much won by committee, so it was not as if Lidstrom (nor anyone else from Detroit) was ever completely driving the bus.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Just to go to bat for Jagr again, especially when compared to Ovechkin - who Jagr certainly has an edge on in my mind. Jagr was awesome in '92 and '96 as well...I know Mario was there so those don't count or whatever...but Jagr was still impactful in the playoffs...was he Maurice Richard? No, he wasn't. But certainly better than Ovechkin for money, having seen both about a million times each...

After 1993, that Pens was group was really never the same...they got by purely on star power and outscoring their problems and Jagr was one of the stars (and then the only star)...

Let's not get snapped up in AST counting or whatever, Jagr was a much more well-rounded offensive threat than Ovechkin too. Jagr could not only carry it across the line and make it work against a defender 1 on 1 or 1 on 2, but he was also a far better puck distributor in the attack zone and the NZ and he could generate offense off the cycle and out of corners much better than Ovechkin.

Adaptation goes to Jagr too...came in during the firewagon days (in the NHL, the 1980's last until 1993...maybe in terms of style and culture, that's true as well...) and did work. The league tightened up and then he was the best player in the world for about half a decade and then the league opened up again, and barring one of the worst trades in NHL history happening, he wins an MVP immediately past his prime with a ton of miles on him...and not for nothing, 34 year old Jagr out-points Ovechkin in 2007 to boot...Jagr played through three very distinct eras and shot out the lights in all of them...

 

[The Macho King]

It wasn’t half (26 vs. 35).

Some newspaper articles at the time:














He was likely the front-runner going into the 1988 Finals, 1990 Finals, and 1994 Finals as well, but on each of those occasions a teammate turned on the jets. But whether he has one Conn Smythe or four or none, he’s probably got a margin over every other eligible player in terms of the playoffs.

I got confused as to which year he won. You're right - I thought it was Gretzkys 47 point run.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What happened when Jagr and Ovechkin were asked to play defensive hockey?

Jagr in Washington under Ron Wilson (2001-02, 2002-03, and part of 2003-04): More or less refused to play the same team defensive game demanded of everyone. This was one factor in turning a perennial playoff team into a doormat for a few years, until they wanted to get rid of Jagr so badly that they traded up to the NY Rangers for Anson Carter AND agreed to pay a portion of his salary to be rid of him.

Jagr still finished 5th in scoring in 2001-02 (his best finish in 2.5 years in Washington), but was there any value whatsoever in that scoring finish?

Ovechkin under Dale Hunter (2011-12):

Clearly not a good fit, but Ovechkin played the good soldier and never complained. In the playoffs, Ovechkin was kind of used as an "offensive ringer," who only played in certain situations, rather than the star of the team. I didn't watch enough regular season Capitals to comment on his usage.

This would be the only season between 2007-08 and 2014-15 when Ovechkin wouldn't finish top 10 in point scoring.

This is what Hunter said about Ovechkin:


Dale Hunter: Ovechkin isn’t going to win the Selke, but he’s ‘coachable’

Whats the point of this? Both men played in a similar situation. Jagr put himself first, and racked up a 5th place scoring finish for his efforts, as his team imploded around him. Ovechkin put team first, and did his best to play Hunter's system. He wasn't very good at Hunter's system, but he tried, and the team didn't suffer.

Or to put it another way: Jagr's 5th place finish in 2001-02 should NOT be counted as a great season in any longevity-related arguments vs Ovechkin.

"I learned a lot last year. Of course, last year was not my role on the team. With more ice I can give more to the team. It was [Hunter's] decision and he had his own mind and his own kind of personality and his own systems. Of course sometimes I felt trapped."

- Ovechkin on Dale Hunter after he was canned.

Not saying that Jagr did it better...he didn't. But this is a little flowery for my tastes...

 

[BenchBrawl]

By ''Smythe-level'', I didn't necessarily mean he should have won the Smythe.

 

[Theokritos]

What happened when Jagr and Ovechkin were asked to play defensive hockey?

(...)

I seem to remember an argument that Jágr bought in defensively when playing for the Czech national team - without sacrificing as much offence as Ovechkin. Any takes on this?

 

[daver]

I can see Jagr/OV being Beliveau/Hull close.