Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 5

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It isn't 1st place and 2nd place votes. It's 1st half and 2nd half votes. The voting was done at the halfway point of the season and at the end of the season, then combined for an overall winner. Sawchuk started off the season hot, then injuries derailed his second half.

Terry Sawchuk Stats and News

Thanks for pointing this out. Also see the link in my long goalies post - it seems that just about all the awards recognition (Hart and AS Teams) Sawchuk got after the dynasty was in 1st half votes.

 

[MXD]

Easy - when you use it out of context. It is literally a stat for playing. In the 60's. When the one goalie system apparently was still working well.

... If the one goalie system was still in place, and a goalie that played much less than the other is voted as more useful/better (and that both players were reasonably similar -- Hall seems to have been better, but let's not trip on détails) I'm calling BS on the vote.

And it was an "half-year vote", which pretty much explains the whole thing. Carry on

 

[Canadiens1958]

What do you mean that long term effects should be considered?

There wasn't any noticeable affect until 88-89 when his play in russia took a dip.

He was not the same player after the accident.

Any serious injury brings short and long term effects. With Fetisov the details of his car accident injuries were never released.

 

[The Macho King]

The "problem" with Clarke in the postseason is that he never led his team in scoring in any of their 4 trips to the finals, despite being their leading regular season scorer by a wide margin for the years in the 1970s.

His postseason record is still pretty good, but it's not Nighbor or Lafleur (or Sakic).

Couldn't this have a couple of causes? A) Not having as many bad teams in the playoffs to beat up on (first round was normally a middling team, but you're not going to be able to score your 4 points against the Capitals in the playoffs). B) Where in the regular season you might just roll lines, in the playoffs you generally focus more on the match up game. And with Clarke as the match up center, he's leaned on more heavily to play that role than he might be during the regular season.

That's all to say that I don't think that completely eliminates the criticism, and plenty of other players did not see significant scoring drops in the postseason so it's still a question to be answered, but I do think the coaching strategy probably played a role in it.

 

[DannyGallivan]

but I do think the coaching strategy probably played a role in it.

This is what I think.

 

[MXD]

I wish to offer this somewhat conclusory statement on Nighbor. It's mostly an explanation for my last vote (and for this incoming vote).

Had he accomplished the exact same thing, but from 1926-1942 or 1944-1960 or 1955-1972, instead of 1912-1928, he would probably have ranked much better. First of all, he'd easily have made it last round based solely on the fact I would've ranked him higher than 9th, which would've been enough to pass Plante (and probably enough to pass his would-have-been direct comparable Howie Morenz in the prior vote, since he'd have ranked higher in the Round 1 Aggregate).

But as the process advance, I think he managed to break the glass ceiling that Clarke represented.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Still I think the pendulum might have swung too far from 95th to somewhere in the 20, these are top players of all time that he somehow leapfrogged without playing a single game, it's not like we had that little information on him in 2008 is it?

95th might have been low but top 25 is swinging the pendulum to high IMO.

There is still a really good argument for a good half dozen to dozen centers (I can think of 5 guys off the top of my head who aren't up yet.) who have a very strong argument against Nighbor.

Boxscores of NHL games back to 1917-18 is a 21st century data bank and they are far from perfect.

 

[The Macho King]

I wish to offer this somewhat conclusory statement on Nighbor. It's mostly an explanation for my last vote (and for this incoming vote).

Had he accomplished the exact same thing, but from 1926-1942 or 1944-1960 or 1955-1972, instead of 1912-1928, he would probably have ranked much better. First of all, he'd easily have made it last round based solely on the fact I would've ranked him higher than 9th, which would've been enough to pass Plante (and probably enough to pass his would-have-been direct comparable Howie Morenz in the prior vote, since he'd have ranked higher in the Round 1 Aggregate).

But as the process advance, I think he managed to break the glass ceiling that Clarke represented.

You might be right, but the elephant in the room is pre-forward pass is a *very* different game than afterward, and I think stat watching makes it particularly tough to conceptualize impact. We're left with sparse information in a league that we don't understand as well. I think the Nighbor disciples have done a superb job of putting that information out there (both in this project but especially prior) that helps understand his impact better, but there are still hurdles.

I do think he benefits from the Clarke comparison though, so I see your point. I do wish we had been able to have the Morenz v. Nighbor discussion all the same.

 

[DannyGallivan]

You might be right, but the elephant in the room is pre-forward pass is a *very* different game than afterward, and I think stat watching makes it particularly tough to conceptualize impact. We're left with sparse information in a league that we don't understand as well. I think the Nighbor disciples have done a superb job of putting that information out there (both in this project but especially prior) that helps understand his impact better, but there are still hurdles.

I do think he benefits from the Clarke comparison though, so I see your point. I do wish we had been able to have the Morenz v. Nighbor discussion all the same.

Call me crazy, but I'm a big fan of the forward pass. I understand paying respect and sharing knowledge about ALL eras (and I think my initial 120 list shows that I did), however, you are correct - this is a big hurdle to overcome.

 

[MXD]

You might be right, but the elephant in the room is pre-forward pass is a *very* different game than afterward, and I think stat watching makes it particularly tough to conceptualize impact. We're left with sparse information in a league that we don't understand as well. I think the Nighbor disciples have done a superb job of putting that information out there (both in this project but especially prior) that helps understand his impact better, but there are still hurdles.

I do think he benefits from the Clarke comparison though, so I see your point. I do wish we had been able to have the Morenz v. Nighbor discussion all the same.

I get your point about the forward pass , but....

To be honest, I was mostly talking about transposing his accomplishements to a later (read, stronger) era, without bothering about rule changing.

I'm not sure the comparison to Morenz would've been relevant to be honest. I know some where pushing for it, but honestly... I'm looking at the circumstances in which this push was make, and nothing good or relevant would've come out of it.

 

[MXD]

Call me crazy, but I'm a big fan of the forward pass.

Here's something you'll only read on HOH, hahahahah!

 

[ted2019]

Excellent interview from the HHOF.

It is hard to comprehend that as great an NHL career as was enjoyed by Viacheslav Fetisov, the defenseman had a long, superlative career before he ever set foot on NHL ice.
Born April 20, 1958 in Moscow, Fetisov excelled in hockey from an early age. He was only 16 when he made his debut with the Soviet Red Army's junior squad, and by the next season (1975-76), was named top defenseman at the European Junior tournament, where his Soviet team took the gold medal for the first of two consecutive years. At the World Junior Championships, including the unofficial precursor in 1976, Fetisov and the Soviets won three straight gold medals while Viacheslav took the best defenseman award in 1977 and 1978.

Playing with Moscow CSKA, Fetisov was part of seven straight Soviet championships (1977 to 1983), was named to the First All-Star Team nine times and was the USSR's Player of the Year in 1981-82 and 1985-86.

Internationally, Viacheslav was equally dominant. He guided the Soviets to gold medals at the World Championship in 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1989 and 1990 and was named the tournament's best defenseman in five of those seasons. Slava and the Soviets won the Olympic silver medal in 1980, later earning gold in both 1984 and 1988. "To be a hockey player, you try to win every possible tournament you play," he said. "Every possible game at every level -- junior until you name it. Every possible tournament I played I got championships, a gold medal, whatever."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Yet, as heralded as his hockey career was during that era, Slava faced personal setbacks. In June 1985, Fetisov was involved in a car accident that killed his 18-year-old brother Anatoly, a bright prospect and teammate with the Central Red Army team. "In every respect, it was so trying, physically, psychologically," he reflected. "My parents helped me. They said that I should start playing again right away and live for two people — for myself and for my brother who died."
Fetisov got his first taste of NHL hockey while playing on Soviet national teams that toured North America during the 1985-86 and 1988-89 seasons. After years not being able to compete against the best players in the world, Viacheslav asked for permission to join the NHL. The request caused a rebellion in Soviet hockey. "The Soviet minister of defense tried to scare me, demanding that I apologize for asking to leave," Fetisov explained. "He gave me an ultimatum — 'Either apologize or be sent to Siberia where we will make life very difficult for you.' I faced a lot of intimidation. Most of my friends were afraid to talk to me. It was the toughest time of my life, but I finally won the war. I was the first Soviet to sign a direct contract with the NHL, and I'm proud to say that not only hockey players followed me. The door opened for people in every profession."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

At 31 years of age, and having nothing to prove in hockey other than to conquer a new frontier, Fetisov led a group of eight Soviet players who were allowed to leave the Soviet Union in order to play in the National Hockey League. Helmut Balderis, Vladimir Krutov, Igor Larionov, Sergei Malakhov, Sergei Mylnikov, Sergei Priakin and Sergei Starikov all found their way and settled with NHL teams. At last, as part of the Soviet Union's glasnost, it had been decided that it was in their country's best interests to allow a few older players to join the NHL in exchange for cash and the promise that the NHL would allow the players to participate for the USSR in future World Championships. "It was a victory against a whole system," Fetisov smiled. "It was not easy. You always have to fight for everything and I fought for everything I have in hockey," he said, adding, "I also won the biggest fight away from hockey. That was the fight against communism, the fight for freedom of choices."
Although he had originally been drafted by the Montreal Canadiens late in the 1978 Entry Draft, Slava had been unable to play in North America at that time. His name was re-entered into 1983's draft and the New Jersey Devils selected Fetisov 150th overall. Finally, having been able to unshackle himself from the Soviet system previously, Slava Fetisov joined the New Jersey Devils for the 1989-90 season.

"The NHL is very difficult and it made it harder when I spent last summer trying to get things cleared to move to New Jersey," he said at the time. "There were so many distractions that I was unable to prepare for the season the way I wanted to."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The veteran enjoyed a solid season in the NHL, collecting 42 points from his blueline post. "For the first 25 games or so, my partners didn't understand my style and I didn't understand the style of the NHL, but we all learned a lot and I thought I had a very good second half," recalled Fetisov.
"It was tough to get out of the country, to fight against a Communist system. And it was tough when I got here (the NHL) for a couple years," Slava admitted. "Many times I would think, 'Why am I here; why did I do it?' I was a big player in Europe and people knew me. Here, all of a sudden, I had to struggle. But I keep telling myself I have to fight through this stuff."

Fetisov went on to play nine years in the NHL. After five strong seasons with the Devils, Fetisov was traded to the Detroit Red Wings in April 1995. The move seemed to bring a new energy to Viacheslav. "I'm so happy. I'm hoping to get a chance to play for a good team and get a good chance at the Cup."

In 1995-96, he enjoyed his best season in the NHL, recording 42 points. Then, in 1996-97, a season in which he was selected to play in the All-Star Game, the Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup championship. "The best players from around the world started arriving here (in North America) and it gave the game a whole new perspective," explained Fetisov. "Time was running away. I just told myself, 'You just have to stay long enough to win it.' I grew up in a different atmosphere. For me, it was a dream to play in the Olympics and World Championships. I did that. I achieved that. I came here for a new level of competition."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That summer, Fetisov and teammates Slava Kozlov and Igor Larionov took the Stanley Cup home to Moscow, the first time hockey's legendary trophy had ventured into Russia.

Winning the Stanley Cup had been one more dream achieved for Fetisov, but that dream turned into a nightmare. After a party on June 13, 1997, while celebrating the Stanley Cup win, members of the Red Wings were involved in a tragic car accident. Although Fetisov suffered only minor injuries, teammate Vladimir Konstantinov and team masseur Sergei Mnatsakanov suffered severe head injuries that ended their careers and almost ended their lives.

Slava had considered retiring after winning the Stanley Cup in 1997, but decided he would return for one more season. The hope was to win a second consecutive championship and dedicate it to his friends Konstantinov and Mnatsakanov. "For the last two or three years, I've played every game like it might be my last," stated Slava. "I feel good, but I know I have to stop sometime from playing hockey. It's a different situation, especially since last summer. I'm very fortunate to be here right now. I know what hockey has been like for me all my life and I don't know what it's going to be like without hockey. But I want to give everything I have to the game because it's been good to me for such a long time."

That season, 1997-98, Fetisov played in the All-Star Game for a second straight season. Inspired, he played solid, dependable defense for Detroit, even at the advanced hockey age of 40. And that spring, Slava and the Red Wings were able to win the Stanley Cup for a second consecutive spring. Few who watched the game will ever forget Konstantinov being wheeled onto the ice, wearing his Red Wings sweater, and accepting the Stanley Cup from captain Steve Yzerman, with his friend and teammate Slava Fetisov kneeling beside him. Slava retired after winning the second straight Stanley Cup championship. He was named an assistant coach with the New Jersey Devils, where in 1999-2000, he was part of another Stanley Cup championship. In 2002, Fetisov was coach and general manager of the Russian Olympic men's hockey team. Today, Viacheslav Fetisov takes a lifetime of sports experiences to his role as the Chairman of the State Committee for Physical Culture and Sport in Russia, a position he has held since April 2002.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Recognized as one of the greatest defensemen ever to play the game, Slava Fetisov's successes, both internationally and in the NHL, earned him election to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2001. "I just couldn't believe it when they called me," said Viacheslav. "It's a great honour. You play all your life to get the recognition and it feels great, especially being a Russian-born hockey player and spending most of the best years back in Europe. It's a great honour to be in same category as other legends." On November 12, 2001, Fetisov was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame with Mike Gartner, Dale Hawerchuk and Jari Kurri

 

[The Macho King]

I get your point about the forward pass , but....

To be honest, I was mostly talking about transposing his accomplishements to a later (read, stronger) era, without bothering about rule changing.

I'm not sure the comparison to Morenz would've been relevant to be honest. I know some where pushing for it, but honestly... I'm looking at the circumstances in which this push was make, and nothing good or relevant would've come out of it.

On one hand I don't know if the Morenz discussion would have moved the needle at all because we're still left with the same issues (not exact contemporaries, rule changes, major league changes, etc.), on the other... Morenz is probably the first superstar we seem to be able to feel conceptually good about his impact, so the comparison might ease some tension/highlight some relative weaknesses with Nighbor that - at least personally - I struggle with.

Also - is Nighbor's era partuclarly weak? I know the league is young, but it appears to me like there are some solid teams he's going up against there (the Habs with Lalonde, Vezina, and Cleghorn come to mind).

 

[MXD]

On one hand I don't know if the Morenz discussion would have moved the needle at all because we're still left with the same issues (not exact contemporaries, rule changes, major league changes, etc.), on the other... Morenz is probably the first superstar we seem to be able to feel conceptually good about his impact, so the comparison might ease some tension/highlight some relative weaknesses with Nighbor that - at least personally - I struggle with.

Also - is Nighbor's era partuclarly weak? I know the league is young, but it appears to me like there are some solid teams he's going up against there (the Habs with Lalonde, Vezina, and Cleghorn come to mind).

Well, Lalonde and Vezina weren't getting younger, and Cleghorn wasn't always a Hab. But the leagues were split and the sport still quite young.

 

[ted2019]

Bolded is rather "iffy".

USSR domestic play showed the Green Unit to be generally healthy but in the NHL only Makarov played a complete RS season.

Accurate details of hockey injuries would explain more

From Russian magazine article. ( too big to copy & paste)
Vyacheslav Fetisov
1979 was a bad year for Vyacheslav. Severe back injury promised to forever bedridden the athlete. But he did not just get back on his feet, but also returned to sport.

 

[The Macho King]

Well, Lalonde and Vezina weren't getting younger, and Cleghorn wasn't always a Hab. But the leagues were split and the sport still quite young.

Even with split leagues, they played each other for the Cup.

Note - I'm not saying you're right or wrong. And now that's something I hope some of our historically-minded people help establish. My own impression was that it wasn't a particularly weak era (for instance - would it be weaker than say 74-82 NHL with rapid expansion + WHA drain + dearth of Euros/Russians? I don't know but my gut says no).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

All this is true.

But there is one significant advantage for Clarke - in his prime, he was generally the clear best offensive player on his team in a way that Nighbor often was not.

I'm not sure this really tells us much though, other than Cy Denneny was a much more prolific scorer than Bill Barber. Nighbor was definitely surrounded by better players, and accordingly won more Stanley Cups.

 

[MXD]

Even with split leagues, they played each other for the Cup.

Note - I'm not saying you're right or wrong. And now that's something I hope some of our historically-minded people help establish. My own impression was that it wasn't a particularly weak era (for instance - would it be weaker than say 74-82 NHL with rapid expansion + WHA drain + dearth of Euros/Russians? I don't know but my gut says no).

It wasn't weak in and of itself, but the depth wasn't quite there yet, and some teams REALLY had depth. Those also tended to be the teams Nighbor tended to play for.

 

[MXD]

I'm not sure this really tells us much though, other than Cy Denneny was a much more prolific scorer than Bill Barber. Nighbor was definitely surrounded by better players, and accordingly won more Stanley Cups.

That's a bit of a TOO simple way to look at this, no?

I mean, at first glance the Flyers were also beaten by teams that are widely seen as better than the ones beaten by the the Senators (or Nighbor's team... wtv) to win these Cups.

There's a very legit argument that Nighbor was allowed to shine BECAUSE he was playing with, like 4 of the 6 best players in the league (excluding himself of course).

 

[The Macho King]

It wasn't weak in and of itself, but the depth wasn't quite there yet, and some teams REALLY had depth. Those also tended to be the teams Nighbor tended to play for.

Depth is always what sets apart dynasties, though. 70s Habs, 80s Isles, hell - even the 50s Habs that is their defining characteristic versus the rest of the league. The *lack* of depth is probably why the BHs only walked out of the 60s with one championship.

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but saying "dynasty team was way deeper than the other teams in the league" is so close to axiomatic I don't know if it actually says anything.

One thing that does seem universal though is that Nighbor was considered the best player on those dynasty teams, and with the exception of the 70s Habs (and maybe the 60s Leafs if you don't want to count Kelly), every other dynasty has had their best player represented so far.

 

[ted2019]

It is what minutes played track, indeed. Better showing up than... you know... not showing up?
I mean, we're talking about Glenn Hall, the 2nd or 3rd best RS goalie of all-time. Who had a good season... for his own standards, who are very high.

How the hell can this be described as "Just Showing Up"?

I'm not sure if this means anything to anyone, but during Hall's career with the Hawks, he was a much better goalie at home then on the road.
Glenn Hall Stats and News

Brodeur on the other hand, had several seasons in which he was much better on the road then at home.
Martin Brodeur Stats and News

Sawchuk was a goalie who played better at home, but wasn't too bad on the road either.

 

[MXD]

Depth is always what sets apart dynasties, though. 70s Habs, 80s Isles, hell - even the 50s Habs that is their defining characteristic versus the rest of the league. The *lack* of depth is probably why the BHs only walked out of the 60s with one championship.

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but saying "dynasty team was way deeper than the other teams in the league" is so close to axiomatic I don't know if it actually says anything.

Look... You have a point here.
But, with regards, that's not exactly what I was saying, which was mostly that hockey was really, really just starting to get more than a local thing happening in Ottawa and Montréal... AND that there was quite a bit of pro teams too.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Still I think the pendulum might have swung too far from 95th to somewhere in the 20, these are top players of all time that he somehow leapfrogged without playing a single game, it's not like we had that little information on him in 2008 is it?

95th might have been low but top 25 is swinging the pendulum to high IMO.

There is still a really good argument for a good half dozen to dozen centers (I can think of 5 guys off the top of my head who aren't up yet.) who have a very strong argument against Nighbor.

No, we really didn't have much back then. Very little easily discoverable data was available on the internet from Nighbor's era. Info that can be obtained in a ten minute browsing of hockey-reference website could literally take all day to find and compile ten years ago. The NHL Guide and Record Book published the top 10 scorers and the year end all-star teams from every season in their annual encyclopedia...this was about all we had to go on until shockingly recent times. I acquired a copy of the Trail of the Stanley Cup around 2008 or 2009. All the stats within can be found reasonably quickly on the internet now, but at the time (only a decade ago), that thing was the Holy Grail.

Using Nighbor's ranking from a project that used information assembled 11 years ago is no more relevant than than citing Frank Boucher's #4 all-time ranking in Stan Fischler's Top 100 list and wondering why on earth we weren't debating his merits against Gordie Howe.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure this really tells us much though, other than Cy Denneny was a much more prolific scorer than Bill Barber. Nighbor was definitely surrounded by better players, and accordingly won more Stanley Cups.

It wasn't just Denneny - there were times when Nighbor was outscored by HHOF defensemen on the team. Granted, Ottawa at times seemed to play a weird system where the defensemen rushed the play more than Nighbor did.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That's a bit of a TOO simple way to look at this, no?

I mean, at first glance the Flyers were also beaten by teams that are widely seen as better than the ones beaten by the the Senators (or Nighbor's team... wtv) to win these Cups.

There's a very legit argument that Nighbor was allowed to shine BECAUSE he was playing with, like 4 of the 6 best players in the league (excluding himself of course).

I'm fine with the idea that Clarke gets a "plus" from people for achieving what he did with a roster largely devoid of any other players likely to appear on this list. I gave Bourque extra credit for that very thing.

But I don't see what makes Nighbor any different from any other dynasty player who benefited from great teammates. There were times when Jean Beliveau or Gordie Howe might have had four of the best six players in the league on their teams as well, or close to it. It is also telling that Nighbor was lauded as the best player on that team full of other Hall of Famers.