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

[DannyGallivan]

Lafleur wasn't all that effective after the age of 32.

That's a little misleading. He played 19 games at the age of 32 and then retired for four years, returning at the age of 37 for three more years, where he looked pretty good for a 37-40 year old guy playing an abbreviated schedule who was retired for four years.

Personally, I'm impressed by anybody who can come back from a lengthy retirement and still contribute in the NHL.

 

[DannyGallivan]

He wasn't all that effective outside of his peak, that's already been established.

Again, a bit of an exaggeration. He wasn't at his peak level, but in '81 (a year after his so-called peak) he had 70 points in 51 games (110 point pace), including 27 goals (42 goal pace). He followed that up with 27 goals again and 84 points in 66 games (102 point and 33 goal pace) and another 27 goal season and 76 points in 68 games (89 points and 32 goals). His final full 80 game season before his first retirement, he scored 30 goals and 70 points.

So, the whole six year peak and nothing else is pure garbage. His peak may have been six years (which is among the greatest peaks in NHL history), but he was still very effective well after that.

 

[wetcoast]

Again, a bit of an exaggeration. He wasn't at his peak level, but in '81 (a year after his so-called peak) he had 70 points in 51 games (110 point pace), including 27 goals (42 goal pace). He followed that up with 27 goals again and 84 points in 66 games (102 point and 33 goal pace) and another 27 goal season and 76 points in 68 games (89 points and 32 goals). His final full 80 game season before his first retirement, he scored 30 goals and 70 points.

So, the whole six year peak and nothing else is pure garbage. His peak may have been six years (which is among the greatest peaks in NHL history), but he was still very effective well after that.

It's quite a difference is saying that he wasn't very effective outside of his peak than the bolded above, which is not what I'm saying.

Sure a 100 point pace sounds great but only one time outside of peak did he hit top 10 in PP in the years you are quoting.

There was a post in an earlier thread about his 7-12 seasons and he was in very lukewarm company with other 7-12 seasons. Playoffs outside of peak doesn't help his case either.

Too many guys this round (and not listed yet) with longer peaks and primes, that translate to a better resume.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Too many guys this round (and not listed yet) with longer peaks and primes, that translate to a better resume

I dispute that big time. Certainly not better peaks at this point of the voting. He had six amazing years - among the greatest peaks ever - and his "slow down" period has been greatly exaggerated. He should have gone in last round, definitely should go in this round.

 

[daver]

Again, a bit of an exaggeration. He wasn't at his peak level, but in '81 (a year after his so-called peak) he had 70 points in 51 games (110 point pace), including 27 goals (42 goal pace). He followed that up with 27 goals again and 84 points in 66 games (102 point and 33 goal pace) and another 27 goal season and 76 points in 68 games (89 points and 32 goals). His final full 80 game season before his first retirement, he scored 30 goals and 70 points.

So, the whole six year peak and nothing else is pure garbage. His peak may have been six years (which is among the greatest peaks in NHL history), but he was still very effective well after that.

Over that time span he was 21st in PPG and 44th in GPG (min. of 200 games). His best PPG finish was 80/81 (min. of 50 games).

NHL.com - Stats

Not "pure garbage: but "very effective" also seems somewhat inappropriate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If you ever saw Lafleur with the Rangers and the Nordique (particularly the Rangers), you'd have been impressed at how close to "prime Guy" he still looked. He was coming out of retirement, well past his prime, and yet the same effortless skating stride, the same vision, it was all still there. The stamina was gone, however, and he couldn't handle a full workload. He was in his late 30's and was retired for four years, and was still scoring at just above a 20 goal pace for two of his last three seasons.

Yes, you definitely know about Lafleur's comeback:

Jack Todd: Red Fisher was all about respect

Could handle three minute sparring sessions but did not have the stamina for 30-45 second shifts.

Lafleur never matured as a player into a second half career role like Beliveau and countless others.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Yes, you definitely know about Lafleur's comeback:

Jack Todd: Red Fisher was all about respect

Could handle three minute sparring sessions but did not have the stamina for 30-45 second shifts.

Lafleur never matured as a player into a second half career role like Beliveau and countless others.

Beliveau never had Lafleur's peak. Besides, he's already in. I'm not comparing Lafleur to Beliveau or Gretzky.
A lot of bluster about how well players trickled past their prime, and I've already proven that Lafleur did far better than a few have insinuated. That's all support arguments anyways. The "meat" is how the players did at their very best.

 

[wetcoast]

I dispute that big time. Certainly not better peaks at this point of the voting. He had six amazing years - among the greatest peaks ever - and his "slow down" period has been greatly exaggerated. He should have gone in last round, definitely should go in this round.

Mikita, Messier, Ovechkin and Nighbor all have clearly greater primes than Lafleur and that longevity and prime is pretty equal to Lafleur's peak regular season and playoffs (which is 90% of his case).

The first 3 guys and probably Nighbor have arguments that their primes hold more value.

And that's just among forwards 2 goalies and Fetisov have impressive primes as well at face value.

 

[bobholly39]

Beliveau never had Lafleur's peak. Besides, he's already in. I'm not comparing Lafleur to Beliveau or Gretzky.
A lot of bluster about how well players trickled past their prime, and I've already proven that Lafleur did far better than a few have insinuated. That's all support arguments anyways. The "meat" is how the players did at their very best.

Lafleur imo has a top 10 peak in hockey history. At first glance the only player left who has an argument over him for peak would be Espo - still not 100% sure about the Orr effect. Ignoring th Orr effect altogether, Espo > Lafleur for peak. With the Espo effect, it could be flipped.

so I agree for peak he's extremely strong. Both regular seasons, and playoffs.

In fact i say top 10 peak - he has an argument for 5th best ever after the big 4. I don't think he's #5 myself but he's close.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Mikita, Messier, Ovechkin and Nighbor all have clearly greater primes than Lafleur and that longevity and prime is pretty equal to Lafleur's peak regular season and playoffs (which is 90% of his case).

So you're saying that you feel that prime plus longevity is equal to peak? If that's so, Ron Francis and Mike Gartner should have be up for voting any time now. And even if that is what you're saying, you add that they're peak plus prime is "pretty" equal to Lafleur's peak. To me, that means "almost".

It's becoming clearer to me that with a lot of voters, this "Top 100 Players of All Time " is really more about best overall careers as opposed to best players. While there is often overlap, there is also a clear distinction.

 

[blogofmike]

You don't see any shot suppression? Marty played 3.7 times as many games as the backups, but had 29 of 31 games with 14 or fewer shots, 50 of 57 with 15 or fewer shots, 65 of 76 with 16 or fewer shots, 92 of 106 with 17 or fewer shots, 125 of 150 with 18 or fewer shots. I see a lot more than 3.7 times as many low shot games for Brodeur.

------------

Another note about game by game data at nhl.com, manually adding a day to the end date adds the last days games that don't show up for some reason. NHL.com - Stats Note the 1492 results here, and the 1491 results in your link.

Additionally the game by game data is messed up with regard to early playoff SV% data. See Hank Bassen with 127 saves on 129 shots with 14 GA in the game by game totals.
NHL.com - Stats
NHL.com - Stats

Thanks for the note on the date range.

The issue is, even with a 5:1 advantage in 18 shot or fewer games, the difference seems offset by other games as shown by @The Macho Man

Season	Martin Brodeur's SA/60	Backup(s) SA/60
'94	28.29	29.05
'95	24.94	25.26
'96	26.44	23.4
'97	25.52	27.13
'98	22.8	23.01
'99	24.46	24.3
'00	25.00	27.64
'01	24.60	22.5
'02	22.84	23.16
'03	23.55	21.79
'04	24.30	21.46
'06	28.93	28.2
'07	27.87	28.33
'08	27.04	27.99
'09	28.17	29.27
'10	26.73	26.60

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Devils were good at suppressing shots with other goalies in net too, even in pre-2006 years where there is no trapezoid.

Even Marty's "1-shot advantage" is probably skewed by the backup sample coming more from the 1993-94 and 2008-09 Devils than the more stingy 2000-01 to 2003-04 sample.

And even with 2008 Brodeur winning a Vezina, keeping SA/60 at 27.04 and playing 77 games, the Devils were the #4 GA team in the league. 1 year later, with Brodeur playing only 31 games, and the backups with the 29.27 SA/60 playing more - the 2009 Devils were the #4 GA team in the league.

Playing with the Devils also meant another key advantage - low numbers of PP shots against. From 1998-2014, here's how Brodeur looked against others in terms of PP shots: NHL.com - Stats

Here's the top three expressed in SA/60:

Player	PP SA/60
Luongo	6.42
Kolzig	6.68
Brodeur	4.14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That's not puck handling. The Devils took a cartoonishly low number of penalties in the regular season: NHL.com - Stats

Between 1998 and 2004 the Devils took about as many penalties as Columbus. And Columbus spotted them a few years of not existing as a team. Of all teams who existed in 1998, New Jersey is clearly the team with the lowest SH time. (Or 1999. The Predators took more penalties in 82 fewer games.)

 

[blogofmike]

So you're saying that you feel that prime plus longevity is equal to peak? If that's so, Ron Francis and Mike Gartner should have be up for voting any time now. And even if that is what you're saying, you add that they're peak plus prime is "pretty" equal to Lafleur's peak. To me, that means "almost".

It's becoming clearer to me that with a lot of voters, this "Top 100 Players of All Time " is really more about best overall careers as opposed to best players. While there is often overlap, there is also a clear distinction.

Not quite. The primes of 4 Hart winners are better than the primes of Francis and Gartner.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Not quite. The primes of 4 Hart winners are better than the primes of Francis and Gartner.

Exaggeration to prove a point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lafleur's relatively short prime is absolutely a legitimate factor, but haven't we already taken it into account by not adding him yet? I mean, for those 6 years, he's basically Jagr with a far better playoff record.

 

[blogofmike]

Exaggeration to prove a point.

Indeed. I will say that Lafleur's prime is better than Mikita. Especially once playoffs are in. I am currently listing them that way.

Nighbor is the most difficult to gauge. I am leaning towards Nighbor being high on my list. I can be talked out of it. Similarly Ovechkin vs Lafleur is interesting and I can be talked into either.

Probably not talking me out of Messier > Lafleur. The length of time he was a playoff beast is uncanny. Messier was a better playoff scorer than Guy Lafleur. Take into account that it's in addition to being better defensively and as a physical presence and it seems really hard for Lafleur to overcome the short prime since Messier's was roughly 15 years long.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Nighbor is the most difficult to gauge. I am leaning towards Nighbor being high on my list. I can be talked out of it. Similarly Ovechkin vs Lafleur is interesting and I can be talked into either.

Right now, in a salute to those who have done so much work bolstering Nighbor, I have him as one of my top five. I also have Ovechkin squeaking in... I think he's proven enough with his goal scoring, Harts and now the Conn Smythe to get in.

Probably not talking me out of Messier > Lafleur. The length of time he was a playoff beast is uncanny. Messier was a better playoff scorer than Guy Lafleur. Take into account that it's in addition to being better defensively and as a physical presence and it seems really hard for Lafleur to overcome the short prime since Messier's was roughly 15 years long.

I don't have Messier making my top five (you can thank Brodeur and Ovechkin for edging him out)...although, he is one person who I can be convinced to add, but it would be at the expense of either Nighbor, Ovechkin or Brodeur.

As far as his playoffs versus Lafleur, I'm a little confused over your assertion that Moose was a better playoff scorer... both have a Conn Smythe, Lafleur led the playoffs in scoring three times (Messier once), Lafleur led the playoffs in goals twice (Messier never) and Lafleur led the playoffs in assists twice (Messier once). The evidence points to Lafleur over Messier in the playoffs.

 

[blogofmike]

Right now, in a salute to those who have done so much work bolstering Nighbor, I have him as one of my top five. I also have Ovechkin squeaking in... I think he's proven enough with his goal scoring, Harts and now the Conn Smythe to get in.

I don't have Messier making my top five (you can thank Brodeur and Ovechkin for edging him out)...although, he is one person who I can be convinced to add, but it would be at the expense of either Nighbor, Ovechkin or Brodeur.

As far as his playoffs versus Lafleur, I'm a little confused over your assertion that Moose was a better playoff scorer... both have a Conn Smythe, Lafleur led the playoffs in scoring three times (Messier once), Lafleur led the playoffs in goals twice (Messier never) and Lafleur led the playoffs in assists twice (Messier once). The evidence points to Lafleur over Messier in the playoffs.

Messier was the best ES scorer not named Gretzky or Lemieux in the playoffs. His 1.25 overall PPG is a furlong ahead of even Lafleur (1.05) which is impressive considering Mess saw limited PP time before 1988.

If you are going by playoff leads, Messier will look poorly next to Gretzky. But he did have 2nd place finishes in 87 and 88 to Gretzky in addition to leading the playoffs in 1990. He was 3rd in 1984 when he won the Smythe, with Kurri also beating him.

 

[sr edler]

Schneider was actually the perfect point of comparison to see the effects of Brodeur's puckhandling, and it was specifically because Schneider didn't do it, even while being a better puck stopper (and having a better save percentage) than aging Brodeur.

You don't compare the best to the worst (at a specific thing) but the best to the average. Had Schneider just been average (or perhaps slightly above average) at puck-handling the difference obviously wouldn't have been as brutal.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Messier was the best ES scorer not named Gretzky or Lemieux in the playoffs. His 1.25 overall PPG is a furlong ahead of even Lafleur (1.05) which is impressive considering Mess saw limited PP time before 1988.

If you are going by playoff leads, Messier will look poorly next to Gretzky. But he did have 2nd place finishes in 87 and 88 to Gretzky in addition to leading the playoffs in 1990. He was 3rd in 1984 when he won the Smythe, with Kurri also beating him.

He still trials Lafleur 3 to 1 in playoff scoring titles, 2 to 0 lead in playoff goal titles and 2 to 1 lead in playoff assist titles. You focus on career averages conveniently ignores his tenure during the highest scoring period in NHL history and his tenure on the highest scoring team.

I'm not going to deny that Messier was a great playoff performer, but you're comparing him to another great playoff performer.

 

[blogofmike]

He still trials Lafleur 3 to 1 in playoff scoring titles, 2 to 0 lead in playoff goal titles and 2 to 1 lead in playoff assist titles. You focus on career averages conveniently ignores his tenure during the highest scoring period in NHL history and his tenure on the highest scoring team.

I'm not going to deny that Messier was a great playoff performer, but you're comparing him to another great playoff performer.

True, which is why I have been mentioning the ES averages until now, and even then pointing out that he was only a little behind Mario Lemieux at ES. In a comparison with Lafleur, Messier doesn't really have an unfair advantage in terms of era or team though.

Even after the Gretzky trade, Messier scored at a 1.24 PPG clip in the playoffs from 1989-96 which was maintained for 102 games. The length of time Messier was scoring (AND doubling as a PK machine with series changing physical play) is huge.

 

[ted2019]

My early Wednesday rankings.
1. Frank Nighbor
2. Viacheslav Fetisov
3 - 9. Mark Messier/Glenn Hall/Marty Brodeur/Guy Lafleur/Phil Esposito/Stan Mikita/Alex Ovechkin ( not in any order)
10. Bobby Clarke
11. Terry Sawchuk

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Messier was the best ES scorer not named Gretzky or Lemieux in the playoffs. His 1.25 overall PPG is a furlong ahead of even Lafleur (1.05) which is impressive considering Mess saw limited PP time before 1988.

If you are going by playoff leads, Messier will look poorly next to Gretzky. But he did have 2nd place finishes in 87 and 88 to Gretzky in addition to leading the playoffs in 1990. He was 3rd in 1984 when he won the Smythe, with Kurri also beating him.

You really shouldn't use a career average for Lafleur when we all recognize that his case is based mainly on peak value. At his peak, he was scoring 1.5 points per game in the playoffs, which is incredible, esepcially considering nobody else on his team was close.

Anyway, that said, I do think Messier comes out ahead in overall playoff value due to longevity.

It's just that I strongly disagree with using career average for a player who has such a clearly defined prime.

 

[wetcoast]

So you're saying that you feel that prime plus longevity is equal to peak? If that's so, Ron Francis and Mike Gartner should have be up for voting any time now. And even if that is what you're saying, you add that they're peak plus prime is "pretty" equal to Lafleur's peak. To me, that means "almost".

It's becoming clearer to me that with a lot of voters, this "Top 100 Players of All Time " is really more about best overall careers as opposed to best players. While there is often overlap, there is also a clear distinction.

Peak+prime+ longevity can trump a superior peak.

Mike Gartner and even Francis are poor examples compared to the 3 centers I listed and are actually available this round.

 

[wetcoast]

You really shouldn't use a career average for Lafleur when we all recognize that his case is based mainly on peak value. At his peak, he was scoring 1.5 points per game in the playoffs, which is incredible, esepcially considering nobody else on his team was close.

Anyway, that said, I do think Messier comes out ahead in overall playoff value due to longevity.

It's just that I strongly disagree with using career average for a player who has such a clearly defined prime.

Messier played for longer, wouldn't career average hurt him more?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Lafleur's relatively short prime is absolutely a legitimate factor, but haven't we already taken it into account by not adding him yet? I mean, for those 6 years, he's basically Jagr with a far better playoff record.

>