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

[DannyGallivan]

It took just two years into the NHL for Terry Sawchuk to already start being praised as the greatest goaltender ever by people like Frank Boucher, and it’s a reputation that he seemingly held by a plurality up until the late-1990s.

HOH has obviously had some push-back to this, and obviously anyone being replaced at 25-years-old should probably be a red flag, but take into consideration that with only 6 available starting jobs at a time when complete or near-complete seasons were the expectation, there were probably itchier trigger fingers to look towards the next Original 6 Goaltender than what we will find for any other positional player in any other era.

Easily one of the more fascinating hockey players of all-time. I grew up with every hockey book and scribe telling me that Sawchuk was the greatest goalie of all time, so it's taken awhile for that impression to wear off.

I think one of the reasons why he didn't stick with teams longer wasn't due to ability... it may have been due to personality. Clearly a troubled individual.

 

[DannyGallivan]

If people want to put Lafleur ahead of mikita this round that's their right but the argument really favours Mikita and it's not even really close here.

The bold is where you lose all credibility. Yeah, you can pretend the playoff performances were closer than they were, and you can pretend that Mikita didn't benefit from Hull taking the brunt of the defensive assignments, and admittedly there is plenty to like about Mikita. But, Lafleur's peak is clearly better than Mikita's, at their best Lafleur was the better player, and anytime during this exercise someone uses the words not even really close here, they better be comparing Gretzky to Harold Snepts. By dividing similarly-rated players by chunks as this exercise does, most players in each vote are relatively close to each other by design.

 

[wetcoast]

The bold is where you lose all credibility. Yeah, you can pretend the playoff performances were closer than they were, and you can pretend that Mikita didn't benefit from Hull taking the brunt of the defensive assignments, and admittedly there is plenty to like about Mikita. But, Lafleur's peak is clearly better than Mikita's, at their best Lafleur was the better player, and anytime during this exercise someone uses the words not even really close here, they better be comparing Gretzky to Harold Snepts. By dividing similarly-rated players by chunks as this exercise does, most players in each vote are relatively close to each other by design.

I guess one can pretend that the Habs would have floundered without Lafleur as well, simply not a great argument you are making here.

Or if one is only looking at peak, then yes my statement doesn't make sense, but I'm looking at total careers, as it should be right?

Mikita in the regular season really blows Lafleur away (the stats really bare that out), which is one of the reasons I think he should have gone earlier.

And at this stage of the process, it's the differences that makes for seperation, most every player has a great 6 year peak or they wouldn't be up this early.

 

[ImporterExporter]

C's are more valuable to team successes than W's.

Look at the Cup champions over history and you'll easily come to that conclusion.

Be strong down the middle. You can win with middling W's. Very rarely do Cup champions not have at least one of a high end #1C or Dman (or both).

 

[Canadiens1958]

It took just two years into the NHL for Terry Sawchuk to already start being praised as the greatest goaltender ever by people like Frank Boucher, and it’s a reputation that he seemingly held by a plurality up until the late-1990s.

HOH has obviously had some push-back to this, and obviously anyone being replaced at 25-years-old should probably be a red flag, but take into consideration that with only 6 available starting jobs at a time when complete or near-complete seasons were the expectation, there were probably itchier trigger fingers to look towards the next Original 6 Goaltender than what we will find for any other positional player in any other era.

That is to say, it’s not enough to be coming off of five League Championships with Terry Sawchuk with 130-139 GA in 70 GP seasons; you have to prepare for the next five and the five after that. While much is made about how Sawchuk in Boston wasn’t replicating Detroit’s success, Detroit’s GA also shot up by 15 in 1956 despite a marginal decline in league averages, and they didn’t have a problem flipping back to post-Mono Sawchuk after two seasons and a disappointing 1957 playoff from Hall, so there was certainly some volatility in the era.

Sawchuk’s style, of course, did him no favors without proper protective equipment. The courage in playing with his face at low elevation to better scan puck movement resulted in a substantial number of injuries that needed to be ignored because of the constant fear of the 7th best goaltender in the world coming into the league in his place.

To me, I see him largely the same way I do any other temperamental star - the more confidence placed in him, the better the results - but at the disadvantage of having the strongest need to remain healthy (so few jobs that anything else than 3rd best is technically below average) while playing a way that virtually guaranteed getting hit in less-than-shielded areas (which would be a non-issue in any era that gave adequate protection to its goaltenders).

So taking all of this into consideration, I find there to be middle ground between his media reputation and his previous HOH project assessments.

For a stretch of roughly 12 seasons, Detroit was a hockey factory for HHOF goalies. 1950,SC goalie Harry Lumley, traded, age 23 replaced by 21 year old Terry Sawchuk. 1955 SC goalie Sawchuk,traded, age 25, replaced by 24 year old Glenn Hall. But the farm system went dry,no home grown HHOF players after 1955 (Hall, Bucyk, Ullman) until well into the post expansion era - Yzerman?

Time eventually caught up with the aging superstars and legacies became tarnished.

Sawchuk showed flashes throughout around injuries. 1961,1963 and 1964 going to the finals, winning another SC in 1967. Beating Hall three times, losing once. Winning four out of seven was all that mattered. SV% did not.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Did I read that right, that you have Mikita in your low 60's?

Naw- there was some misunderstanding here somewhere. The 'low-60s' reference was to un-nominated player Marcel Dionne. And to make it clear, I certainly don't have Mikita in arrearages to everybody this round- Sawchuk and Clarke have said "hello."

Apropos the assertion of conjecture with regard to Fetisov's excellence- I'd say that Fetisov's greatness is more easy to document than the greatness of Nighbor, or even Morenz. That doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Fetisov is superior to Nighbor... and it certainly doesn't mean I esteem him higher than Morenz. With regard to players that are more difficult to document, I'd say my default position is neutrality. I'm not going to believe every bit of glowing praise in the 'Ottawa Citizen' with regard to Nighbor- but I'm also not going to summarily dismiss everything contained therein, either.

Nonetheless, we can do something with Fetisov and the other Soviet stars that we will be unable to do with Nighbor. We can eye-test them. I sure have. Any participants who haven't could stand to be better-educated here. They don't need to settle for being low-information voters. We can see their play against NHL-powerhouses... sometimes, even complete games. They've generally given a good, nay, excellent account of themselves. In certain places, they've posterized fellow Hall-of-Famers.

Now, I don't think an eye-test is an all-comprehensive acid-test. But if one has the option of seeing the players for whom we're voting, why would anyone NOT want to avail himself of that option?!?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Or if one is only looking at peak, then yes my statement doesn't make sense, but I'm looking at total careers, as it should be right?

I've alway said that Peak defines greatness and career defines longevity. However, you win, we'll look at career totals:

Regular Season

Lafleur
Games: 1126
Goals: 560 (better than Mikita in less games)
Assists: 793
Points: 1353
Points per game: 1.2 (better than Mikita)
Plus/Minus: +446

Mikita
Games: 1396
Goals: 541
Assists: 926
Points: 1467
Points per game: 1.05
Plus/Minus: 329

Playoffs

Lafleur
Games: 128
Goals: 54
Assists: 76
Points: 134
Points per game: 1.05 (better than Mikita)
Plus/Minus: + 50

Mikita
Games: 155
Goals: 59
Assists: 91
Points: 150
Points per game: 0.97
Plus/Minus: -8

Looks like Lafleur gets the edge here as well.

Mikita was a fine player and all, but he is in too tough to make the top five in this round. I actually had him in my top five to begin with, but a combination of docking him a little bit and mostly being impressed with other resumes has him on the outside in this round.

 

[seventieslord]

I've alway said that Peak defines greatness and career defines longevity. However, you win, we'll look at career totals:

Regular Season

Lafleur
Games: 1126
Goals: 560 (better than Mikita in less games)
Assists: 793
Points: 1353
Points per game: 1.2 (better than Mikita)
Plus/Minus: +446

Mikita
Games: 1396
Goals: 541
Assists: 926
Points: 1467
Points per game: 1.05
Plus/Minus: 329

Playoffs

Lafleur
Games: 128
Goals: 54
Assists: 76
Points: 134
Points per game: 1.05 (better than Mikita)
Plus/Minus: + 50

Mikita
Games: 155
Goals: 59
Assists: 91
Points: 150
Points per game: 0.97
Plus/Minus: -8

Looks like Lafleur gets the edge here as well.

Mikita was a fine player and all, but he is in too tough to make the top five in this round. I actually had him in my top five to begin with, but a combination of docking him a little bit and mostly being impressed with other resumes has him on the outside in this round.

Really? Wow. I thought that in this project we were better than comparing players from deferent eras based on career totals. Do I really need to explain what was wrong with all that?

 

[steve141]

Really? Wow. I thought that in this project we were better than comparing players from deferent eras based on career totals. Do I really need to explain what was wrong with all that?

If anything that post makes Lafleur look pretty weak. If Lafleur's biggest claim to fame is the playoffs, and he ends up with pretty similar career numbers as Mikita (who played in a lower scoring era on a worse team), that's not an argument in favor of Lafleur.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Really? Wow. I thought that in this project we were better than comparing players from deferent eras based on career totals. Do I really need to explain what was wrong with all that?

I agree. I felt challenged to compare careers. I don't consider it relevant, but I was responding to someone who did.

 

[DannyGallivan]

If anything that post makes Lafleur look pretty weak. If Lafleur's biggest claim to fame is the playoffs, and he ends up with pretty similar career numbers as Mikita (who played in a lower scoring era on a worse team), that's not an argument in favor of Lafleur.

I think his biggest claim to fame is being the best player on perhaps the best team in history (77 Habs)
Or the six straight 119-plus seasons (first playcer to do that before Gretzky)
Or the six straight 50-plus goal seasons
Or the multiple Hart and Art Ross Trophies
Or the three-time playoff point leader and Conn Smythe

...one more thought about Mikita, which is linked somewhat to Oiler-era Messier. When you have Hull on one line and Mikita on another, or Gretzky on one line and Messier on another, you'd have to think that more nights than not, Mikita and Messier would not have to face the oppositions toughest checkers. Pretty sure Lafleur faced the other teams's best checkers night in and night out for about ten years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If anything that post makes Lafleur look pretty weak. If Lafleur's biggest claim to fame is the playoffs, and he ends up with pretty similar career numbers as Mikita (who played in a lower scoring era on a worse team), that's not an argument in favor of Lafleur.

Who cares about career numbers?

Lafleur's 6 year prime was only a few years shorter than Bobby Orr's career. Ding him for a short prime all you want, but don't diminish how special he was in his prime by averaging in post prime numbers.

Averaging 1.5 points per game in the playoffs at a time when the rest of the leaders were closer to 1 PPG is extraordinary.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think the thing with Terry Sawchuk, examining his career top to bottom, is he certainly has an elite peak from 51 through 55. Regular season wise you could argue it was as good as any goalie, other than Hasek.

In the playoffs he was up and down. 1952 might be the most dominant goalie performance ever. 8-0, only gave up 5 goals and had 4 shutouts.

In 53 he was putrid.

In 54 he was amazing.

In 55 he would seem to have been average or so but had a huge game 7 performance against Montreal to win the Cup.

But after 1955 he really has to many valleys (compared to previous peak) for my taste both regular and postseason wise. Obviously he was fantastic and won the Smythe for Toronto in 67 which is a great feather in his cap.

But compared to somebody like Hall or Brodeur he simply was nowhere near as consistent. Hall was up and down in the postseason like Sawchuk but Hall also held steady play in the regular season in a much more consisent manner and Hall was playing every single night, for 502 games straight.

 

[wetcoast]

Really? Wow. I thought that in this project we were better than comparing players from deferent eras based on career totals. Do I really need to explain what was wrong with all that?

You beat me to it, I don't think that he realized how many 80s guys he just propped up there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the thing with Terry Sawchuk, examining his career top to bottom, is he certainly has an elite peak from 51 through 55. Regular season wise you could argue it was as good as any goalie, other than Hasek.

In the playoffs he was up and down. 1952 might be the most dominant goalie performance ever. 8-0, only gave up 5 goals and had 4 shutouts.

In 53 he was putrid.

In 54 he was amazing.

In 55 he would seem to have been average or so but had a huge game 7 performance against Montreal to win the Cup.

But after 1955 he really has to many valleys (compared to previous peak) for my taste both regular and postseason wise. Obviously he was fantastic and won the Smythe for Toronto in 67 which is a great feather in his cap.

But compared to somebody like Hall or Brodeur he simply was nowhere near as consistent. Hall was up and down in the postseason like Sawchuk but Hall also held steady play in the regular season in a much more consisent manner and Hall was playing every single night, for 502 games straight.

Good post; but just to clarify - Sawchuk did not win the 1967 Conn Smythe; Dave Keon did.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One quick point on Hall - he gets knocked a lot on playoffs, but A) he deserves credit for ending the Habs run, and B) he did win a Smythe very late in his career.

I just want to make sure Hall and Ovechkin are properly compared, because their resumes are kind of similar (regular season dominance, playoff disappointment). I would contend that Hall has a more impressive resume in the playoffs than Ovi simply because he has two signature runs to Ovis one.

Edit: Not trying to pick on Ovi here, but I just noticed that they are the only players up in this round that have "playoff knocks" as opposed to neutral or positive playoff resumes.

Was hoping someone else would do this, but here goes:

In favor of Glenn Hall:

Longevity as an elite player compared to other players at his position. 11 times 1st or 2nd Team All-Star - the most of any goalie ever by a good margin

Ovechkin has been a 1st or 2nd Team All-Star 10 times himself, and twice 3rd. But, while Ovechkin has generally played during one of the stronger times for LW in league history, it's still easier to rack up All-Star nods at LW than at G.

Halls All-Star record is just extraordinary, maybe comparable to Bourque or Howe in relation to his position.

Most times 1st or 2nd Team All-Star Goalie:

Glenn Hall 11
Frank Brimsek 8
Terry Sawchuk 7
Jacques Plante 7
Bill Durnan 6
Ken Dryden 6
Dominik Hasek 6
Patrick Roy 6
Martin Brodeur 6

Now, competition for goalie is definitely tougher in a 30 team league, with the chance of a hot one-year wonder vastly increasing. But Hall's record vs his contemporaries is still very strong.

In favor of Ovechkin:

1, Peak. At his best, Ovechkin was probably the best player in the world for 3-4 years, or at least 1A to Crosby's 1B. Prime Ovechkin = Prime Bobby Hull, just not for nearly as long. And I don't think Hall was ever as good as his teammate Bobby Hull.

2. Over the course of his career, Ovechkin is the clear cut 2nd best player of his generation - and by now, that generation has been around for a decade. I doubt many would consider Glenn Hall the 2nd best overall player of his generation. Even those who do, it can't be by a clear margin over the pack.

I doubt many would disagree that Ovechkin is the clear #2 of his generation by a good margin over the pack

 

[The Macho King]

I haven't been able to do nearly as much discussion this week - which is a shame, but I'm tracking. I think you're right TDMM, and I wasn't trying to make it an apples to apples comparison, more of an observation about their relative narratives.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You beat me to it, I don't think that he realized how many 80s guys he just propped up there.

An alternative view, that I would support,is how many 1980s forwards were brought down to Lafleur's level where a lack of defensive acumen becomes an asset or badge of honour.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Good post; but just to clarify - Sawchuk did not win the 1967 Conn Smythe; Dave Keon did.

You're absolutely right. I was thinking of Hall in 68. Ugh, thanks for the catch!

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think the thing with Terry Sawchuk, examining his career top to bottom, is he certainly has an elite peak from 51 through 55. Regular season wise you could argue it was as good as any goalie, other than Hasek.

In the playoffs he was up and down. 1952 might be the most dominant goalie performance ever. 8-0, only gave up 5 goals and had 4 shutouts.

In 53 he was putrid.

In 54 he was amazing.

In 55 he would seem to have been average or so but had a huge game 7 performance against Montreal to win the Cup.

But after 1955 he really has to many valleys (compared to previous peak) for my taste both regular and postseason wise. Obviously he was fantastic and won the Smythe for Toronto in 67 which is a great feather in his cap.

But compared to somebody like Hall or Brodeur he simply was nowhere near as consistent. Hall was up and down in the postseason like Sawchuk but Hall also held steady play in the regular season in a much more consisent manner and Hall was playing every single night, for 502 games straight.

You are dancing with one of the better mysteries in NHL history.

1953 super team Red Wings with Sawchuk and 1957 super team Red Wings with Hall upset by the 3rd place Bruins, led then coached by Milt Schmidt playing Jim Henryand Don Simmons in goal.

 

[Captain Bowie]

An alternative view, that I would support,is how many 1980s forwards were brought down to Lafleur's level where a lack of defensive acumen becomes an asset or badge of honour.

Huh?

 

[VanIslander]

How much should defensive two-way play be valued as a plus, or/and? lack of checking be a minus.

Brett Hull won multiple Rocket Richards and Bill Cowley won multiple Hart trophies WITHOUT ANY DEFENSIVE RESPONSIBILITY. They both admitted not checking. Hull said it wasn't his style or role and that others on the ice brought a defensive skillset.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But compared to somebody like Hall or Brodeur he simply was nowhere near as consistent. Hall was up and down in the postseason like Sawchuk but Hall also held steady play in the regular season in a much more consisent manner and Hall was playing every single night, for 502 games straight.

Up and down is going to mean different things in the Original 6 compared to the 21-30 team league. He could rank 7th out of 7 goaltenders statistically in 1959 on the worst team in the league, but I’m not sure that it should necessarily translate to any more of a down season to what Martin Brodeur had from, say, 1999-2002.

What it will do, however, is create a Goaltender as Martyr narrative that can affect awards voting.

For the moody veteran who’s “the greatest goalie of all,” life on the ice and off is just one crisis after another.

...

Injuries, domestic crises, illness, accidents, five medical operations, illogical trades, and the abnormal tensions of his pressurecooker occupation have plagued him. His playing weight has vacillated from a high of two twenty-eight to a low of one sixty-two — a spread of sixty-six pounds on a five-foot-ten frame — and by his own estimate he has picked up two hundred and fifty stitches in his face alone, three of them in his right eyeball.

Through all the turmoil he has remained one of the game's great performers. Indeed, one objective authority, Frank Boucher, who started an NHL career as a player in 1926 and concluded it twentynine years later as general manager of the New York Rangers, says without equivocation that in all that time he never saw Sawchuk’s equal. Last year, playing doggedly for the league's worst team, Sawchuk was named to the NHL's second all-star team, recognition rarely achieved by the goalkeeper of a lastplace club.

It’s not like he was chased out of the league after 1955; he recorded 250+ wins outside of the 5-year peak where his team won 5 league championships and 3 Stanley Cups.

Credit to Hall for his health on what was probably the most demanding single role of any of our candidates, but I sure would like to see something more before placing him above a contemporary who was casually being regarded as the best ever during their careers.

I was sold Hall over Sawchuk six years ago, and I’ve had buyer’s remorse ever since. It’s asking me to disagree with those who distributed Hall’s yearly All-Star selection while simultaneously saying that Sawchuk was the best.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How much should defensive two-way play be valued as a plus, or/and? lack of checking be a minus.

Brett Hull won multiple Rocket Richards and Bill Cowley won multiple Hart trophies WITHOUT ANY DEFENSIVE RESPONSIBILITY. They both admitted not checking. Hull said it wasn't his style or role and that others on the ice brought a defensive skillset.

Under depleted league situations where classes of players were excluded. Brett Hull where small, skilled forwards were rare.

 

[MXD]

...We still have people calling Carey Price the best netminder in the league, when he's obviously nowhere close since last year.