Not quite stacked vs NHL teams but compare the other Soviet teams to them. The practice of moving promising players to the same team (or an established scoring champion like Balderis) is not conducive to competition. It is only domestic league numbers. Not Canada Cup or WHC/Olympics.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
Not quite stacked vs NHL teams but compare the other Soviet teams to them. The practice of moving promising players to the same team (or an established scoring champion like Balderis) is not conducive to competition. It is only domestic league numbers. Not Canada Cup or WHC/Olympics.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Raw yes,but your adjusted SV% numbers reflect the views expressed in my comment.
Bower topped out at 66 games in 1959-60. Kelly arrived late andKeon in 1960-61. Team effect seems to come into play.
1964-65, first season of the two goalie system. Goalies were supposed to be rested but GA went up, 5.55 TG/G to 5.75. SV% went down overall. Why? The results are counter-intuitive.
Agree that it was not a counting issue in Toronto. Some of the SOG numbers for replacement goalies are quirky but the sample space is small. Check Don Simmons SOGs vs Bower.Simmons is strangely lower.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yes by the 80s, the competiton level of the Soviet domestic league was an absolute joke for reasons you said.
However, Fetisov and Makarov stood out greatly vs even their teammates on that stacked team. And also internationally against real competition .
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
What seems to be missing here is the degree of difficulty for saves.
No one had more rocking chair games than Brodeur. Granted, his puck handling ability plays into that. But compared to a goalie like Hall his puck stopping is fairly average.
No numbers, "no proof". Just my recollections.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
#3 in "Top indications you're from South Jersey." 'You've had arguments about Cheesesteak quality.' Others: 'you know who the 13th Leeds child is- and think you may have seen him one night while wizzing in the woods.' 'You think Olive Garden is a steaming pile of crap and should not open locations in South Jersey.' [But then, as my screen-name suggests, I'm actually a transplant... but I digress.]
In reality, they're NOT an insignificant cog in the overarching wheel. More on that later.
ted2019
History of Hockey
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Well, when you're positionally not making mistakes you're generally going to have boring nights at the office. Nobody ever claimed Marty was electrifying. But then again I never gave a damn about style points out of my net minder, or any position for that matter.
Guys that have to make highlight reel saves often are either on terrible defensive teams or aren't in the correct position in the first place.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,455
- 4,632
Not a lot of discussion on Cyclone Taylor yet. I've been busy this week, but I'll try to put something together tonight or tomorrow to help quantify his place among this group.
I've been impressed with the case for Makarov so far. I had Fetisov in my top 5 last round, and I'm actually being swayed to the idea that Makarov was the greater of the two Soviets. He's definitely tracking towards the top of my ballot right now.
I've been impressed with the case for Makarov so far. I had Fetisov in my top 5 last round, and I'm actually being swayed to the idea that Makarov was the greater of the two Soviets. He's definitely tracking towards the top of my ballot right now.
It's hard to remember what this thread is about at times.
Here are my teirs of players but alot is in flux
In forsure,
Makarov
Brodeur
Sakic
Trending towards not being listed
Sawchuk
Esposito
and then the middle hard to get an order right now
Hall
Clarke
Bossy
Fetisov
Taylor
Trottier
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,485
- 15,776
Haha, a timely comment. I've spent the past week arguing with someone on the main board who was insistent that Brodeur faced tougher shots, on average, than Hasek! Glad that your recollection is the same as mine.
Part of the reason that Brodeur had an easier time is the Devils were so disciplined (so he faced fewer shots on the PP). Seventies already accounted for that. But to the extent that the Devils allowed less dangerous shots than average at even strength (which I absolutely agree with - though it's hard to quantify that), Brodeur would be over-rated in Seventies' analysis.
Like I said, I don't know how to quantify that. But I'm confident that his adjusted numbers are a better representation of Brodeur's ability than the official numbers.
I'd like to hear the case for Taylor and how he stacks up this round as well.
Been very busy at work so picking some spots when i have time to read and post.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,485
- 15,776
If you would have told me six months ago that I was seriously considering ranking Sakic above Esposito, I would have said you're crazy. But I only had Espo four spots ahead on my top 120 list, and it's possible the gap may shrink (or flip).
(The following comments are off-the-cuff, not serious research).
At face value, Esposito's offense dwarfs Sakic's, but if we take 20% off his totals from 1970 to 1975, his scoring finishes are much more comparable. I wrote about that in my mega-post in the last thread - Espo's "adjusted" scoring finishes would be something like 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th, while Sakic's are 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 10th. Esposito is definitely ahead (7-3 top three finishes is pretty decisive, especially since Sakic had a few of those high finishes in weaker years for forwards), but Sakic starts making up some ground.
Some arguments for Sakic:
- Esposito has very good (and underrated) longevity as a star player, but Sakic is still ahead.
- Accounting for Orr or not, nearly everyone has Sakic ahead as a playoff performer.
- Esposito has a stellar performance in the Summit Series, but Sakic has the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Cup.
- Sakic eventually became a much better defensive player than Esposito ever was (worth mentioning - he got a ton of time on the PK - more than Forsberg for most of the years ice time has been officially tracked).
- Versatility. Sakic proved he could be a top five scorer on a Stanley Cup champion, sharing ice time with other top talent (see 1996 and 2001). Or he could be a top five scorer on horrendous teams (in 1990 and 1991 combined, he was 5th in scoring - one of the players who was ahead was prime, but not peak, Gretzky - on teams that lost 111 games over two seasons). Not to beat a dead horse, but there will always be questions about how much Esposito benefited from being in the right place at the right time.
- Consistency. Sakic had more ups and downs during his career (whether due to injury or just some unexpected duds), while Esposito had that remarkably consistent peak.
- Sakic's Hart trophy voting record is disappointing (just one year in the top five is a legitimate strike against him in my mind - and yes he was just outside the top five several times, but we're talking about a player who's potentially in the top 25-30 all-time).
- Sakic's even-strength performance appears to have been much weaker than Forsberg's.
- Sakic's goal-scoring isn't as strong as I thought. For a player who quite possibly has the greatest wrist shot in history, I really thought he'd have more than 5 seasons as a top ten goal-scorer (with just two years in the top five). Maybe this isn't a serious argument, more of an observation.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think the other factor is competition in the 70s versus the 90s. Sakic competed against the best in the world for basically his entire career, but in Esposito's prime there was a good deal of strong players outside the NHL - a few in the WHA, a few Soviets, a few Czechs - and none of them are actually better than him, but every season one or two of them could have given him a run for his money if you imagine they were all together in one league. On the other hand, you can say it doesn't affect Espo's best 7 seasons because you could say none of those players would ever threaten for a top-3 scoring finish and you wouldn't be crazy for thinking that.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I would tend to agree with you guys - mostly. I've accounted for the "much more difficult" PP shots Brodeur didn't have to face, but I haven't accounted for the "slightly less difficult" even strength shots Brodeur probably faced - essentially because there's no good way to do so.
After all this, I'm pretty firm on Hall over Brodeur, but I also didn't change my mind on Sawchuk, I still consider him 6th after Brodeur.
The Panther
Registered User
People get a lot of mileage out of the 8-1 USSR/Canada game in Montreal. I get that it was a big game on a big stage, but... it's one game.
Why don't we hear as much about the game four days earlier when Canada spanked the Soviets 7-3? What was Makarov's plus/minus in that one?
(I like Makarov, of course, but I'm just saying...)
Why don't we hear as much about the game four days earlier when Canada spanked the Soviets 7-3? What was Makarov's plus/minus in that one?
(I like Makarov, of course, but I'm just saying...)
VMBM
Hansel?!
You make it sound like that was Fetisov's only claim to fame.
But no, he was also considered by many to be the best defenceman in the world* in his time (read TDMM's post #4, for example), and the best and most important player on his team. You should give the contemporary hockey people a little more credit than that. Were they really that fooled by the fact that he was an exceptional defenceman in Soviet hockey history so that they overrated him as an overall player?
* Impossible to make a satisfactory comparison with Potvin or Bourque for the obvious reasons, of course
Batis
Registered User
Why don't we hear more about the Soviets 6-3 win at the group stage of the 1984 Canada Cup but much about the Canadian overtime victory in the semifinal? Because one was a knockout stage game and the other was not.
And who has given overly much credit to the Soviets based on the 8-1 game? What I did was point out that over the course of the 8 Canada Cup games between the Soviets and Canada during the 80's the Soviets were pretty much completely even with those Canadian teams led by the greatest player of all time.
And regarding the 3-7 game Makarov had 1 goal and 1 assist and was probably the best Soviet on the ice during that game.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yes, it sure looks contemporary NORTH AMERICAN observers in the early-mid 1980s (who wouldn't care a bit about the Soviet domestic league at all) tended to prefer Fetisov over Makarov, though I think that is at least partially because of style of play.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
One sees versions of this circulate from time-to-time. Kind of dated... but one of the better ones is this: www.facebook.com/notes/south-jersey/you-know-youre-from-south-jersey-when/66281857785
Back to the topic at hand, I said before that it would be one formidable challenge to try to construct a dynasty with 'High-Skill SuperPest' as its centerpiece. The fact that Clarke didn't play on a dynasty has something to do with the fact that it's really tough to erect a dynasty around him. Might be harder to build around him than it would be to build around any other Forward on offer this round. It's one (just one) of the reasons I'm not recommending him for advancement this round.
So, I say the Flyers did really well to get assets that maximized his strengths and minimized his weaknesses- and did a solid by riding that to back-to-back Cups. How did they do it?!
1) Saw that of his skills, his primary offensive one was playmaking. [Trivia question- how many times did Clarke score over 30 goals, after the age of 24? Answer: zero.] Enter finishers Bill Barber, and (slightly later) Reggie Leach.
2) Formulated a credible second line, so that the team wasn't utterly neutered by shutting down the primary line. Enter Rick MacLeish. It ain't exactly Sid/Geno as a one-two punch, but MacLeish DID have a couple of great playoff runs.
3) Because a SuperPest should have some relatively free run at Pesting (otherwise, what's the point?), got half of a Varangian Guard's worth of Enforcer-types so that no-one made an oil-slick out of their (comparatively undersized) Pest.
4) And because "Goons-gonna-Goon," know that you're going to spend a lot of time on the penalty-kill. The white-hot-peak Goaltender mitigated a lot of the consequences of being short-handed.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,140
- 2,678
I feel like Sakic is getting overrated by now even though I advocated for him a bit early on. He had a great and long career but I'm not sure I think he was a better player than Forsberg. I get that career value is part of this ranking but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
Batis
Registered User
Yes Fetisov was clearly very highly valued by North American observers during his prime. It is however worth noting that Makarov also recieved his fair share of praise from North American observers as well. Some examples here below. The quote from Max McNab also suggests that you probably are correct about that style of play may have played a part in the equation.
Toronto Star (1971-2011); Jan 5, 1986;
pg. G1
"Hockey Hall of Famers Harry Howell and Gump Worsley, now NHL-scouts, were asked to name the one player who would be their choice if they could pick one man from the Central Red Army team. They replied in unison No. 24, Sergei Makarov. He controls the game."
Toronto Star (1971-2011); Sep 9, 1981;
pg. D2
"Here was the proposition: By a stroke of magic, NHL-clubs are permitted to sign members of the Soviet Union national team line-up. Whom would you take?
Given the situation in the NHL today, I imagine most of us would grab No. 2 (Vyacheslav Fetisov) on defence, says Max McNab general manager of the Washington Capitals. The way he moves the puck and sets up plays, he´s just what everybody is looking for.
But I think most of us agree No. 24 (Sergei Makarov), the young rightwinger, is their best player."
And here is some more praise for Makarov in contemporary NorthAmerican media. The ones doing the praising here being European observers though.
Toronto Star (1971-2011); Sep 1, 1981;
pg. M11
"European fans consider Soviets Sergei Makarov (24) worlds best hockey player."
"Only 5-foot-8 and 165 pounds, Makarov will seem out of place against giant defenders like Barry Beck and Larry Robinson. But he has uncanny mobility, in addition to sheer, dazzling speed. In Europe, he is considered the worlds greatest hockey player. They haven´t seen Wayne Gretzky, you know."
Toronto Star (1971-2011); Aug 15, 1987;
pg. D1 *
"Tommy Sandlin, Swedens coach, wishes NHL-regulations were in force during the Canada Cup. He likes the so-called Gretzky rule which means teams don´t play shorthanded when members of each side are penalized simultaneously. In international competition these coinciding minors must be served.
I understand the change was made because of what Wayne Gretzky was doing when he had extra room to play in, Sandlin says. But let me assure you Sergei Makarov and Vladimir Krutov of the Soviet Union are just as dangerous in these situations."
Additionally it is worth noting that Tarasov in 1989 said that Makarov was the best Russian player ever.
Doug Risebroughs recollection of what Tarasov said about Makarov during Calgarys Soviet tour in 1989.
Details are hazy, in part because of a language barrier, in part because this took place decades ago. And the pink vodka probably didn't help. But at one point, Risebrough remembers Tarasov weighing in on Makarov's place in Russian hockey history.
"He told us that Sergei was the best Russian player ever," Risebrough said. "A coach like that was looking purely at his ability and his ability to deliver."
Sergei Makarov was 'artistry' on ice
Some praise from Fetisov and Larionov in that same article.
"To me, when you play this kind of hockey for a long time, it's like Picasso. You're an artist, doing a masterpiece," Larionov said. "That's what it was like to play with this guy. You create something on the fly. Makarov was artistry. To play with him was amazing. Just amazing."
Fetisov about Makarov.
"He loved the game more than anybody. His background, where he came from, it showed how much he loved the game. I was so lucky to have a partner like Sergei throughout almost my whole career. I can only say thank you to him, his talent and his leadership."
What stands out to Larionov and Fetisov years later is that, in the middle of such an intense physical experience, Makarov added workouts. He was up earlier than anyone, playing tennis at 5 a.m.
"For one reason -- to be ahead of everybody," Fetisov said.
If they had a slight break during the day, he was on the grass playing soccer.
"He wants to be the best there, too," Larionov said. "It was in his blood to be the best guy. That's the guy. Get up, doesn't matter what, he wants to be the best. He wants to be on top of every sport. That's what Sergei Makarov was all about."
Last edited:
ted2019
History of Hockey
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
I’d really like us to limit the Peter Forsberg talk until he is eligible. If we’re holding back players who weren’t better at their best than someone who was the best player in the world at their best, then we’d be down to only a few remaining players.
And even then, it’s not as if Sakic wasn’t in the conversation. 100-point seasons 17 years apart, two Pearson nominations in close proximity (2001, 2004), the second-most dominant per-game scorer after Jagr from 1998-99 through 2000-01 (per-82: 47 goals, 113 points), the monster 1995-96 when he might have been better than anybody outside of Pennsylvania.
He’s not my #1 this round or anything, but he’s probably top-5ish.
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
Philly went haywire on the goon scale in response to being the 99 pound weaklings a few seasons earlier while getting slapped around by St. Louis and Boston. They figured it was better to be the hammer than the nail. Clarke was around during the days when it was the Flyers who were being pushed around.
