I have a question about each. In original first-name alphabetical order:
Clarke: Having just two 1st team, two 2nd team all star selections, ... only three top-5 in point seasons,... Never top 10 in goals... just five times top-5 in assists.... once a Selke winner... a dirty play artist known to need goon backup to finish what he started... for the life of me: what does Clarke have over ineligibles ( like Yzerman)?
This has a loaded take on it...and I don't find it particularly newsworthy. Clarke was a dirty player, but when you start drawing lines in the sand, eventually you find a way to box yourself in. How much did "dirt" affect your ranking of Eddie Shore, for instance? How much credence do you give the Lady Byng? I'm not saying it's completely irrelevant...but I draw it out to admiration...liking a player in the NFL, for instance, is almost impossible if you want a squeaky clean image...I separate the two...in all facets of my life, I demand to be entertained at all times, the players that can entertain me with their strong play are the ones that I like...if Bobby Hull tagged his wife a few times for putting the wrong type of mustard on his ham sandwich, well, I don't support that of course (I hate mustard), but I'm also not gonna try to whiteknight on Mrs. Hull's behalf 50 years later by voting Bobby last on my ballot. Similarly, Clarke grew up in a real sticky era...hockey got its reputation for roughhousing in the 70's and 80's (because no one remembers the 20's and 30's), Clarke may have been the pied piper of lead-pipe initiatives or maybe not, but he was still a demon of a player too. I'm not gonna let one leak into the other unless I felt that Clarke's scumbaggery consistently hamstrung his team.
What does he have? The pain of dragging a team to being a regular winner without a #1 d-man, possibly the only instance of a team being in the running for championships consistently without having that piece. Then doubled-down by doing it with a fringe goalie after their back-to-back Smythe winner was on the shelf just to prove his dominance defensively and in transition and as a playmaker...he without a d-man to get him the puck (Espo........), he has to cover more ground with the disc on his stick than some others...he was in much tougher spot, and relative to his competition, he did it much better. Let's stick to eligibles, Espo was a better scorer, but in an easier situation for him, in a free-wheeling offensive system with a player's coach that would let him play for three minutes at a time completely unkempt...Clarke played in a defensive structure, with short shifts and was asked to handle much of the transition offense...I get that he didn't break 140 points and all that, but he was almost setup to fail, but succeeded...wildly. Against an eligible player directly too for those that swoon over head to head stuff...and there's at least one of you...
Trottier: Do his two Stanley Cup championship contributions in Pittsburgh as a veteran role player amount to anything in this?
Anything? Sure. He came on to a team that was unsure how to win and what that meant...he helped Lemieux, in that famous pose for the picture, Lemieux and Trottier share a meaningful embrace. Trottier also didn't come in like he owned the place, which is a big deal (Messier...) - he embraced the idea that he's the third line center, there are stars bigger than you, but you're the guy that's gonna push us over the top because you've been there, you know how it works, you know the grind, you know the preparation...and he could still play a valuable role defensively and just allow Lemieux to be Lemieux...
We know what Trottier did and where he made his mark...but you look at the latter years and how he contributed in '91 and '92 and then he retired and the Pens are upset by Al Arbour's Islanders with their best team ever...boy, you wonder with Trottier as the 3C in 1993 instead of whoever it was, maybe young Martin Straka, how that might turn out...they lost the series by a goal...hard to think that the upgrade to Trottier wasn't worth that over his replacement, with his knowledge of Arbour alone...
Cyclone: 1. Does a career of 7-11 great seasons equal one of 12-16 in modern times? 2. Who compares in PPG average (to use a Crosby metric) to Cyclone in the PCHA or NHA?
I'll punt on this one. Kyle McMahon seems to be dropping the Cyclone knowledge, quite well and quite importantly...
Hall: Did you know that not only did Glenn get selected for the 1st or 2nd all-star honors a record 11 times during the star-laden O6 era, but none of those include the year he won the Conn Smythe (1968) nor the year he backstopped a Game 7 Stanley Cup Final run in which he led in wins, saves and shots against (1965)?!
One of the few times he missed games during the season...
Sakic: Should he be compared more to Nighbor and Messier or to Forsberg and Yzerman?
He's up now and Forsberg and Yzerman aren't. So you can only play the hand you're dealt. I think him and Messier make for an interesting comparison...I don't think Nighbor applies because of the fog of war...
Brodeur: He was three times a 1st team all star (over Luongo twice, Turco once), and yet how impressive are compiler stats that come with a long career on a good team?
What a loaded question...woof. I'll be fair because you already asked enough questions that were intended to take down Brodeur that you probably bumped him up to a deserving spot in the list, which is nice. Everything about Brodeur's career is impressive though...he's a lot closer to #1 goalie of all time than #7 when you look at the game itself and don't try to reverse engineer a case against him because you (royal you) heard the Devils might play the spooky, spooky "trap" and no one else on the planet could have possibly played that style at the same time to lesser results...
Bossy: How great is his goals per shot average to his sniper image?
His career shooting percentage of 21.2% would be deemed "unsustainable" by today's attempts at "advanced" statistics...in other words, Bossy is about to go downhill real quick...just you wait...
Esposito: How long can a six-time 1st in goals, seven-time top-2 in assists modern offensive talent go without induction?
Fairly long given the all-time greats that have surrounded him. There's more to the game than point finishes...and I get the offense is valuable, and Espo is going to feature prominently for me at some point. That point is not now...I also wasn't ready for Richard when he was up, wasn't ready for Ovechkin, etc. I still think we have room for multi-dimensional, dominant players...dominant on the ice, game breakers...watching Esposito, I don't get the sense that he was that compared to some guys that were available...I had him originally at 38, I'm becoming more and more convinced that that's a better spot for him than what we're about to do on Monday morning...
Makarov: How significant is 16 goals, 31 points over the 1981, 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups?
Pretty. He was good. Really good. Dare I say, really, really good. In terms of technical skills, he's way up there in this round...
Sawchuk: How does the fact that he has the same number of 1st & 2nd all star berths as Brodeur and yet more Stanley Cups with stellar numbers in victories for two franchises (1954 Detroit, 1967 Toronto) count in his favour? And how much can one ignore the accolades and respect he has garnered among knowledgeable hockey minds?
It shouldn't move the needle much unless you're looking for it to do so...it would completely ignore context, which seems to be the anti-Brodeurian way of this board...
The second question is like sending an S.O.S. while drinking a beer on your couch...
Fetisov: Is it significant that the IIHF voted Fetisov overwhelmingly for its Centennial All-star Team with 54 votes? The next closest was Gretzky with 38. Makarov is on the squad with 18 votes.
Yeah. That was the engine that made the Soviets go. He's overdue for induction in my opinion...this vote cited is probably a product of him being by far the best Euro d-man through, what, the entire 20th century, right? Thus, the more sporadic nature of Canada's d-men allows him to overshadow his peers in this venue more...but still, when you watch, it's clearly on merit...
I'm open to some serious replies.