Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

[wetcoast]

This video shows Makarov scoring goals or making plays against great Canadian defensemen with the NT:

He would be #1 for me this round.

His best on best scoring stats are simply incredible and back up his Russian resume.

Had a decent swang song to his NHL career as well.

 

[wetcoast]

Ugh, sorry for creating this tangent. Anyway... It'll be worth a mention when those guys become available...

Tangents make the world go around here.

 

[Killion]

Tangents make the world go around here.

You learn fast Grasshopper.

 

[wetcoast]

Context, circumstances, the anecdotal.... a lot more important than just raw numbers.

well perhaps more interesting but more important?

In most cases the context, circumstances and the antecedent is a mixed bag are often not analyzed very strictly at least the raw numbers are 100% transparent.

 

[wetcoast]

Bossy was never the best player on his own team IMO, let alone the league, with or without 99 playing. There's a reason why he was a Hart finalist, one time.

I have a problem with career's that are much shorter than even active players in this project. Bossy had the benefit of playing "half" a career compared to most others. There is no downturn to examine. It's just peak. A partial illusion.

Ovechkin was arguably the best player in the world for multiple seasons and his main competition was Crosby, 12th place in this project. Ovechkin remains a high end goal scorer now well past age 30. Ovechkin's peak goal scoring is better than Bossy as is his longevity. Sure, Bossy is absolutely the more accomplished postseason player, but again, we're talking a 3rd wheel on an all time great dynasty. Potvin and Trottier were the linchpins for those Islander teams IMO. Potvin the OG, Trots right behind and Bossy the youngest child and one could argue the sleek sports car.

Nothing against Bossy but he's one of the easiest NR's to this point for me.

Good post and sums up some of my thoughts on Bossy but he still above Esposito, and perhaps Sawchuck as well, for me this round.

 

[Killion]

well perhaps more interesting but more important?

In most cases the context, circumstances and the antecedent is a mixed bag are often not analyzed very strictly at least the raw numbers are 100% transparent.

... old aphorism Grasshopper.... "figures lie & liars figure"... Savvy?

 

[wetcoast]

You learn fast Grasshopper.

Yes master and takes a humble bow.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm as hard on Esposito as anyone, but I can't see a way to put bossy ahead of him, at all

 

[Hockey Outsider]

PLAYOFF R-ON/R-OFF

I'm going to try doing a long post with the R-ON/OFF numbers for any skater who played in the NHL past 1960.

Phil Esposito

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1963-64	4	-	0.93	-100%
1964-65	13	1.67	1.27	32%
1965-66	6	#DIV/0!	0.42	#DIV/0!
1966-67	6	0.33	1.25	-73%
1967-68	4	1.00	0.38	167%
1968-69	10	1.75	3.00	-42%
1969-70	14	2.33	3.00	-22%
1970-71	7	1.00	0.75	33%
1971-72	15	3.67	1.41	160%
1972-73	2	0.20	0.69	-71%
1973-74	16	0.90	2.33	-61%
1974-75	3	2.00	1.50	33%
1977-78	3	-	0.50	-100%
1978-79	18	0.94	2.19	-57%
1979-80	9	0.71	1.00	-29%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There are three distinct phases to Esposito's career. First, as a secondary player in Chicago, his R-ON numbers are all over the place (on a team that had roughly an even ratio). Not surprising as we're dealing with short playoff runs and Esposito had a support role. In Boston, his R-ON is outstanding (1.61), but that's basically in line with his team's average (1.63). The big question (which we can't answer through stats) is how much of his R-ON ratio was caused by Orr. Finally, Espo's numbers during his tenure on the Rangers were awful, both objectively and relative to the strength of his team. Overall - not a ton of new information here.

Bobby Clarke

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1970-71	4	0.40	0.25	60%
1972-73	11	0.90	0.92	-3%
1973-74	17	1.13	1.55	-27%
1974-75	17	2.20	2.07	6%
1975-76	16	2.83	1.35	110%
1976-77	10	1.00	0.89	13%
1977-78	12	0.62	1.33	-54%
1978-79	8	0.33	0.76	-56%
1979-80	19	2.00	2.10	-5%
1980-81	12	1.50	1.47	2%
1981-82	4	2.00	0.38	433%
1982-83	3	1.50	0.25	500%
1983-84	3	0.67	0.22	200%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Aside from his first two seasons, Clarke consistently had a great R-ON ratio. During the height of the Flyers semi-dynasty, he averaged more than a 2:1 ratio over three straight trips to the Stanley Cup finals - stunning. The team as a whole did great (1.65), but Clarke was a clear step ahead. He struggled at the end of the seventies, but bounced back with strong numbers during the end of his career, even when his team was surprisingly bad at even strength. Biggest lesson - remember, it's not about how much you score, it's about how much you outscore the opponent.

Bryan Trottier

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1975-76	13	0.83	1.20	-31%
1976-77	12	1.50	1.20	25%
1977-78	7	1.00	0.78	29%
1978-79	10	1.75	1.21	44%
1979-80	21	1.62	1.08	50%
1980-81	18	4.60	1.79	157%
1981-82	19	1.53	1.89	-19%
1982-83	17	1.62	1.96	-18%
1983-84	21	1.29	1.11	16%
1984-85	10	1.00	0.80	25%
1985-86	3	0.67	0.20	233%
1986-87	14	0.60	0.83	-28%
1987-88	6	-	3.25	-100%
1989-90	4	0.20	1.14	-83%
1990-91	23	0.89	1.79	-50%
1991-92	21	1.00	1.22	-18%
1993-94	2	#DIV/0!	0.59	#DIV/0!

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1981 was one of the most ridiculous playoffs a forward has ever had. In 18 games in the high-scoring early 1980s, Trottier racked up a ton of points and was on the ice for only 5 goals against. Ballpark math suggests his personal ES GAA was somewhere in the range of 1.00-1.25. In his other years during their Drive for Five, Trottier consistently had a ratio of around 1.3-1.8 (but his team's excellent ratio was right in that range too). Before the dynasty, Trottier's numbers are strong (objectively and relative to the strength of the team). But they're pretty awful from 1988 onwards (I realize a lot of his R-OFF is some combination of Lemieux, Jagr, Coffey, etc). Again, not a lot of new information here.

Mike Bossy - problem with formatting - shouldn't be bold

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1977-78	7	2.00	0.44	350%
1978-79	10	2.67	1.07	150%
1979-80	16	0.69	1.38	-50%
1980-81	18	5.67	1.88	201%
1981-82	19	1.58	1.79	-12%
1982-83	19	1.64	1.93	-15%
1983-84	21	1.50	1.06	41%
1984-85	10	1.17	0.73	59%
1985-86	3	0.50	0.25	100%
1986-87	6	0.67	0.74	-10%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bossy's numbers are pretty similar to Trottier's for the years they overlap. Bossy is, believe it or not, even more impressive than Trottier in 1981. But overall their R-ON and R-OFFs are virtually identical during the Drive for Five (not surprising as they were linemates). Bossy looks better than Trottier during 1978 and 1979 (pre dynasty). Their R-ON and R-OFF are, again, almost identical during Bossy's last three seasons. Of course, Bossy retired young so, unlike Trottier, he doesn't have that long decline. Lesson - R-ON ratios probably won't tell you much when comparing long-time linemates.

Joe Sakic

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1992-93	6	0.57	1.00	-43%
1994-95	6	0.50	1.30	-62%
1995-96	22	1.77	1.57	13%
1996-97	17	1.38	0.95	45%
1997-98	6	1.00	0.89	13%
1998-99	19	0.89	1.56	-43%
1999-00	17	0.50	2.30	-78%
2000-01	21	1.55	1.71	-9%
2001-02	21	0.90	0.96	-6%
2002-03	7	1.17	2.00	-42%
2003-04	11	1.00	1.22	-18%
2005-06	9	0.89	0.60	48%
2007-08	10	0.46	1.00	-54%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Sakic doesn't look great according to this metric. Even if we eliminate his first two and then his final postseason, his numbers are quite pedestrian outside of his two Smythe worthy runs (1996 and 2001). He only had a ratio of about 1.1 during his career (again, excluding the weaker runs at the start and end of his career), and this puts him well behind his team's average (1.38). Most of these weaker mid-career years were from 1999 to 2004, which was Forsberg's prime. This certainly suggests that Forsberg (a big part of his R-OFF) was the better even-strength performer for much of the time they overlapped. But I also think that part of the explanation is that the Avalanche (as strong as they were) weren't as good relative to the league as the top teams of the seventies and eighties (more parity) so it's harder for any one player to stand out.

Sergei Makarov

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1989-90	6	1.60	1.00	60%
1990-91	3	0.50	0.80	-38%
1993-94	14	1.15	0.67	73%
1994-95	11	0.75	0.41	82%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm posting this only for completeness. We know that what Makarov accomplished in the NHL has (relatively) little impact on his legacy. Still, aside from 1991, where we only played three games, Makarov's numbers look really good relative to his team.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I'm as hard on Esposito as anyone, but I can't see a way to put bossy ahead of him, at all

Yeah he's fallen a lot on my board, but it's time for Phil to go in this round. I have him at #2 to start the week.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah he's fallen a lot on my board, but it's time for Phil to go in this round. I have him at #2 to start the week.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's time for him to go in haha

 

[Captain Bowie]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's time for him to go in haha

Haha ok fair enough. I don't have Sakic too far behind overall, and at this very moment Hall, Makarov and Fetisov are all breathing down his neck as well.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Sakic was voted 12th in this forum's very own playoff performer list just a year ago, not the place I'd look for weaknesses...

To be honest, he's a guy I felt we overrated in that project. Outside the two Cup wins he doesn't blow you away. Is he significantly better than say...Bobby Clarke or Terry Sawchuk in this regard?

My lone issue with this is some of his non-peak prime years were spent with the Nordiques... When that was definitely not the ideal setting for performing in the playoffs. Other than that, your argument is definitely not far-fetched.

Quebec was the #1 seed in 1995, and had home ice as well in 1993...so not really a bad situation in the years they did make it. But of course those first few years they were really awful and didn't make it at all. What do we make of Sakic's early Quebec years where he put up great numbers as the only offensive threat on a brutal team?

One difference there - Ovechkin was considered among the very few most valuable players in the league on numerous occasions, as supported by Hart voting. So was Lafleur. Bossy was not (see @Hockey Outsider 's post that I'm sure is coming).

In fact, I don't think there is a single post-WW2 forward left who got significant Hart votes on quite a few occasions. That points to a pretty big gap (at least in terms of regular season peak!) after Ovechkin and Lafleur went, among wingers.



This is a compelling argument. The counterargument is that Bossy's role was to shoot-first, while guys like Potvin and Trottier controlled the play. Whereas Gretzky was the focal point of his teams.

I guess I'd counter with the suggestion that Bossy was in a difficult positive to get Hart consideration with Potvin and Trottier splitting the vote, compared to Ovechkin who was so clearly the top dog in his early Washington days, when he was at his peak.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Limiting my material to the front-end of my potential vote...

1. The heir-presumptive, Fetisov, starts at the top of my chart this round.
2. If Makarov doesn't deserve a field-promotion, nobody does.
3. Glenn Hall takes up the final step of the podium.

Cyclone Taylor is the top player of the era dating from the dawn of hockey until at least Nighbor. It's tough for me to see how he doesn't compete (and possibly exceed) a group of players who didn't clearly put daylight between themselves and other highly-regarded contemporaries.

I've always been pretty high on Trottier- a player who brings all the tools to the worksite with him. He's absolutely in-the-mix.

The more I look at Bossy, the more positives I see. Sure, I would have liked to have seen that earlier-era un-nominated NY-winger be part of the discussion... but that's no more relevant now than the absence of Kharlamov. We work with the list that we have- and I have him as a middle-of-the-pack guy right now.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I have a bias in favor of both Bobby Clarke and Bryan Trottier to start this round.Both were complete players, great leaders, heart and soul centers that contributed to multiple cup winners.They had no great center behind them.If I had a relatively long cup window ahead of me, I think I'd pick those two first.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I have a bias in favor of both Bobby Clarke and Bryan Trottier to start this round.Both were complete players, great leaders, heart and soul centers that contributed to multiple cup winners.They had no great center behind them.If I had a relatively long cup window ahead of me, I think I'd pick those two first.

I don't see how Sakic doesn't also fit that criteria. I mean you can knock him down for also having Forsberg if you want, but you can't tell me that was the primary reason for his success.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I'm a bit confused by some of the super negative sentiment on Bossy, and I'm even a guy who tends to favour the two-way centers over the scoring wingers. It's not that I think he's deserving yet, just that I'm not sure he's quite as undeserving as some suggest.

Maybe it's just because I'm more of a peak/prime guy, but I also really don't see the huge gap between him and Ovechkin. For example, Bossy seems to be a pretty clearly better 5-on-5 scorer adjusted for league context, a better playoff performer, and a better international performer.

Bossy was never the best player on his own team IMO, let alone the league, with or without 99 playing. There's a reason why he was a Hart finalist, one time.

Never? Not even once? Who do people think was the best player on the 1984-85 and 1985-86 Islanders if not Mike Bossy?

I think we can go even farther than that, here are the cumulative numbers from 1982-83 to 1985-86:

Regular Season, 1982-83 to 1985-86:

Player	GP	Pts	+/-
Bossy	302	476	+159
Trottier	294	355	+137
Potvin	298	278	+153

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Playoffs, 1983 - 86:

Player	GP	Pts	+/-
Bossy	53	58	+11
Trottier	51	42	+11
Potvin	53	32	+14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Trottier and Potvin were mostly getting overlooked in All-Star voting at their positions during this period, which doesn't really indicate that they were still playing at their former levels anymore. I get that that these aren't the dynasty years, but the dynasty years only account for ~40% of Bossy's career, and it isn't all that surprising that he spent the first part of his career being worse than two other stars who were older than him. For some reason, though, he doesn't seem to get any credit for surpassing them at some point even though I think the evidence is pretty strong that at some point in the mid-'80s he clearly did.

For the record, in the years they were both in the NHL, Trottier finished higher than Bossy in Hart voting in 1978, 1979, 1982 and 1984. Bossy finished higher than Trotter in Hart voting in 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 (yes, he only got a few votes some of those years, but it was still more than Trottier got). And as for that 1984 vote, let's just say that with the benefit of hindsight I'm not fully convinced they got it right, because it seems pretty hard to argue against the idea that by the mid-'80s, Bossy was the guy driving the Islanders' offensive bus and getting his points no matter what:

1982-83: Bossy 118 pts, Trottier 89 pts
1983-84: Bossy 118 pts, Trottier 111 pts
1984-85: Bossy 117 pts, Trottier 59 pts (in 68 GP)

In fact, I don't think there is a single post-WW2 forward left who got significant Hart votes on quite a few occasions. That points to a pretty big gap (at least in terms of regular season peak!) after Ovechkin and Lafleur went, among wingers.

I agree with this general perspective, so I have to ask the question: Are we quite sure there wasn't an anti-winger bias in post-expansion Hart voting? According to Hockey Reference, Mike Bossy actually got 30% of all of the Hart votes from 1968 to 1989 cast for wingers who weren't named Howe, Hull or Lafleur.

Beyond the fact that you pretty much had to hit an insanely high threshold to even get considered for the Hart as a winger, there's also weirdness like 1979, where the All-Star voting had Lafleur ahead of Bossy by an eyelash (203-197), and then Lafleur finished 2nd in Hart voting with 84 points while Bossy was well back with just 7 points. I think teammates matter a lot in Hart voting, and so does what position you play, and neither of those things was to the benefit of Mike Bossy (although philosophically I don't object at all to wingers being seen as less valuable, it's just a matter of how much less valuable).

This is a compelling argument. The counterargument is that Bossy's role was to shoot-first, while guys like Potvin and Trottier controlled the play. Whereas Gretzky was the focal point of his teams.

I don't really buy this counterargument. I've heard similar arguments before (guys like Gretzky were good at doing things other than goal scoring and hypothetically could have scored more goals, therefore they were actually better goal scorers than the guy whose job it was to score goals, was demonstrably elite at scoring goals in all situations, and was tasked by every team he ever played on to score goals in all situations), and yet I still actually agree with Overpass that Mike Bossy was probably the best goal scorer of the 1980s. I know that's not defensible based on regular season goal scoring totals, but I don't think that's the only thing that matters.

I don’t think Sakic was playing a matchup role in 2000-01, or really at all under Bob Hartley. Stephane Yelle was taking a lot of the tough matchups and faceoffs while Sakic played with the top two wingers (young Tanguay and Hejduk) and occasionally getting Forsberg spotted on his wing. I’m sure Sakic’s two-way play was improving but a lot of his Selke votes were stat-based votes for his plus-minus, which owed at least as much to his scoring and usage that year. He got the classic #1 centre role and minutes that year and crushed it.

Agreed. Here are Sakic's even strength home/road splits in 2000-01:

Home: 41 GP, 19 ESG, 19 ESA, 38 ESP, +40
Road: 40 GP, 13 ESG, 15 ESA, 28 ESP, +5

Those aren't really typical splits for a guy whose coach was sending him out against the toughest possible competition every time he had the last change.

 

[ted2019]

8 playoff OT goals is one of those "cute" stats. It requires so many factors outside of the players control.

Also - I would hazard a guess OT was more common in the DPE (with lower scoring overall, ergo fewer events, which increases the likelihood of a tie at the end of regulation) than it would be prior.

I look at this "cute stat" as someone who thrived when the pressure was most intense. Some players don't want the puck on their stick to decide a game, let alone a playoff tilt.

 

[ted2019]

I won't get to in depth with Sakic vs Trottier vs Clarke specifically.

They're all bunched tightly and will probably be all over the place on ballots. Maybe not huge swings but I simply don't think there will be any sort of real consensus.

All 3 were good defensively with Clarke being the best IMO.

Sakic is probably the best offensive F of the 3, but again, we're not talking big gaps here. Clarke though won 3 Hart's, while Sakic and Trots combined for 2. Sakic clearly wins on longevity here IMO, a decent bit ahead of Trottier and then Bobby.

Sakic was 12th all time in the HoH playoff performer project. Trots was 24th. Clarke, unranked although I think last round showed that he's hardly an average or worse postseason player.

Sakic was one spot ahead of Trots in the C's project 4 years back. Clarke actually a few spots ahead of both.

Damn it, I honestly don't see how we're going to separate these 3 very much. And then of course you have Espo who's peak is easily the best of the 4. But that peak also coincided with Bobby Orr.

I have it Sakic/Clarke/Trottier currently. Sakic was obviously the better offensive talent and Clarke was the better defensive player. Sakic never really had a dip in this offensive production and Clarke was over a PPG the season before he retired. Trottier as great as he was, fall off a cliff as a player, especially compared to these 2. Trottier's last 5 seasons were horrible, while Clarke & Sakic were a lot more consistent. Playoff wise, I give the edge to Sakic once again with Clarke & Trottier fighting a close battle for second place. It's been noted in the last round that Clarke was used more as a defensive stopper as his career went longer during the playoffs. Trottier also became more of a defensive stopper in the playoffs as he got older, but his peak was during the 4 cups in Long Island, while Clarke wasn't as dominant offensively, but he was a bit more consistent.

 

[VanIslander]

I see the cute stat (too few games for comparison) as a result of Colorado being in a lot of close playoff games during a very competitive time. Forsberg had a few playoff OT goals too.

When they won it often was in overtime, not by three goals.

Sakic's playoff GWG total is more significant. He is tied for third all time.

Though if you look closely, the significant achievement was in the two cup years: 6 GWGs was way more than anyone else, and the second cup he tied for the lead with 3, though several had that and many had two.

 

[ted2019]

bossy is a strange one, because while I would describe him as a one-trick pony as well, no one's ever said he was exceptionally bad in any other area, either.

from encyclopedia.com
In 1973, Bossy left high school after the 11th grade to play junior hockey. For the next four years, he played for the Laval Nationals in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. While in the league, Bossy scored 309 goals in 240 games. Not all of those goals were easy. He was a marked man, on the receiving end of many cheap shots. Bossy also had two qualities that detracted from his appeal to NHL clubs. He was admittedly unconcerned about defense, never fought, and did not check other players much. This affected where he was drafted in 1977.

from nhl.com
"Bill Torrey went back to Al Arbour and said, 'Here's our choice,'" Craig Button said. "'We can take this guy, he's a really good two-way player, more of a defensive player, really knows how to check. Or we can get this guy, he might be a prolific scorer at the NHL level, but his defense isn't good.' Al Arbour said to Bill Torrey, 'Let's take the scorer, I can teach him to check. I can't teach the checker how to score.'

from icshockey.com
One thing about his game that noticeably improved as time went on was Bossy's defense. Even though the team put up very impressive scoring numbers, the Islanders always believed that defense came first. He worked hard to learn how to get back on the play when the other team had the puck, and how to check. Soon he was routinely being used to kill penalties. During the Cup years, with the team at its prime, Bossy's plus/minus rating was often +70 or higher. As an all-around player, he was one of the best on a team that had many who played both ends well.

from nyislanderslegends.blogspot.com

The Islanders were happily surprised to snatch up Bossy at number 15, and he would quickly prove that he would be no bust. Bossy is considered by many to be the best pure sniper in the history of hockey - even better than a Brett Hull or Ilya Kovalchuk for modern fans. And Bossy worked very hard at becoming a well rounded player. He openly admitted to not playing any defense in his junior days, but he became a very reliable back checker with the Isles.

 

[ted2019]

At this point, should Esposito & Taylor be compared to Sakic or more-so Clarke & Trottier?

 

[The Panther]

I definitely would put Bossy > Trottier.

I know Trottier had the big rookie season, but the next year he dropped 23 points in scoring while the team improved. Then Bossy joins in '77 and suddenly Trottier starts reeling off the 100+ point seasons.

When Trottier was given different wingers in 1984-85, he immediately sagged to below a point-per-game in scoring and went plus 3, while Bossy had his usual nearly-60 goals, 115+ point season, at +37. Sure, I get that Trottier was relied on more for checking, etc., but the point is Bossy didn't really need him to score huge numbers, but I do think Trottier needed Bossy.

Admittedly, the first year without Bossy (1987-88), Trottier's scoring didn't dip from the year before, but immediately after that he fell off a cliff (and in the '88 playoffs, he scored zero points in six games and went -9).

To be honest, I do feel there is a certain 'romanticization' of Trottier that occurs. He was a small-ish guy that rarely fought and didn't get a lot of penalties, yet people go about him like he was Lindros's physical equal. I do think Trottier was probably the best player in the League in 1978-79, and I don't think I could (quite) say that about Bossy ever. So, there's that. But I take Bossy.

 

[ted2019]

My early outlook.
1. Sergei Makarov: He was so incredible in Soviet & International play, he is my top player currently.
2. Viacheslav Fetisov: Same as Makarov, his career did dip slightly as he reached his late 30's.
3. Joe Sakic: I really haven't seen too much evidence on why he shouldn't be in this spot.
4. Bobby Clarke/ Glenn Hall/Martin Brodeur/Bryan Trottier: All 4 have great cases and this will be my challenge this week.
8. Phil Esposito/Cyclone Taylor: Still think that it's still too early for Esposito. Have to research Taylor more.
10. Terry Sawchuk: Not yet
11. Mike Bossy: Thanks for coming.

 

[Batis]

That is just a fantastic video. Adding the names of his opponents certainly snaps into focus how successful Makarov could be against the ultra-elite. Probably, what . . . maybe 80+% of those players will appear on this list by the time it's done? Even some of the plays that didn't turn into goals, such as matching Coffey stride for stride (actually, that one does turn into a goal after he peels back), or dancing around Langway, are impressive as hell. And did he really abuse Robinson and Potvin that badly, or is this just a case of every successful move he put on them ended up in these clips? The move he put on Hasek reminds me of vintage Yzerman.

Being the one who collected most of the links which Sentinel later used for making that great video I feel like I can answer this question somewhat accurately. Based only on memory from watching the games I would say that most of the truly great moves that Makarov made on Potvin or Robinson are featured in that video but there are also examples of other rather impressive plays that he made on these players which are not featured in the video. Considering that Makarov only played in 11 games against Robinson and 6 games (only 5 of them available on video) against Potvin on the international stage it is pretty incredible how many examples there are of him beating them one-on-one to create offense. Additionally Makarovs scoring numbers in those games against Robinson and Potvin are outstanding. I'll throw in the numbers against Bourque as well.

Versus Larry Robinson:
Challenge Cup 1979: 3 points in 3 games
WHC 1981: 2 points in 2 games
Canada Cup 1981 and 1984: 6 points in 4 games
Super Series 79/80 and 85/86: 3 points in 2 games
Total: 14 points in 11 games (1.273 PPG)

Versus Denis Potvin:
Challenge Cup 1979: 2 points in 2 games
Canada Cup 1981: 4 points in 2 games
WHC 1986: 6 points in 2 games
Total: 12 points in 6 games (2.000 PPG)

Versus Ray Bourque:
Canada Cup 1981, 1984 and 1987: 12 points in 8 games
Rendezvous 1987: 1 point in 2 games
Total 13 points in 10 games (1.300 PPG)

Here are 3 other examples of rather impressive plays from Makarov against Robinson.


While playing shorthanded Makarov draws a penalty against Robinson using his speed.


Makarov beats Robinson on the outside.


Makarov picks Robinsons pocket.