Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,124
1,420
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
You're awfully low on Olmstead. Just wondering why?
Olmstead's like an ur-version of Clark Gillies/Steve Shutt. Lower-third Hall-of-Famer, therefore... I don't think so.

Bun Cook's another one of those guys. Distant third-place player on his own line- getting into the Hall on the 'whole-nine-yards' coattails of his Upper-Division Hall-of-Fame line-mates. Joe Primeau... same deal. Line-mate to C. Conacher (an easy Upper-Division Hall-of-Famer) and Busher Jackson (a mainstream Hall-of-Famer who sometimes looks like an Upper-Division Hall-of-Famer if you squint your eyes
just so...)

-Ramsay- Hate going against my own team but he had linemates who formed the best shut-down line in the league for several years. It wasn't just him. I can't put him on my list because he transcended them, but not by much, objectively.

Seems like the right call, to me. The problem we run into when assessing defensive-specialist Forward-types is that we can see, easily enough, that they hold the line on opposition scoring chances- but then they allow the opponent(s) to hold the line on the scoring chances the other way, too.

Two-way studs like Hossa, Datsyuk, [I guess] Francis- they're one thing (and just feel objectively worthy). Carbonneau, Gainey, even Lehtinen (much as I admire his play) really don't appear that they'll making my cut.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
30,785
19,687
Connecticut
I'm asking this sincerely as I think that you are a guy who really values peak (if I'm wrong on this then disregard the question but still think about it generally).

One of the things I try to think about for every player is what level did he achieve in his best season or peak point in play.

Was he (using Gartner here) ever a top 5 forward in the world? top 10? If not then what level was he when he was at his absolute best?

I won't answer the question here myself but his best season in points was a 10th place one in 84-85 and even in goals (which is his real argument) his top 10 finishes are 5,9,9,9 and a 10th place.

Looking at the top scorers for the 84-85 season, one could make an argument that Gartner might have been the 12-15ish best forward in the league that year (if we are looking at more than just simply stat counting) but it could be lower by a bit too.

I just think that if that is any players peak then to get into the conversation for the top 200ish players there has to be alot more that player needs to bring to the table.

Just as a simple comparison Mats Sundin (another player noted for great consistency but not an absolute great peak) had a 4th and 7th place finish and had some better best on best tournaments and that's the difference between a guy getting into the top 200 and just missing it.

You are correct, I do really value peak.

That said, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate consistent longevity.

I consider a guy like Andreychuk a compiler. He had a 50 goal season at age 30, then never had 30 again. Gartner had 45 goals at age 30, then had 49, 40, 45 the next three season. Three more 30 goal season after that including at age 36 & 37. And its not like he was a weak defensive player or a cherry picker. Great speed and great shot. Had some physicality to his game for a guy relying on speed.

Maybe because I got to see Gartner play a number of times he impressed me more than I should be. Maybe that's a big reason why he's sneaking onto my list.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,077
141,937
Bojangles Parking Lot
I posted this here when we were comparing borderline HOF candidates who often get into these comparisons with Gartner:

25+ adjusted goal scoring seasons, 80s-present, for borderline HOF'ers with a high G:A ratio

Black = Median in this group
Green = Above median in this group
Red = Below median in this group


Glenn Anderson4242383332292928xxxxxxxx
Dave Andreychuk484438363432302827252525xxxx
Dino Ciccarelli44403636343434343330302825xxx
Mike Gartner4136363634333231313027272727xx
Michel Goulet46444441414031xxxxxxxxx
Patrick Marleau4841403734343333333230282827xx
Joe Mullen4240373534333232302827xxxxx
Joe Nieuwendyk4543424038363332323131282626xx
Mark Recchi43383736363531302928272725252525
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From this angle, Marleau and Nieuwendyk show the same level of consistency as Gartner while producing at a higher level. Gartner lands in the same range as Ciccarelli and slightly above Mullen/Anderson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buffalowing88

buffalowing88

Registered User
Aug 11, 2008
4,468
1,924
Charlotte, NC
I posted this here when we were comparing borderline HOF candidates who often get into these comparisons with Gartner:

25+ adjusted goal scoring seasons, 80s-present, for borderline HOF'ers with a high G:A ratio

Black = Median in this group
Green = Above median in this group
Red = Below median in this group


Glenn Anderson4242383332292928xxxxxxxx
Dave Andreychuk484438363432302827252525xxxx
Dino Ciccarelli44403636343434343330302825xxx
Mike Gartner4136363634333231313027272727xx
Michel Goulet46444441414031xxxxxxxxx
Patrick Marleau4841403734343333333230282827xx
Joe Mullen4240373534333232302827xxxxx
Joe Nieuwendyk4543424038363332323131282626xx
Mark Recchi43383736363531302928272725252525
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
From this angle, Marleau and Nieuwendyk show the same level of consistency as Gartner while producing at a higher level. Gartner lands in the same range as Ciccarelli and slightly above Mullen/Anderson.

I wish I had seen this rather than going through those seasons by hand haha. That contextualizes things pretty well for me! I didn't known I'd be considering Marleau for this list but by focusing so much on Gartner (who's not getting in), I found out that apparently Marleau deserves come more thought.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
30,785
19,687
Connecticut
I posted this here when we were comparing borderline HOF candidates who often get into these comparisons with Gartner:

25+ adjusted goal scoring seasons, 80s-present, for borderline HOF'ers with a high G:A ratio

Black = Median in this group
Green = Above median in this group
Red = Below median in this group


Glenn Anderson4242383332292928xxxxxxxx
Dave Andreychuk484438363432302827252525xxxx
Dino Ciccarelli44403636343434343330302825xxx
Mike Gartner4136363634333231313027272727xx
Michel Goulet46444441414031xxxxxxxxx
Patrick Marleau4841403734343333333230282827xx
Joe Mullen4240373534333232302827xxxxx
Joe Nieuwendyk4543424038363332323131282626xx
Mark Recchi43383736363531302928272725252525
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
From this angle, Marleau and Nieuwendyk show the same level of consistency as Gartner while producing at a higher level. Gartner lands in the same range as Ciccarelli and slightly above Mullen/Anderson.

Not really sure what this is saying about these players.

Never felt Michel Goulet was a borderline HOFer.
 

DN28

Registered User
Jan 2, 2014
638
612
Prague
Vladimir Krutov is player who did not even appear in the discussion in 18/19 project, but I'd like to invite all to re-consider his position. Krutov was the third most valuable member of the Green Unit and the notorious 'Red machine'. Krutov played in the era when Russian hockey reached its all-time peak. He has 11 seasons of very good to elite play (1980-1990) so the lack of NHL success should not be held too much against him. Krutov did note a single-season peak that can be matched with any other single season of a European player pre- or post-1990. I am talking about 1987 when Krutov obtained 85 1st-place finishes out of 89 ballots submitted by Soviet sports-writers (trust me those polls weren't otherwise so lopsided at all), and when Krutov convincingly won the '87 Izvestia best European player voting conducted by 8 National team coaches' ballot. Although Krutov was not the best Euro LWer literally every season in 1980-90, he was the one most of those seasons. Krutov was also very good two-way player, physical and outstanding PKer. A top 90 player.

Boris Mikhailov is player I've come to rank lower in recent years. Although he did make the cut and finished 86th in the final list, it became more or less clear from the discussion that Mikhailov was rarely even the best European RW. Maltsev, Vikulov, Martinec and once even Nedomanský who played off of his normal center position were all repeatedly voted over Mikhailov for RW international awards. Furthermore, Mikhailov did little something of note before the Summit Series and his prime seasons happened strictly in 1973-1980, despite otherwise playing for USSR National team since late 60s. Still, Mikhailov consistently put up excellent scoring numbers on domestic and international level and he was gritty, agitating, defensively competent forward with lauded leadership abilities. His playing style in combination with reliable scoring productivity makes him a worthy top 100 player.

Valeri Vasiliev. Great 70s and early 80s Soviet d-man whom we discussed in 2019 but ultimately reached - I think - a consensus that he's just below that magic 100 threshold. During previous project, I made two detailed posts (1st part, 2nd part) outlining how would Vasiliev's career likely played out in a global league which would had fully integrated all the world's top talent. I think Vasiliev came short of winning some notable awards primarily because of his less-varied game. My current read on Vasiliev is that he was a very one-way, stay-at-home d-man who didn't mind getting more physical with forwards (very important quality in 1970s..). But Vasiliev was not able (or willing?) to contribute offensively to even half a degree of other notable non-NHL Euro d-men such as Fetisov, Suchý, Pospíšil, Kasatonov or Sologubov. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Vasiliev never won any defensemen scoring on either domestic (USSR league) or international (WHCs, OGs, CCs) level. A top 110 player.

Jan Suchý. Hockey romantic whose peak level of play among the Czech players was bested later only by Hašek and Jágr. Suchý with Firsov were the Europe's brightest things for display in the late 60s / early 70s. I have recently posted a detailed breakdown covering Suchý's prime and contemporary state of European defensemen in general. If you have time - because I admit it is LONG but includes everything - read it here. I don't recall ever seeing any Firsov-Suchý debate on this forum. A consensus Firsov>Suchý seems to be set, but I would personally picked Suchý if only on-ice impact was considered. Suchý was the embodiment of "big game player", however he also had issues with alcoholism which led to him being convicted of vehicular homicide. Unlike Firsov, Suchý had many clashes with coaches and other non-hockey official authorities. Shorter prime forces me to rank Suchý below Vasiliev. A top 120 player.

Václav Nedomanský. True sniper in front of whom goalies were avoiding shots and rather letting a goal in - and I mean it literally, I do have a game report in my files saying that.:) Nedomanský was a consistent goal-scoring machine on both domestic and international scene similarly to Mikhailov. What prevents Nedomanský from being a legitimate top 100 player is his weaker Golden Stick record. Nedomanský was the kind of forward who from time to time was able to completely take over the game and obliterate the opposing defense, but his younger version was not defensively adept and did not produce sufficiently in high-pressure games against top opponents. I believe Nedo's GS voting record was deflated because of his more individualistic style understandably devaluing him in the eyes of Czech observers but also allowing him to adjust and compete in different environments. What I call 'individualistic' means only that Nedo was a rare shoot-first kind of guy, which was admired by all 60s, 70s Europe-residing NHL scouts but despised by many Czech experts. I think most of us here know that past 30 Nedomanský emigrated and then even led the 'Detroit Dead Things' in scoring when he was 34 and 35 y/o. His longevity as an effective player makes me appreciate him a little more than his contemporaries Petrov and Yakushev. A top 130 player.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,398
9,640
NYC
www.youtube.com
ut Vasiliev was not able (or willing?) to contribute offensively to even half a degree of other notable non-NHL Euro d-men such as Fetisov, Suchý, Pospíšil, Kasatonov or Sologubov.

Good post. But isn't this likely disqualifying...? I mean, I had Pospíšil around 110 (I think a little higher), I seem to recall not being nearly as impressed with VV. And it seems like you would agree...

I know we're expanding from the top 100, but these still have to be elite players...at 110, I'm not even ready for Zdeno Chara yet I don't think, I can't imagine Vasiliev (as I recall him) being here...

Year - Team Rk in D scoring
1971 - t-6th of 6
1972 - 3rd of 7 (w/4 pts)
1973 - 4th of 7
1974 - 1st of 6
1975 - 2nd of 6
1976 - 1st of 6 (by nearly double 2nd place)
1977 - 1st of 7 (by nearly double 2nd place)
1978 - 4th of 7
1979 - 2nd of 6
1980 - 2nd of 7
1981 - 2nd of 7
1982 - 2nd of 7
1983 - 2nd of 7
1984 - 2nd of 8

Obviously, he was on one of the stacked teams in the Soviet Union, but he couldn't even lead his own team's d-men in scoring reliably...even Chara - who will be one of the lesser technically skilled players to make this list (maybe he's already on the top 100, I forget) led his team in D scoring seven times...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DN28 and edinson

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,290
7,559
Regina, SK
I posted this here when we were comparing borderline HOF candidates who often get into these comparisons with Gartner:

25+ adjusted goal scoring seasons, 80s-present, for borderline HOF'ers with a high G:A ratio

Black = Median in this group
Green = Above median in this group
Red = Below median in this group


Glenn Anderson4242383332292928xxxxxxxx
Dave Andreychuk484438363432302827252525xxxx
Dino Ciccarelli44403636343434343330302825xxx
Mike Gartner4136363634333231313027272727xx
Michel Goulet46444441414031xxxxxxxxx
Patrick Marleau4841403734343333333230282827xx
Joe Mullen4240373534333232302827xxxxx
Joe Nieuwendyk4543424038363332323131282626xx
Mark Recchi43383736363531302928272725252525
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
From this angle, Marleau and Nieuwendyk show the same level of consistency as Gartner while producing at a higher level. Gartner lands in the same range as Ciccarelli and slightly above Mullen/Anderson.

I hope that one thing this pointed out to you and everyone else, is that Michel Goulet is not like the others!

Also, Recchi is pretty much the opposite of the style of player you are trying to capture in this chart, and he still does just as well as anyone else here.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,290
7,559
Regina, SK
I wish I had seen this rather than going through those seasons by hand haha. That contextualizes things pretty well for me! I didn't known I'd be considering Marleau for this list but by focusing so much on Gartner (who's not getting in), I found out that apparently Marleau deserves come more thought.

I would say no to that, quite emphatically. Gartner actually does have a case when you consider his peak scoring levels in the context of his team situation (they weren't run and gun, and he outscored his linemates). Marleau has no such case. I think it was important to bring up Marleau just to show that that number of goals is by no means a guarantee on this list, but if it had the unintended effect of bringing Marleau into consideration for some people, then I deeply regret it.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,130
Hockeytown, MI
Kind of leaping off the G:A discussion regarding Mike Gartner, his ratio of primary points to secondary points is quite high. Among the top-50 point scorers of all-time, Gartner's ratio ranks behind just Gordie Howe and Alex Ovechkin.


PlayerGPGAA1A2PRatioTotal
Gordie Howe1,7678011,0497463031,8505.111547
Alex Ovechkin1,1527065723532191,2784.841059
Mike Gartner1,4327086273832441,3354.471091
Brett Hull1,2697416503882621,3914.311129
Jarome Iginla1,5546256754292461,3004.281054
Teemu Selanne1,4516847734932801,4574.201177
Dale Hawerchuk1,1885188916142771,4094.091132
Phil Esposito1,2827178735563171,5904.021273
Dave Andreychuk1,6396406984312671,3384.011071
Brendan Shanahan1,5246566984272711,3544.001083
[TBODY] [/TBODY]


His only season as a top-10 scorer (1985) saw an influx of secondary assists (78:24; 3.25) compared to his next best years - 1981 (76:18; 4.22), 1984 (68:17; 4.00), 1988 (71:10; 7.10), 1990 (69:13; 5.31), and 1992 (67:14; 4.79). I don't think it would have taken a whole lot to change the narrative of how we think about Mike Gartner.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,077
141,937
Bojangles Parking Lot
Not really sure what this is saying about these players.

Never felt Michel Goulet was a borderline HOFer.

I hope that one thing this pointed out to you and everyone else, is that Michel Goulet is not like the others!

Also, Recchi is pretty much the opposite of the style of player you are trying to capture in this chart, and he still does just as well as anyone else here.

Just to contextualize where that chart came from, we had been talking about 80s/90 players who made the HHOF mainly on their scoring consistency... guys who maybe didn't look like HOF'ers at 23 but put together a case with a career-long slow burn.

Goulet is in there largely because he's a helpful point of reference when talking about this category of player... without him the chart becomes a blur of numbers. He provides some visual contrast in terms of what a "strong goal scoring" season actually looks like, and in terms of longevity, without being a Bossy-level unfair comparison. Looking at Goulet gives some clear perspective on Anderson and Nieuwendyk in particular.
 

edinson

Registered User
May 11, 2012
165
13
Kind of leaping off the G:A discussion regarding Mike Gartner, his ratio of primary points to secondary points is quite high. Among the top-50 point scorers of all-time, Gartner's ratio ranks behind just Gordie Howe and Alex Ovechkin.


PlayerGPGAA1A2PRatioTotal
Gordie Howe1,7678011,0497463031,8505.111547
Alex Ovechkin1,1527065723532191,2784.841059
Mike Gartner1,4327086273832441,3354.471091
Brett Hull1,2697416503882621,3914.311129
Jarome Iginla1,5546256754292461,3004.281054
Teemu Selanne1,4516847734932801,4574.201177
Dale Hawerchuk1,1885188916142771,4094.091132
Phil Esposito1,2827178735563171,5904.021273
Dave Andreychuk1,6396406984312671,3384.011071
Brendan Shanahan1,5246566984272711,3544.001083
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
His only season as a top-10 scorer (1985) saw an influx of secondary assists (78:24; 3.25) compared to his next best years - 1981 (76:18; 4.22), 1984 (68:17; 4.00), 1988 (71:10; 7.10), 1990 (69:13; 5.31), and 1992 (67:14; 4.79). I don't think it would have taken a whole lot to change the narrative of how we think about Mike Gartner.

I don't know. I don't think removing secondary assists for the seasons you mention change things very much. Here's how Gartner's scoring finishes look in primary points (total points):
81: 16 (17)
84: 24 (29)
88: 21 (31)
90: 16 (28)
92: 20 (27)
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,884
pittsgrove nj
I posted this here when we were comparing borderline HOF candidates who often get into these comparisons with Gartner:

25+ adjusted goal scoring seasons, 80s-present, for borderline HOF'ers with a high G:A ratio

Black = Median in this group
Green = Above median in this group
Red = Below median in this group


Glenn Anderson4242383332292928xxxxxxxx
Dave Andreychuk484438363432302827252525xxxx
Dino Ciccarelli44403636343434343330302825xxx
Mike Gartner4136363634333231313027272727xx
Michel Goulet46444441414031xxxxxxxxx
Patrick Marleau4841403734343333333230282827xx
Joe Mullen4240373534333232302827xxxxx
Joe Nieuwendyk4543424038363332323131282626xx
Mark Recchi43383736363531302928272725252525
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
From this angle, Marleau and Nieuwendyk show the same level of consistency as Gartner while producing at a higher level. Gartner lands in the same range as Ciccarelli and slightly above Mullen/Anderson.

Out of those 9 players, I have one making my list.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,884
pittsgrove nj
Good post. But isn't this likely disqualifying...? I mean, I had Pospíšil around 110 (I think a little higher), I seem to recall not being nearly as impressed with VV. And it seems like you would agree...

I know we're expanding from the top 100, but these still have to be elite players...at 110, I'm not even ready for Zdeno Chara yet I don't think, I can't imagine Vasiliev (as I recall him) being here...

Year - Team Rk in D scoring
1971 - t-6th of 6
1972 - 3rd of 7 (w/4 pts)
1973 - 4th of 7
1974 - 1st of 6
1975 - 2nd of 6
1976 - 1st of 6 (by nearly double 2nd place)
1977 - 1st of 7 (by nearly double 2nd place)
1978 - 4th of 7
1979 - 2nd of 6
1980 - 2nd of 7
1981 - 2nd of 7
1982 - 2nd of 7
1983 - 2nd of 7
1984 - 2nd of 8

Obviously, he was on one of the stacked teams in the Soviet Union, but he couldn't even lead his own team's d-men in scoring reliably...even Chara - who will be one of the lesser technically skilled players to make this list (maybe he's already on the top 100, I forget) led his team in D scoring seven times...

I'm the opposite on Vasiliev. I like his no non-sense style of play and I think his role was more that he was asked( told) to stay back more and worry but his own end, instead of trying to score. I see Vasiliev as more of a Rod Langway type of player. I will have him around Langway in my top 125 or so.
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,729
298
North Bay
Seems like the right call, to me. The problem we run into when assessing defensive-specialist Forward-types is that we can see, easily enough, that they hold the line on opposition scoring chances- but then they allow the opponent(s) to hold the line on the scoring chances the other way, too.

Two-way studs like Hossa, Datsyuk, [I guess] Francis- they're one thing (and just feel objectively worthy). Carbonneau, Gainey, even Lehtinen (much as I admire his play) really don't appear that they'll making my cut.

I have a question about usage related to the more classic checking forward guys. Maybe I've just been influenced by reading Dryden's book about Scotty Bowman lately, but are we being to harsh on some of these guys when they played under different systems.

I think specifically about Carbonneau, the way he was deployed (and the way he was asked to play while deployed) was of course very different than a guy like Datsyuk or especially slightly more modern guys like Bergeron or Kopitar. I wonder how different Carbonneau would have looked statistically playing the 2010s. How depressed are his (especially 1980s-early 90s) offensive stats because he was asked to play a more "one-way" style. He always seemed to have stone hands around the net when I watched him, but he did produce some points and he did it with very little PP time.

Here are the stats for the Habs from 83/84 til 88/89, the Smith-Carbonneau (Carb being younger than Smith of course) Era if you will...

upload_2020-11-10_13-27-38.png


Carbonneau's the most valuable forward on this team right? Maybe? A team that was top flight over the time frame (granted with excellent goaltending and defense). If he'd scored 100-150 PP points over the time frame does it make him more valuable? He wouldn't have been used as the key PK guy if so (granted I don't know how good the PK was for the Habs over this time frame off the top of my head), is that more or less valuable?

Obviously we can only judge the guys on what they did, but I feel like we made a point on considering this on a guy like Henri Richard (deservedly I think), shouldn't we do the same on Carbonneau? He feels like a much more valuable player to me than a guy like Joe Nieuwendyk for example, but how far up the ladder can I move him?

I don't have any answers, just throwing it out there.
 

Vilica

Registered User
Jun 1, 2014
480
544
Kind of leaping off the G:A discussion regarding Mike Gartner, his ratio of primary points to secondary points is quite high. Among the top-50 point scorers of all-time, Gartner's ratio ranks behind just Gordie Howe and Alex Ovechkin.


His only season as a top-10 scorer (1985) saw an influx of secondary assists (78:24; 3.25) compared to his next best years - 1981 (76:18; 4.22), 1984 (68:17; 4.00), 1988 (71:10; 7.10), 1990 (69:13; 5.31), and 1992 (67:14; 4.79). I don't think it would have taken a whole lot to change the narrative of how we think about Mike Gartner.

I have a dumb conspiracy theory that the one player point to a goal rule is where goal-scoring winger secondary assists vanish into the ether. If someone else had scored the goal they did, they'd have gotten a secondary assist, but since they did, their secondary assist goes away.

With regards to Gartner, putting his career into my adjusted points model reveals a few things. His teams were exactly league-average in scoring, scoring 5339 goals over 1502 games when the league average was 5334 goals. Gartner scored 13.3% of those goals and received points on 25%. Moving those numbers to 99-00 through 18-19, to accommodate the lockout year, he gets reduced from 708+627=1335 to 546+478=1024. Those numbers don't look as impressive, but to argue in Gartner's favor, at age 20 he put up a 13.8/26.1 season, and at age 37 he put up a 13.3/26.3 season (in terms of G%/P%), and put up remarkably similar numbers in the intervening years. I remember reading a quote from him about how he viewed as his job to put 300 shots on goal in a season, and he'd expect to score on 15% of those, and that was his contribution to the team. That may not have as much value in a team building sense, but in assessing a career, doing a job well for 18 years has a value all its own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,398
9,640
NYC
www.youtube.com
I'm the opposite on Vasiliev. I like his no non-sense style of play and I think his role was more that he was asked( told) to stay back more and worry but his own end, instead of trying to score. I see Vasiliev as more of a Rod Langway type of player. I will have him around Langway in my top 125 or so.

I went back and found what I said when I went back and watched him (naturally, your mileage may and will vary):

Prelim talk:
Vasiliev did not make my list (neither did Maltsev, I don't think)...I like Vasiliev, but I don't know that he is as well rounded (lacking a little bit of puck skills and reliable outlet passing) as Pospisil (who made my list)...VV seems like Langway or Chara in terms of his limitations...

Round 20:
Heckler: Is taking Vasiliev because he's the second best Soviet d-man of his era, the equivalent of taking the third best NHL goalie of the 80s? ...or maybe more on the nose, the second best Calgary Flame of the Iginla era?

(I think so)

In vote 21, I said that I don't believe in quotas (which means someone must have suggested we didn't have enough Soviet players on our list...which may well be true, but I still don't believe in quotas) and that VV "wasn't good enough"...

Maybe the better play for me is instead of re-watching VV is I'll try to just find a non-NHL Euro d-man that I like better...maybe Suchy, maybe it's Bilyaletdinov, maybe it's no one...when I have the opportunity to pursue this, I'll report back...
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,398
9,640
NYC
www.youtube.com
I have a dumb conspiracy theory that the one player point to a goal rule is where goal-scoring winger secondary assists vanish into the ether. If someone else had scored the goal they did, they'd have gotten a secondary assist, but since they did, their secondary assist goes away.

Unlike most conspiracy theories, I'd be curious to know if you've done any video work on this...? It's just goals, so it would be, ahem, "easy" to do...I wonder what kind of numbers we'd need in each era to get a valid sample size of goals scored by "known" wingers...there's a bunch of math guys here that might be able to drum something up to at least get the size of the ask...

I feel like I should say "95% confidence interval" and then "z-score"...I don't want to sound like an idiot, so I'll just name drop those terms and let smart people take over...when whoever takes the bait says those terms, I'll nod emphatically and look for eye contact around the room for validation purposes...
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

DN28

Registered User
Jan 2, 2014
638
612
Prague
Good post. But isn't this likely disqualifying...? I mean, I had Pospíšil around 110 (I think a little higher), I seem to recall not being nearly as impressed with VV. And it seems like you would agree...

I know we're expanding from the top 100, but these still have to be elite players...at 110, I'm not even ready for Zdeno Chara yet I don't think, I can't imagine Vasiliev (as I recall him) being here...

Year - Team Rk in D scoring
1971 - t-6th of 6
1972 - 3rd of 7 (w/4 pts)
1973 - 4th of 7
1974 - 1st of 6
1975 - 2nd of 6
1976 - 1st of 6 (by nearly double 2nd place)
1977 - 1st of 7 (by nearly double 2nd place)
1978 - 4th of 7
1979 - 2nd of 6
1980 - 2nd of 7
1981 - 2nd of 7
1982 - 2nd of 7
1983 - 2nd of 7
1984 - 2nd of 8

Obviously, he was on one of the stacked teams in the Soviet Union, but he couldn't even lead his own team's d-men in scoring reliably...even Chara - who will be one of the lesser technically skilled players to make this list (maybe he's already on the top 100, I forget) led his team in D scoring seven times...

It really comes down to what your standards are, on what basis you rank players...

I think having Pospíšil somewhere around 100 and above other d-men including Vasiliev is perfectly fine IF you found that decision on watching enough footage of these players. This is not my approach since I'm not very good at assessing a player's quality based on just watching. I'm much more comfortable in a history-research role and then to transcript that history into forum posts.:)

My rankings are simply based on career achievements and on how hockey experts from those times thought of these players. I am personally more willing to trust those experts' words than myself.

I'll surely get to write my thoughts on Pospíšil in the next "set" but just briefly.. What makes me rank Pospíšil lower than Vasiliev (or Suchý) is his very much up-and-down career. Younger Pospíšil had some good to great league seasons in late 60s which were followed by disappointing performances at Championships. Then he had his peak years.. and then he was benched the last game of 1974 WHC and sacked off the National team for good.. Now of course, that Pospíšil "roared back" into a prominent role subsequently only testifies to his greatness. He did adjust his game and stayed on the top past-30. But his overall career achievements fall short of Vasiliev or Suchý IMO.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,398
9,640
NYC
www.youtube.com
He always seemed to have stone hands around the net when I watched him, but he did produce some points and he did it with very little PP time.

High hockey sense player. Part of having high hockey IQ means knowing your limitations as a player. Carbonneau was an outstanding scorer in junior, but didn't have the stickhandling skills in space to really be effective as a traditional playmaking center in the NHL. He adapted his game to stay afloat. He was used a lot near the net on the PP and took on more of a scorer's role than most centers. In part, because he was doing a lot of work defensively, as a result, was the third man coming into a rush - traditionally a finisher.

Correct me (anyone) if I'm wrong, but Carbonneau spent most of that time period selected with Bob Gainey and Chris Nilan. None of them were particularly good at carrying the puck or being playmakers...so it was catch as catch can...Carbs was the best at it, but he wasn't great at playmaking in tight spaces and he was generally risk-averse...

In '89, he had shed those players and ended up - at points - with more puck skilled players like Ryan Walter and Russ Courtnall, and that left Carbonneau in a more pleasant spot for him probably - in '89, he had a career high in goals and was one off in his career high in points, despite scoring having gone down a bit as league quality improved in the later half of the 80's compared to the rather messy early to mid 80's...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kruezer

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,729
298
North Bay
High hockey sense player. Part of having high hockey IQ means knowing your limitations as a player. Carbonneau was an outstanding scorer in junior, but didn't have the stickhandling skills in space to really be effective as a traditional playmaking center in the NHL. He adapted his game to stay afloat. He was used a lot near the net on the PP and took on more of a scorer's role than most centers. In part, because he was doing a lot of work defensively, as a result, was the third man coming into a rush - traditionally a finisher.

Correct me (anyone) if I'm wrong, but Carbonneau spent most of that time period selected with Bob Gainey and Chris Nilan. None of them were particularly good at carrying the puck or being playmakers...so it was catch as catch can...Carbs was the best at it, but he wasn't great at playmaking in tight spaces and he was generally risk-averse...

In '89, he had shed those players and ended up - at points - with more puck skilled players like Ryan Walter and Russ Courtnall, and that left Carbonneau in a more pleasant spot for him probably - in '89, he had a career high in goals and was one off in his career high in points, despite scoring having gone down a bit as league quality improved in the later half of the 80's compared to the rather messy early to mid 80's...

It's funny when you describe him like that he's seems similar to a one way goal scoring winger in value, just in the opposite way, perhaps those are the guys I should compare him to.

I'd be curious about his linemates as well over the time frame.

He was never used a lot on the PP during his time in Montreal though was he? Was he ever even consistently on the second unit?
 

MXD

Partying Hard
Oct 27, 2005
51,285
17,126
We can pretty easily discard from the top 220 a number of HOF'ers- Lowe, Boivin, Wilson, Zubov, Duff, Shutt, Bauer, Gillies, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli, Mullen, LaFontaine, McDonald, Laprade, Smith, Weiland, and Cheevers. (I'm not even going into players like Anderson, Nieuwendyk, Federko, Carbonneau, Gartner, Neely, and Housley - who I can see some, although weaker, arguments for). That gets us down to around 260.

But then you have a bunch of players who are clearly deserving who aren't yet in the Hall - say a dozen European players, plus Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, McDavid, Thornton, Bergeron, Chara, Keith, Karlsson, Lundqvist. Then there's borderline players like Alfredsson, Toews, the Sedins, Elias, Roenick, Fleury, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Stamkos, Luongo, etc. That gets us back to around 290.

Bold : I dunno... Cross-referencing our Top-60 D list here, but the last "pure" D-Men with a full career from that list to make it in our Top-100 players list was Brian Leetch (23rd in the D-Men list). Mark Howe and Dit Clapper weren't pure D-Men, and Zdeno Chara/Duncan Keith careers weren't full yet. That counts for 27 players.

Zubov was a last-round cut in the D-Men project, thus putting him somewhere in the 60-70 range (the votes tally was lost with the migration), which mean there were certainly some people ranking Zubov slight better than 60th.

A few players who didn't make any of these lists now achieved more than Zubov (Drew Doughty, Shea Weber and Erik Karlsson are some very obvious cases).

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a Top-220 list could have 70 D-Men, and I don'T think it's unreasonable either that the 100-220 stretch (120 players) could tally a little over 40 D-Men.

Ergo.... I'm not certain Zubov makes my list (in fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't), but I wouldn't quite say he should be easily discarded

Doug Wilson's case is numerically even better : he finished 55th, and would probably still keep a Top-60 spot should you include Keith, Doughty, Weber and Karlsson.



Underlined : Again, if my memory doesn't fail me, Lafontaine finished 61st in the Centers project, and there's 33 centers in the Top-100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad