Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

[quoipourquoi]

I don't have much to say about him after he was traded to the Sharks.

I think the Sharks years are a little overblown. He’s playing in front of the league’s 31st (2019) and 30th (2020) ranked save percentage. That’s usually a death sentence to a defenseman’s season, and trying to score their way out of it might be the best approach until there’s some legitimate goaltending. Nearly got to a Final with .896 playoff goaltending.

I don’t think it would be tough to find some correlation between Craig Anderson’s hot streaks and people thinking really positively about Erik Karlsson’s two-way game.

Ottawa Rank in Save Percentage
2012 - 16th in save percentage
2013 - 1st in save percentage
2014 - 19th in save percentage
2015 - 4th in save percentage
2016 - 16th in save percentage
2017 - 8th in save percentage
2018 - 30th in save percentage

If he was on a good team, I think he could just exist and be celebrated for his positives - which are historically rare. But being on a bad team, everyone seems to want him to fix all of the negatives of a 20-man roster - and that might require putting on goalie pads in San Jose.

 

[overpass]

I think the Sharks years are a little overblown. He’s playing in front of the league’s 31st (2019) and 30th (2020) ranked save percentage. That’s usually a death sentence to a defenseman’s season, and trying to score their way out of it might be the best approach until there’s some legitimate goaltending. Nearly got to a Final with .896 playoff goaltending.

I don’t think it would be tough to find some correlation between Craig Anderson’s hot streaks and people thinking really positively about Erik Karlsson’s two-way game.

Ottawa Rank in Save Percentage
2012 - 16th in save percentage
2013 - 1st in save percentage
2014 - 19th in save percentage
2015 - 4th in save percentage
2016 - 16th in save percentage
2017 - 8th in save percentage
2018 - 30th in save percentage

If he was on a good team, I think he could just exist and be celebrated for his positives - which are historically rare. But being on a bad team, everyone seems to want him to fix all of the negatives of a 20-man roster - and that might require putting on goalie pads in San Jose.

But don’t you think Karlsson’s play is related to those save percentage numbers? Obviously he’s not fully responsible, but I think he’s often had a negative effect on team save percentage.

I don’t it’s a coincidence that Anderson’s hottest streak came when Karlsson was injured in 2013.

Edit: Here's the on-ice SV% of all Ottawa defencemen from 2011-12 to 2017-18 combined. Among defencemen who played at least 100 regular season games, Karlsson is at the bottom of the list.

NHL Stats

 

[Hobnobs]

I really gotta ask : What's your point?

That more average TOI doesnt equal better player? Thought that was obvious.

 

[VanIslander]

TOI is quite overrated.

Even strength? Or including special teams.

Beauchemin had more TOI than either Pronger or Neidermayer in their championship year, but watching the games, wasn't he always the third wheel?

 

[Professor What]

Ok, here's the post I should have made last night, now with a bit of a different perspective from the thread advancing. My apologies for screwing it up. I barely slept the night before last, and then, as a lifelong Alabama Crimson Tide fan, I was massively hyped up after the football game. Only the crash that came after that combination could cause me to miss that bolded text...

So, first, I want to say that Iginla is increasing in my view as the thread progresses, and today's posts have a lot to do with that. I already rated him highly, so moving him up in my view isn't hard. Toe Blake is still in very strong contention for my top vote, and he's right up there with Iginla. Comparing the two of them, Iginla is a bit better in goal scoring, though Blake was good enough that I don't think it's fair to say that it's a total runaway. For playmaking, Blake is significantly better. As I said before, I'm going to put a bit more weight on scoring goals than assisting when I look at overall offense, so Iginla's smaller advantage in goals is probably a pretty good counterbalance to Blake's larger advantage in playmaking.

When it comes to playoff performance, I cut Iginla some slack because he didn't have the opportunities he could have on a better team, but I can't diminish Blake's postseason output, and he got better over time. We have smaller samples early in his career, since Montreal didn't seem to fare so well in the playoffs for a while, but he was pretty consistently a roughly point per game player, even when leaguewide scoring was low in the pre-war years. When the team finally got over the hump, he shone very well. He led the postseason in goals once, in assists twice, and points once. In fact, his two points per game in 1944 were a record that stood until Gretzky came along, and war years or not, that's impressive.

I'd also point to Blake's longevity, which was remarkable for his era. He retired at the age of 35, and while certainly not at the level he once was, 24 points in 32 games clearly demonstrates that he wasn't a bum. He was the oldest player in the NHL at the time, and in fact, according to Hockey Reference, there were only two 34-year-olds and two 33-year-olds in the league that year. Thirty-five might not seem an impressive age to play to now, but it was a much different time. Blake was born in 1912, at a time when life expectancy was probably in the range of 50-55, based on some research I've done. This isn't a perfect measure, but if we assume that it was 55, and we roughly estimate 80 today, the equivalent proportionately would be playing until age 51 today. Now, while that's certainly overstated, it makes the point that Blake fared exceptionally well to not only play as long as he did, but to play at as high a level as he did for so long.

One other thing that I'd caution is directly comparing Hart balloting for Iginla and Blake. The systems in those eras are so far different that apples to apples doesn't really cut it. I'm not saying that to pull back Iginla, who I believe should have a Hart, but merely to suggest that Blake probably would have looked a bit better in a more modern system.

 

[BenchBrawl]

As an Ottawa Senators fan, I've followed Erik Karlsson's entire career fairly closely. And I think he's one of the hardest players to rate in a historical context.

Everyone knows Karlsson is nothing special defensively, but when you look at the goals-against results for Karlsson's 7 season peak (2011-12 through 2017-18), Karlsson has been on the ice for 0.1 goals/game more than anyone else, and 0.2 goals/game more than the average #1 defenceman.

Yes, he makes up for that by being on the ice for more goals for than anyone else...but we already knew he was a great offensive defenceman, and it's pretty clear he was giving back a lot of that value on the other end. His GF/GA ratio on the ice is better than his off-ice ratio (1.04 to 0.95), but it's less impressive than several of his contemporaries.

2011-12 through 2017-18.

Player	GP	ESGF	ESGA	ESGF/G	ESGA/G	R-ON	R-OFF
Erik Karlsson	492	524	508	1.06	1.03	1.04	0.95
Justin Faulk	477	348	454	0.73	0.95	0.77	0.86
Tyson Barrie	406	331	373	0.81	0.92	0.89	0.87
Dustin Byfuglien	408	409	375	1.00	0.92	1.09	1.00
Alex Goligoski	522	453	462	0.87	0.89	0.99	0.93
Jeff Petry	492	329	421	0.67	0.86	0.78	0.91
Justin Schultz	407	339	346	0.83	0.85	0.97	0.82
Duncan Keith	509	503	430	0.99	0.85	1.18	1.14
Roman Josi	481	433	404	0.90	0.84	1.07	1.05
Erik Johnson	412	315	346	0.76	0.84	0.91	0.94
Victor Hedman	473	462	396	0.98	0.84	1.16	1.06
Oliver Ekman-Larsson	528	389	438	0.74	0.83	0.89	0.83
Ryan Suter	528	516	428	0.98	0.81	1.21	1.02
Mark Giordano	478	418	387	0.87	0.81	1.08	0.79
Keith Yandle	542	410	436	0.76	0.81	0.94	0.97
Jack Johnson	506	364	402	0.72	0.80	0.90	1.10
Brent Burns	478	411	378	0.86	0.79	1.09	1.05
Alex Pietrangelo	521	464	408	0.89	0.78	1.14	1.18
P.K. Subban	503	457	393	0.91	0.78	1.16	1.02
Shea Weber	465	394	356	0.85	0.76	1.11	0.96
Cam Fowler	485	361	370	0.75	0.76	0.98	1.19
John Carlson	504	416	383	0.83	0.76	1.09	1.19
Jay Bouwmeester	471	360	355	0.76	0.75	1.01	1.06
Brent Seabrook	530	454	394	0.86	0.74	1.16	1.15
Drew Doughty	531	465	390	0.88	0.73	1.19	1.07
Zdeno Chara	495	454	358	0.92	0.72	1.27	1.15
Ryan McDonagh	490	462	348	0.94	0.71	1.33	1.07
Marc-Edouard Vlasic	504	418	348	0.83	0.69	1.21	0.98

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

R-ON is the GF/GA ratio while the players is on the ice, R-OFF is the team's GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice.

The frustrating thing is that Karlsson has shown flashes of excellent defensive play, but when he's not playing well he might be the worst defensive player in the league.

Here are some of my notes on his year by year performance.

Year	Team	GP	G	A	P	+/-	ESGF	ESGA	ESGF/G	ESGA/G	R-ON	R-OFF	Voting
2010	OTT	60	5	21	26	-5	38	42	0.63	0.70	0.91	0.93
2011	OTT	75	13	32	45	-30	46	74	0.61	0.99	0.62	0.78
2012	OTT	81	19	59	78	16	95	74	1.18	0.92	1.28	0.92	Norris-1
2013	OTT	17	6	8	14	8	16	9	0.94	0.52	1.80	0.98	Norris-18
2014	OTT	82	20	54	74	-15	80	89	0.98	1.09	0.90	0.96	Norris-7
2015	OTT	82	21	45	66	7	89	76	1.09	0.93	1.17	1.12	Norris-1
2016	OTT	82	16	66	82	-2	95	98	1.16	1.20	0.97	1.02	Norris-2
2017	OTT	77	17	54	71	10	73	63	0.95	0.82	1.16	0.88	Norris-2
2018	OTT	71	9	53	62	-25	75	97	1.05	1.37	0.76	0.80	Norris-12
2019	SJS	53	3	42	45	6	65	57	1.22	1.07	1.15	1.07	Norris-15
2020	SJS	56	6	34	40	-15	47	63	0.84	1.13	0.75	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2010 and 2011 weren't really historically significant seasons

2011-12: Karlsson's breakout year. He was a superb offensive player this season. Just incredible acceleration with the puck. He'd get the puck on his stick and exit the zone like he was shot out of a cannon, often taking angles or lanes that nobody else thanks to his acceleration, speed, and skill. When Karlsson and three forwards were flying through the neutral zone and crossing the blueline, it was a thing of beauty. Like Magic Johnson and the Showtime Lakers on the fast break. Karlsson led the Sens turnaround from finishing 29th in GF the year before to finishing 4th in GF. A lot of average forwards saw their scoring totals boosted by Karlsson that year. Karlsson also had a special connection with Jason Spezza. Spezza in 2011-12 was maybe the best forward Karlsson ever played with, and they both saw the game at a high level and made some great plays together. Makes you wonder what Karlsson could have done playing with more skilled players...he also looked incredible at the 2014 Olympics playing with lots of skill.

That being said, if I had a vote for the Norris I would have placed Karlsson second or third, with Zdeno Chara above him (I didn't see enough of Weber). It was a very close 3 man race that year with Karlsson, Chara, and Weber. And for all Karlsson did offensively, he gave back a lot defensively. Some of it was due to his aggressive positioning in the offensive zone, skating below the circles on a rush or pinching up the wall in the zone. While he always skated back hard to get back into the play, I remember several goals against where he was engaging his man from the side or behind after skating back instead of being in position. And some of it was because he was ineffective in his own zone against an opponent who had established position. I remember several goals against where the opponent scored from in front after Karlsson just let him have position. Karlsson could and did make very good defensive plays in open ice and where the opponent didn't have clear possession, because he could attack and break up the play...but when he had to wait for the opponent and react, he was very very bad defensively.

2012-13: Karlsson played 14 games this year before his Achilles was sliced. In those 14 games he looked like he had gone to another level. His offence and his incredible skating was still there, and now he was more of a two-way player, flowing from attack to defence to attack more smoothly. He wasn't getting caught so far up the ice, and he was positioning himself better on defence, reacting better, and was decisively closing to the puck more often.

I know it was only 14 games. And it was a weird lockout season, where Karlsson was probably better prepared and conditioned than some other players. But in some ways that was the best version of Karlsson I ever saw. Not as smart as he would be later, but he still had the incredible skating. What a tragedy that injury was.

2013-14: Karlsson looked off all season, especially defensively. He got some Norris votes but in my opinion they were entirely stat votes and he didn't really deserve any. He gave back just as much on defence as he contributed on offence. His gap control was poor, his pivots were shaky, and he didn't have the confidence to engage defensively that he had the previous season. To be fair to him, he was really still recovering from the Achilles injury and I think all his defensive issues were caused by that -- he was still good on offence when he could dictate the play, but he was not there when he had to react defensively.

As shaky as his NHL season was, Karlsson was incredible at the 2014 Olympics. He didn't have to do as much defensively, he could use his stick more instead of his body on the big ice, and his skill and hockey IQ really popped on the screen while playing with other great players. After seeing this, you really have to wonder what Karlsson could have done with more skilled players.

2014-15: This year was a tale of two half-seasons for Karlsson. He really didn't play well through December, looking awful defensively. But on the other hand, his regular partner Marc Methot was injured and he was playing 27 minutes a game with a rotating series of borderline NHLers on his left side. Once Methot returned, Karlsson was lights out in 2015. Easily the best defenceman in the league and maybe the best player in the league down the stretch, and he was playing well defensively once again, although he was still a gambler at times.

Did Karlsson deserve this Norris? He edged out Drew Doughty and PK Subban for the trophy. Honestly I would understand voting for someone else, considering how bad Karlsson was in the first 30 games..but I don't think any other defencemen had a standout year, and Karlsson really was that good in the second half of the season. Call it a weak Norris win.

2015-16: Karlsson had his highest scoring season, with 82 points. On the other hand, he was on the ice for 98 even strength goals against, his highest total ever. I don't remember him being particularly bad defensively this year, but I do remember he played a ton of ice time, including a fair bit of time without his regular partner Methot. And this version of Karlsson was still pinching up to create offence at times and could be burned the other way. Frankly he was probably over-stretched this season, playing too many minutes on a marginal team thanks to a coach who was in over his head and trying to save his job. He finished second in Norris voting to Drew Doughty. I'm OK with that.

2016-17: Karlsson changed his style of play this season to play more conservatively and fit into new coach Guy Boucher's system. He wasn't pinching up ice as much. Some fans were concerned because his scoring numbers and his shot-based analytics numbers were down for much of the season -- but in my opinion that was because Karlsson was learning how to play within the game and the team. His 5-on-5 on-ice save percentage was the highest of his career at 0.927, and I think that was a direct result of him playing within the team and not taking himself out of position. His scoring numbers and analytics picked up in the last couple of months as he became more comfortable impacting the game with his high skill and IQ without skating all over the place. He was really good on the road that year, and I think he broke the standard game plan that coaches around the league had been using against him.

Then he had that incredible playoffs run. The Sens had other players playing well of course, but Karlsson was the driver. He was involved in so many of the goals, he was terrific defensively. He was playing hurt too. In the past he had struggled when he wasn't healthy, but now it almost disciplined him and forced him to stay in position, letting him control the game with his hands and his head. This was the best version of Erik Karlsson we ever saw, and the best season we ever saw from him. I honestly thought the sky was the limit for him after seeing how he learned to play a more mature game this season. I still don't really know what happened.

2017-18: Karlsson just didn't seem right when he came back this year. It was strange that he could play on a broken foot so well in the 2017 playoffs but now he looked so off in the fall of 2017. He also really missed the departed Marc Methot, as he had to cover for a series of marginal NHLers cycling through his left side, including Johnny Oduya, Freddy Claesson, and Mark Borowiecki. All too often he was hung out to dry with the left defenceman stepping up in Guy Boucher's 1-3-1 and whiffing on the play. His numbers improved after the all-star break, with 31 points in 29 games and only a -1. Overall this was an absolutely miserable defensive season for him, showing that he needs support defensively -- he's not the kind of player who can elevate marginal NHLers on defence.

I don't have much to say about him after he was traded to the Sharks.

Great post as usual, overpass.

This break down is consistent with my general view of Karlsson's career.

I would really love to compare him to Harry Cameron, but I doubt we get the opportunity.

Overall, the picture you paint is that of a defenseman who struggled to put it all together except on rare occasions.

Breaking down his defensive play based on your post, in capsule summary:

2011-2012: Bad defensively (Norris-1)
2012-2013: Great but injured, played 14 games
2013-2014: Bad defensively (Norris-7)
2014-2015: Bad for half the season / Great for the other half (Norris-1)
2015-2016: OK defensively? (Norris-2)
2016-2017: Good defensively + Great playoffs (Norris-2)
2017-2018: Bad defensively (Norris-12)

So the stretch from december 2015 to the end of the 2017 playoffs would be the window when Karlsson was consistently OK-to-great defensively. A Niedermayer-like short peak, so to speak.

 

[Professor What]

I think the Sharks years are a little overblown. He’s playing in front of the league’s 31st (2019) and 30th (2020) ranked save percentage. That’s usually a death sentence to a defenseman’s season, and trying to score their way out of it might be the best approach until there’s some legitimate goaltending. Nearly got to a Final with .896 playoff goaltending.

I don’t think it would be tough to find some correlation between Craig Anderson’s hot streaks and people thinking really positively about Erik Karlsson’s two-way game.

Ottawa Rank in Save Percentage
2012 - 16th in save percentage
2013 - 1st in save percentage
2014 - 19th in save percentage
2015 - 4th in save percentage
2016 - 16th in save percentage
2017 - 8th in save percentage
2018 - 30th in save percentage

If he was on a good team, I think he could just exist and be celebrated for his positives - which are historically rare. But being on a bad team, everyone seems to want him to fix all of the negatives of a 20-man roster - and that might require putting on goalie pads in San Jose.

As a long-time Senators fan, I always found Anderson rather infuriating. When at his best, I'd take him over almost anyone else, but his game always seemed like it was riding a yoyo. He constantly went from good to bad and back and forth, as your post demonstrates, and it often seemed to have little to do with the team in front of him. I'd also point out that in 2017, Anderson's "worst good year" in the seasons you show, Karlsson's defensive play was actually demonstrably better, thanks to the fact that he responded to the role needed of him in a new system. Speaking entirely as a fan, I found his runner-up finish in the Norris race that year aggravating because the excuse often cited for not giving it to him the year before was that he didn't play defense. Then, when he stepped up his defensive game, while sacrificing little offensive output, he lost out to a guy whose proponents largely admit is a defensive liability. Now, lest someone think that's merely a fan popping off about Karlson's style of play that season, the media noted it as well: How Erik Karlsson has transformed his game in 2016-17 - Sportsnet.ca By the way, while I think advanced metrics like the Corsi get overworked a lot of times, it might be worth mentioning that Karlson has never had a Corsi percentage less than 50. Think about the rosters of the teams he had to work with in Ottawa. That's not an insignificant achievement. You're right that he's been the one expected to fix a whole 20-man roster, and at times, he's done a danged good job of it. I mean, the 2016-17 Senators came one double OT goal away from defeating the Penguins and playing for the Cup? Honestly, they weren't that good, but a captain who was willing to play whatever role his coach asked of him made a lot of difference.

As for his time in San Jose, I don't have a lot to say there other than I don't think it's been a good fit at all. His offense is still there, but, I don't know, something just doesn't feel right. I think if he went somewhere else, to a place where he fell in better, we could see a resurgence.

 

[VanIslander]

... massively hyped after that football game

Justin Fields will be NFL drafted before the pretty boy gang in Alabama. Ugh.

.... Iginla is increasing in my view as the thread progresses, and today's posts have a lot to do with that. I already rated him highly, so moving him up in my view isn't hard.

Er. Okay. He is a 2002 & 2010 Olympic star, the most prolific NHL scorer of the first decade of this century, a longtime NHL captain and a boatload of intangibles: wins battles in corners, knocks opposing skaters off pucks, makes quick transition passes, gives effort more than most.

Toe Blake is still in very strong contention for my top vote, and he's right up there with Iginla.

Except Blake played through the depleted WWII years (Toe Blake's career high year in points was 1944-45 when the NHL had a lot of scrubs).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Justin Fields will be NFL drafted before the pretty boy gang in Alabama. Ugh.

Er. Okay. He is a 2002 & 2010 Olympic star, the most prolific NHL scorer of the first decade of this century, a longtime NHL captain and a boatload of intangibles: wins battles in corners, knocks opposing skaters off pucks, makes quick transition passes, gives effort more than most.

Except Blake played through the depleted WWII years (Toe Blake's career high year in points was 1944-45 when the NHL had a lot of scrubs).

Blake did win the Hart trophy prior to the war. And he was in his 30's during the war years.

 

[VanIslander]

Toe turned 30 in 1943!

His three highest-scoring seasons were the three most-depleted WWII years. He is a poster boy of overrated.

 

[Professor What]

Toe turned 30 in 1943!

His three highest-scoring seasons were the three most-depleted WWII years. He is a poster boy of overrated.

His birthdate was August 21, 1942. He turned 30 before the 1942-43 season, so he had a good three war years in his 30s, so while he might have been inflated a bit by that fact, he was still "over the hill" for the time. I'm not going to bag on him over that.

 

[VanIslander]

A few months difference, granted.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Toe turned 30 in 1943!

His three highest-scoring seasons were the three most-depleted WWII years. He is a poster boy of overrated.

Actually he turned 30 in 1942. August 21 to be exact.

There were still many top players around for the 1941-42 season. I believe 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46 were the seasons most impacted by WWII.

 

[VanIslander]

I believe 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46 were the seasons most impacted by WWII.

Exactly Toe Blake's four greatest offensive seasons.

I rest my case. OUT.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Exactly Toe Blake's four greatest offensive seasons.

I rest my case. OUT.

Please.

His greatest offensive season is 1938-39, when he led the league in scoring.

Obviously, everyone's point totals are inflated during the war years.

Also, Blake's production was better in the playoffs.

 

[ted2019]

Had Savard and Maltsev back to back on my list. Vasiliev 5 spots behind them.

But they were not in my top 15.

I had Savard, Maltsev, Blake, Ullman, Gerard, Iginla, Martinec, Stastny, Quackenbush, Karlsson eligible for this upcoming vote. I really don't see too many changes on my end at least this round.

 

[ted2019]

I think the Sharks years are a little overblown. He’s playing in front of the league’s 31st (2019) and 30th (2020) ranked save percentage. That’s usually a death sentence to a defenseman’s season, and trying to score their way out of it might be the best approach until there’s some legitimate goaltending. Nearly got to a Final with .896 playoff goaltending.

I don’t think it would be tough to find some correlation between Craig Anderson’s hot streaks and people thinking really positively about Erik Karlsson’s two-way game.

Ottawa Rank in Save Percentage
2012 - 16th in save percentage
2013 - 1st in save percentage
2014 - 19th in save percentage
2015 - 4th in save percentage
2016 - 16th in save percentage
2017 - 8th in save percentage
2018 - 30th in save percentage

If he was on a good team, I think he could just exist and be celebrated for his positives - which are historically rare. But being on a bad team, everyone seems to want him to fix all of the negatives of a 20-man roster - and that might require putting on goalie pads in San Jose.

But if he's a top 100-125 All Time Player, he should be able to help out his Goaltending and Defensive deficiencies just from being a presence on the ice 25 minutes a night.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I had Savard, Maltsev, Blake, Ullman, Gerard, Iginla, Martinec, Stastny, Quackenbush, Karlsson eligible for this upcoming vote. I really don't see too many changes on my end at least this round.

Sounds like there must be something of a consensus from the original lists.

 

[Professor What]

Exactly Toe Blake's four greatest offensive seasons.

I rest my case. OUT.

That doesn't stand up so well when considering scoring rates. Sure, in raw points, they might have been his top outputs, but he won a scoring title in 1938-39 with just 49 points. Why? Because an average team that year scored 2.53 goals per game, as compared to 4.08 in 1944-45. He also won the Hart in that season, not one of the war years. That his highest raw points totals came during the war years is a foregone conclusion, because that would have been the case for nearly any star in the league. That doesn't make them his "best offensive seasons" by default. It also ignores the fact that in post war 1945-46, he had a third-place scoring finish. You can't chalk up his success to "war years." It's simply not true.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But don’t you think Karlsson’s play is related to those save percentage numbers? Obviously he’s not fully responsible, but I think he’s often had a negative effect on team save percentage.

I don’t it’s a coincidence that Anderson’s hottest streak came when Karlsson was injured in 2013.

Craig Anderson had a .956 and was 7-2-2 up until the game Karlsson was injured, and was a .931 in the 10 games he played while Karlsson was out. Not sure there was a correlation.

 

[Professor What]

Craig Anderson had a .956 and was 7-2-2 up until the game Karlsson was injured, and was a .931 in the 10 games he played while Karlsson was out. Not sure there was a correlation.

I'm not going to pretend that no defensive specialist could have given Anderson more of a boost, but I will say that I don't think anyone was going to "fix" Anderson when he was off his game. The man really was always feast or famine, and that was often regardless of support or lack thereof.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But if he's a top 100-125 All Time Player, he should be able to help out his Goaltending and Defensive deficiencies just from being a presence on the ice 25 minutes a night.

There’s a limit to what a skater can do, no matter how much ice time they get - especially in the 21st century with a lower percentage of teams making the playoffs. Ottawa finishing 19th out of 30th misses the playoffs in 2014 and 2016 (which takes one out of award contention), but in terms of the percentage of teams making the playoffs, a team like that would make the playoff threshold in maybe every era of the 20th century but 1971-1974, and their stars would subsequently face less criticism.

Gretzky won his first Hart with a 18/21st ranked goaltending and a 28-39-13 record and his second Hart with 16/21st ranked goaltending and a 29-35-16 record. An understated part of the Oilers’ string of 100-point seasons that followed is that they jumped up to 4th, 8th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, and 9th in save percentage from 1982-1987. So one can be the greatest player (not just #101-125) and still be on a team that is hampered by what is happening in net. But depending on when a player exists throughout history and how many teams qualify for the playoffs, that player may be expected to account for more players’ deficiencies than just their own.

Hits defensemen even harder than forwards, because if the offense dries up, they’re not getting numbers, and if the goaltending softens, they’re getting the wrong kind of numbers. Think of all the great forwards, great defensemen, and great goaltenders in the 21st century. Great forwards and great goaltenders aren’t always on what we would consider the great teams; the defensemen are. Until their teams’ offense or goaltending falls off, then the votes go away (Keith, Doughty... looking at you). That Karlsson gained recognition despite not being on great teams makes him something of a unicorn, and it’s why he absolutely deserves to be in this range if not higher.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd pass on Russell Bowie for now. If the HoH is saying, "that's too far back", you know you're really in a tough time. I'm starting to think we over-corrected on Nighbor and Morenz. I already dropped Shore some spots. I think the game evolves considerably, sport in general, evolves considerably after World War I. No surprise that leagues that are around today can see their heritage back to around that time, rules start getting solidified...it really becomes professional around this time. I'm not sure I'm ready for Bowie.

Don't start slowly nodding yet, because I'm about the pull the needle off your record. You actually might have a guy on the board who was in the running for best player in the world - even if it was for just a brief time - in the present day in Erik Karlsson. Overpass hit his summary out of the park. He was a difference maker like we haven't seen in a while on the back end. I think seventies said Brian Leetch and that's right. His ability to carry the puck over three lines on a team that desperately needed someone to do these things cannot be overstated. He singlehandedly nearly ran my Pens off the road in the ECF. That was a defensive team, they were annoying, but they had a gamebreaker and it was him.

Now, I'm not saying he was the best player in the world, I'm not saying it's anything more than a fringe case. But we're still in a zone where you have to pursue gamebreakers still, I think...and I know he has his warts. But we have Coffey at 48, we have Chara at 89, we have Leetch at 97. We were obviously willing to look past warts there. And moreover, Karlsson had a historically very significant 6, 7 year window in there...he will help to usher in a wave of these new age d-men (Cale Makar, Quinn Hughes, etc.), make that style popular in this generation...and you're telling me what he brought was a hell of a lot worse than Lindros who we have sitting there at 96. Lindros scratched and clawed way past his threatening-level expiration to get to 700 games. EK65 is already there, with a signature playoff run, and a signature moment that doesn't involve someone scooping his brains up off the turf. I pushed hard for Lindros because he's a difference maker and he's historically significant. I'm doing the same for Erik Karlsson now...

 

[blogofmike]

That Karlsson gained recognition despite not being on great teams makes him something of a unicorn, and it’s why he absolutely deserves to be in this range if not higher.

Karlsson was able to carry a middling team to within a goal of the Finals. It's the kind of 1976 Denis Potvin performance that I don't know if you'd get from an already ranked Bill Gadsby.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'll take Martinec over Maltsev, but they both belong in this vote I think. Martinec has a good case for being top half of the ballot I'd think. Whale of a talent and a Czech team that was really up and down when it came to supporting him. He was clearly the line driver in that group for a while and he kept the Czechs competitive. See, it's one thing to sit back and dump bags of sand on the rink and hope the other team hits a banana peel or someone Steve Smiths it or Dan Boyles it into their own net or something...but Martinec offered a goal. It's too strong to say he was the Marian Gaborik of their 2003 Minnesota Wild, because that discredits the Czechs too much in places...but as some of those d-men started to fade away that could outlet it, and some of those forwards around him started to slow, he got better to compensate.

Maltsev was a hell of a talent too. It might have been a little easier for him because the Soviets could roll more lines and they were their own toughest competition. If Maltsev and Martinec switched nationalities, I wonder what the opinion might be...? Anywho, Maltsev was good...one of the early international players that I saw that could really operate in tight spaces. There's "big sweeping" skill and "small area" skill for me...the game had a lot of big sweeping skill for a while: Shore, Howe you could say, Hull you could say...the intricate guys were harder to come by: Beliveau, maybe even Dickie Moore and Syl Apps, Richard in his own way...Maltsev was an intricate guy.

Don't really get the love for Vasiliev after going back and watching the film. He's not even my choice for Soviet stay at home d-man du jour...I don't think he belongs...how much better is he (and this answer needs to be significant) than Kevin Lowe, really? Lowe at least knew his limitations. VV was technically more skilled, but didn't use his skill as well as Lowe used his for my money...I don't know, this seems like a losing battle because he's up this high and he'll eventually go soon...but I'm not entirely convinced he belongs in the next 50 or even 100 spots...I must be missing something. He must have a lot of some award...which is fine.

Since I'm in the neighborhood, if I'm struggling a touch with VV and Lowe...surely Doughty belongs already. Not the pure gamebreaker that Karlsson was and has similarly given up on the game at this point it seems, but Doughty was maybe the best d-man in the league for multiple consecutive years...skill, really good defensively, tough guy...I really hate to play this card, but LA is tough to watch for the majority of sleepy media members...I think he deserved better Norris finishes than he got for the majority of his prime, I really do.