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

[Michael Farkas]

Normie Ullman...so, I already had thoughts on Ullman...the last two days, I wrapped up work, and I put on some playoff games of him in his prime while working out and, man, I still don't see it...I don't know, boys...I know he has a quadrillion points, but he's just not a difference maker for me. At least not to the degree that would justify his numbers and put him on this list now...he's a good support guy, he has wheels, he doesn't stink...but he cannot reliably beat players in space. There was one sequence the last two complete games that actually impressed me...I think it's '65 against Chicago. He gets the puck in the NZ and absolutely walks someone with a nice move at the attacking line, and I was like, "ok, there it is..." (turns out that was just a stationary winger in Kenny Wharram attempting to play defense, but whatever, I'll take what I can get here...) - he comes in 2 on 1 and passes into a kneeling d-man (so I resume being frustrated with him), but the puck bounces back to him and he scores into a half-open net...and it's like, "really?" Like, I know he didn't get 1200 points (or whatever it is) on bad bounces...but I spent a lot of time watching him at the end of the last project, I gave him a couple more games in his dead on balls prime...I don't know, boys...

It's gotta be the quietest 1000 points ever...I guess he belongs with Peter Stastny, another player that I'm not sure really meets his point totals in the games that I've seen. Then again, my frame of reference for the 80's is the Oilers...so, it's a little unfair to Stastny and Quebec. I don't know, I don't care what you do here I guess, but don't let these two get away from each other. I don't think I'm ready for them yet, personally. I think there's bigger gamebreakers on the board, and I think these are raw total guys for me. Speaking of, this might get me arrested, but I'm pretty sure Alex Delvecchio is a better player than Normie Ullman...I don't think it's by a lot, but Delvecchio was just a better pace pusher for me, both could be used in various roles and positions at ES and on the PP and do well, I think AD has a fairly similar skill set, but he knew his limitations and didn't lose so many pucks trying to make moves that he couldn't, and he was harder on the puck...he was harder going to the cage. He engaged. Normie was...well, Normie...whatever though, I'd zip tie Ullman and Stastny together as not-as-impactful-as-you'd-expect point gobblers and sit around and wait for McDavid (sorry, I'm just looking for that Dennis Bonvie like haha)

Toe Blake was more of a glue guy. Third wheel for two better players in Lach and Richard I think. Really smart and he could play the game. But I think it was more like smarter Jamie Benn than a true gamebreaker...sorry to keep using that word, but we're still basically in the top 100 for me. We're still in the top 2 rounds of the draft...I'm not interested in taking grinders and stuff yet. Blake could play, but he was Gabriel Landeskog to their MacKinnon and Rantanen for me...you can wait on him unless you're counting his coaching, then you can put him in the top 75...

 

[Professor What]

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.

I'm pretty sure all three of the Europeans are going to be somewhere on my ballot in this round. Vasiliev racked up accolades during his time. He was a Soviet all-star eight times and a three-time world championship best defenseman. He even scored six points in ten games in the world championships in 1978 shortly after suffering a heart attack. His international numbers look better than his domestic numbers, but I think it's worth pointing out that he played for Dynamo, and not CSKA, which likely helps explain a lot of the gap. I'm not sure how much weight I'd put into this, but it might be worth mentioning that he captained the Soviet team in the 1981 Canada Cup. I get that he wasn't flashy at all (making Lowe a good comparison in a way) and he's not going to really stand out, but personally, I like what I've seen. I will admit though, that I can most definitely see how it could be a matter of taste, however, and for that reason, I don't think I'd debate too hard with someone who disagreed.

 

[ted2019]

As of now, this is my rankings.
Jarome Iginla
Serge Savard/Vladimir Martinec
Alexander Maltsev/Eddie Gerard
Valeri Vasiliev

Doug Gilmour
Bill Quackenbush

( No particular order) Doughty/Karlsson/Blake/Bowie/Stastny/Ullman

 

[ted2019]

Normie Ullman...so, I already had thoughts on Ullman...the last two days, I wrapped up work, and I put on some playoff games of him in his prime while working out and, man, I still don't see it...I don't know, boys...I know he has a quadrillion points, but he's just not a difference maker for me. At least not to the degree that would justify his numbers and put him on this list now...he's a good support guy, he has wheels, he doesn't stink...but he cannot reliably beat players in space. There was one sequence the last two complete games that actually impressed me...I think it's '65 against Chicago. He gets the puck in the NZ and absolutely walks someone with a nice move at the attacking line, and I was like, "ok, there it is..." (turns out that was just a stationary winger in Kenny Wharram attempting to play defense, but whatever, I'll take what I can get here...) - he comes in 2 on 1 and passes into a kneeling d-man (so I resume being frustrated with him), but the puck bounces back to him and he scores into a half-open net...and it's like, "really?" Like, I know he didn't get 1200 points (or whatever it is) on bad bounces...but I spent a lot of time watching him at the end of the last project, I gave him a couple more games in his dead on balls prime...I don't know, boys...

It's gotta be the quietest 1000 points ever...I guess he belongs with Peter Stastny, another player that I'm not sure really meets his point totals in the games that I've seen. Then again, my frame of reference for the 80's is the Oilers...so, it's a little unfair to Stastny and Quebec. I don't know, I don't care what you do here I guess, but don't let these two get away from each other. I don't think I'm ready for them yet, personally. I think there's bigger gamebreakers on the board, and I think these are raw total guys for me. Speaking of, this might get me arrested, but I'm pretty sure Alex Delvecchio is a better player than Normie Ullman...I don't think it's by a lot, but Delvecchio was just a better pace pusher for me, both could be used in various roles and positions at ES and on the PP and do well, I think AD has a fairly similar skill set, but he knew his limitations and didn't lose so many pucks trying to make moves that he couldn't, and he was harder on the puck...he was harder going to the cage. He engaged. Normie was...well, Normie...whatever though, I'd zip tie Ullman and Stastny together as not-as-impactful-as-you'd-expect point gobblers and sit around and wait for McDavid (sorry, I'm just looking for that Dennis Bonvie like haha)

Toe Blake was more of a glue guy. Third wheel for two better players in Lach and Richard I think. Really smart and he could play the game. But I think it was more like smarter Jamie Benn than a true gamebreaker...sorry to keep using that word, but we're still basically in the top 100 for me. We're still in the top 2 rounds of the draft...I'm not interested in taking grinders and stuff yet. Blake could play, but he was Gabriel Landeskog to their MacKinnon and Rantanen for me...you can wait on him unless you're counting his coaching, then you can put him in the top 75...

Stastny is a round or 2 too early for me and to me, was a PP specialist in Quebec. He scored 36.8% of his points on the PP while in Quebec. Never known to be a force in his own end. His early bonanza type days were a product of the scoring boom of the 80's. Ullman did his damage Even Strength (30.6% of his points came on the PP) and he wasn't exactly a force in his end as well.

Playoffs, Stastny has more points, but 77% of those points came playing for Quebec.
Ullman in the playoffs lead the league Twice in points and once in goals & once in assists.

Out of these 2, I'd say that Ullman is a good round or 2 better then Stastny.

 

[buffalowing88]

As of now, this is my rankings.
Jarome Iginla
Serge Savard/Vladimir Martinec
Alexander Maltsev/Eddie Gerard
Valeri Vasiliev

Doug Gilmour
Bill Quackenbush

( No particular order) Doughty/Karlsson/Blake/Bowie/Stastny/Ullman

More I think of it, more I would align with this list if we swap two players. Gilmour for Maltsev and Doughty for Vasiliev.

I'd probably bump Iginla down the list but still give him the entry.

I'm with Mike Farkas, you, and the other posters who have been hesitant on Ullman at this point. He's the one I'd be least enthusiastic about the more I read up on.

Love to keep Dougie in the discussion any way possible, though. I came of age right across the border with him being the guy who could do it all for Toronto and spent the past few years gaining a better appreciation for his on-ice contributions elsewhere. His playoff record is big for me and his all-around game trumped even someone such as Iginila's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here is a overview of the international accolades of the available Non-NHL Europeans.

Alexander Maltsev: 3 WHC Directorate Best Forward awards (1970, 1972, 1981) 5 WHC All-Star team selections (1970, 1971, 1972, 1978, 1981) and 1 Canada Cup All-Star team selection (1976)

Vladimir Martinec: 1 WHC Directorate Best Forward award (1976) and 4 WHC All-Star team selections (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977)

Valeri Vasiliev: 3 WHC Directorate Best Defenceman awards (1973, 1977, 1979) and 5 WHC All-Star team selections (1974, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1981)

Here is a overview of their WHC All-Star voting records.

Alexander Maltsev: 1st (1970), 1st (1972), 1st (1981), 2nd (1971), 4th (1978), 6th (1974)
Maltsev very clearly has the strongest WHC All-Star voting record among the remaining forwards. The two things that stands out to me with Maltsevs voting record is both his peak in 1970-1972 where he finished 1st, 2nd, 1st over 3 tournaments and his outstanding elite longevity considering that he led the voting the first time in 1970 and the last time in 1981. The competition among forwards during Maltsevs peak 1970-1972 was also very high considering that he first was up against peak Firsov in 1970-1971 and then peak Kharlamov in 1972.

Vladimir Martinec: 1st (1974), 2nd (1976), 3rd (1975), Top 3 (1977), Tied for 9th (1972)
Martinec peak period in 1974-1977 is very impressive with top 3 finishes at four straight tournaments. Four consecutive top 3 finishes is something that only Makarov and Firsov managed to beat out among forwards. The only problem with his voting record is that Martinec outside of that peak period did not add much of value compared to the other players with the strongest voting records.

So when comparing the voting records of Maltsev and Martinec I would say that their peak performance in WHC competition are on roughly the same level (Maltsev 70-72 versus Martinec 74-77) but when looking at the whole picture Maltsevs voting record is clearly stronger.

And here is Vasilievs voting record and how it compares to the two forwards.

Valeri Vasiliev: 1st (1975), Tied for 1st (1981), 2nd (1974), Top 2 (1977), Top 2 (1979), Top 4 (1978)
Comparing the WHC voting records of forwards and defencemen is always difficult considering that the competition at the forward position was clearly stronger. So even if Vasilievs voting record on paper measures up well to Maltsevs and is stronger than Martinecs it is my opinion rather difficult to judge exactly how much that is worth in a direct comparison to them. Especially considering just how far ahead of Vasiliev that Maltsev is when it comes to Soviet player of the year voting records. With this said I do think that it is worth noting that Vasiliev in 1981 was tied for 1st place in the All-Star voting with Larry Robinson and with both Fetisov and Kasatonov playing at that tournament as well it is fair to say that the competition at the position was very strong in that specific year. But overall I would say that when adjusting for strenght of competition Vasilievs WHC-All-Star voting record is clearly less impressive than Maltsevs and perhaps somewhat less impressive than Martinecs voting record as well.

To Maltsevs further credit he does not only have the strongest WHC voting record of the three but he is also the only one of them with a All-Star team selection in Canada Cup competition as well. So there should be no doubt about that when it comes to individual accolades on the international stage Maltsev clearly stands out here. With this said I do think that a case can be made for Martinec being the greater player overall based on his superior big game performances and having a clear edge over Maltsev on the defensive side of the game. In fact if someone were to ask me which player would you rather build a team around I would probably lean slightly towards picking Martinec even if I do think that Maltsev has a more impressive resume on paper. In my opinion both of them belong ahead of Vasiliev even if his international career and accolades also are very impressive. To me Maltsevs advantage over Vasiliev when it comes to SPOTY voting is just way too big for me to seriously entertain the idea of ranking Vasiliev ahead. Even when taking into account that defencemen may have been somewhat underrated in the SPOTY voting.

Good post. Maltsev over Vasiliev is easy for me.

Re: Maltsev vs Martinec, weren't the WHC all-star nods done by position? Meaning Martinec was competing directly against Boris Mikhailov? Anyway, it's without a doubt that Maltsev had greater longevity as an impact player than Martinec, but I tend to think that Martinec's short prime was probably better. Would you disagree?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

I don't think Blake's longevity was all that special. Blake's first impact season was at the age of 25, and his last was at the age of 34. He played until 35, but didn't even become an NHL regular until the age of 24. Nothing wrong with that, pretty good for his time, but nothing outstanding.

Toe Blake Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Am I missing something? Was there a non-hockey reason why Blake got such a late start?

IMO, Iginla is clearly ahead in the regular season - similar point production to Blake, but Blake was probably the 3rd best player on his own line for the second half of his prime (although Blake was clearly the man before Lach and Richard came on the scene).

You're right that Blake looks like a really strong playoff performer, regardless of who he played with.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm with Mike Farkas, you, and the other posters who have been hesitant on Ullman at this point. He's the one I'd be least enthusiastic about the more I read up on.

What is there to be hesitant on, again? Ullman was a player with no real weaknesses in his game

He's also by far the least PP-reliant forward available. Sort of a Henri Richard lite.

How people would think differently of Ullman if the NHL hadn't had that stupid midseason voting in the mid 60s (Ullman easily led all players in end of season Hart voting in 1964-65, but Bobby Hull beat him out in midseason voting by even more).

 

[MXD]

Toe Blake was more of a glue guy. Third wheel for two better players in Lach and Richard I think. Really smart and he could play the game. But I think it was more like smarter Jamie Benn than a true gamebreaker...sorry to keep using that word, but we're still basically in the top 100 for me. We're still in the top 2 rounds of the draft...I'm not interested in taking grinders and stuff yet. Blake could play, but he was Gabriel Landeskog to their MacKinnon and Rantanen for me...you can wait on him unless you're counting his coaching, then you can put him in the top 75...

It's almost like you missed the part where he won the Hart and led the league in scoring while playing with the likes of Charlie Sands, Paul Haynes and a positively ancient Johnny Gagnon, in what's possibly the worse set of linemates ever had by a Art Ross winner (I can't think of another one). Also had two AS1 and one AS2 before Lach even stepped on the ice for the Canadiens.

I'm not totally sold myself on Blake at this point, in that I'm not quite certain yet he's a better player than at least 9 of this group. But he's already been seriously misrepresented for reasons I can't fathom.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Normie Ullman...so, I already had thoughts on Ullman...the last two days, I wrapped up work, and I put on some playoff games of him in his prime while working out and, man, I still don't see it...I don't know, boys...I know he has a quadrillion points, but he's just not a difference maker for me. At least not to the degree that would justify his numbers and put him on this list now...he's a good support guy, he has wheels, he doesn't stink...but he cannot reliably beat players in space. There was one sequence the last two complete games that actually impressed me...I think it's '65 against Chicago. He gets the puck in the NZ and absolutely walks someone with a nice move at the attacking line, and I was like, "ok, there it is..." (turns out that was just a stationary winger in Kenny Wharram attempting to play defense, but whatever, I'll take what I can get here...) - he comes in 2 on 1 and passes into a kneeling d-man (so I resume being frustrated with him), but the puck bounces back to him and he scores into a half-open net...and it's like, "really?" Like, I know he didn't get 1200 points (or whatever it is) on bad bounces...but I spent a lot of time watching him at the end of the last project, I gave him a couple more games in his dead on balls prime...I don't know, boys...

It's gotta be the quietest 1000 points ever...I guess he belongs with Peter Stastny, another player that I'm not sure really meets his point totals in the games that I've seen. Then again, my frame of reference for the 80's is the Oilers...so, it's a little unfair to Stastny and Quebec. I don't know, I don't care what you do here I guess, but don't let these two get away from each other. I don't think I'm ready for them yet, personally. I think there's bigger gamebreakers on the board, and I think these are raw total guys for me. Speaking of, this might get me arrested, but I'm pretty sure Alex Delvecchio is a better player than Normie Ullman...I don't think it's by a lot, but Delvecchio was just a better pace pusher for me, both could be used in various roles and positions at ES and on the PP and do well, I think AD has a fairly similar skill set, but he knew his limitations and didn't lose so many pucks trying to make moves that he couldn't, and he was harder on the puck...he was harder going to the cage. He engaged. Normie was...well, Normie...whatever though, I'd zip tie Ullman and Stastny together as not-as-impactful-as-you'd-expect point gobblers and sit around and wait for McDavid (sorry, I'm just looking for that Dennis Bonvie like haha)

Toe Blake was more of a glue guy. Third wheel for two better players in Lach and Richard I think. Really smart and he could play the game. But I think it was more like smarter Jamie Benn than a true gamebreaker...sorry to keep using that word, but we're still basically in the top 100 for me. We're still in the top 2 rounds of the draft...I'm not interested in taking grinders and stuff yet. Blake could play, but he was Gabriel Landeskog to their MacKinnon and Rantanen for me...you can wait on him unless you're counting his coaching, then you can put him in the top 75...

On Toe Blake:

"Toe Blake was more of a glue guy. Third wheel for two better players in Lach and Richard I think."

Lach and Richard were not around when he was winning the Hart trophy.

 

[sr edler]

Iginla's overall game's probably a bit overrated by some people here who confuse his board digging activities in the o-zone with a strong two-way game. O-zone board digging is nice, but why dump and chase (and dig) the puck if you can just give it to Iggy for delicate zone entries? His Selke support is also very modest for a star player supposed to be steady two-way, and that's while being a well-liked nice guy with a good physical game.

Not going to name names of non-eligible players out of respect, but there are 2 (or 3, or two and a half) 90s wingers I wouldn't put Iginla above.

He (Iggy) was also a bit inconsistent from a season-to-season perspective, scoring in the high 90s one year, then down to the 70s for three years, then in the 90s again for a couple of years, then down to the 70s again. And apparently injuries didn't have much to do with it (?), so yeah, there it is, inconsistent, if that label should ever be used this is probably a fitting case.

I also never got swept away by the 04 playoff run. That felt more like a team effort, gritty overall defensive game with Kipper, Gélinas, et cetera. Though Iggy obviously did his share and should get credit for it. He wouldn't look out of place on a top 200 list, but perhaps it's just a little bit too early for my taste here.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

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.

During Bowie's time, there was only one professional hockey league in the world (located in Pittsburgh), and even that primarily poached players from various amateur Canadian leagues. "Standing on the shoulders of giants so that we may see farther": while we can accomplish more than those in the past, it's not necessarily because we're innately better than our predecessors.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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...

Bowie is too far back? Didn't think we did that here.

Karlsson is a difference maker, that counts heavily at this point. Bowie was THE difference maker.

I hope Serge Savard isn't one of your votes now. Guy Lapointe was a bigger difference maker than Savard.

Yes, Savard was great defensively. As great defensively as Karlsson has been bad defensively for most of his career.

That said, your opinions on player value are highly regarded so I must consider them when my final vote is cast.

 

[ted2019]

More I think of it, more I would align with this list if we swap two players. Gilmour for Maltsev and Doughty for Vasiliev.

I'd probably bump Iginla down the list but still give him the entry.

I'm with Mike Farkas, you, and the other posters who have been hesitant on Ullman at this point. He's the one I'd be least enthusiastic about the more I read up on.

Love to keep Dougie in the discussion any way possible, though. I came of age right across the border with him being the guy who could do it all for Toronto and spent the past few years gaining a better appreciation for his on-ice contributions elsewhere. His playoff record is big for me and his all-around game trumped even someone such as Iginila's.

I find Gilmour to be more and more overrated due to him playing in Toronto. Gilmour was an above average player until those 2 great seasons in Toronto. After that, he really went back to being a really good 2nd line center. I also will have Doughty ahead of Karlsson, but way below Vasiliev.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What is there to be hesitant on, again? Ullman was a player with no real weaknesses in his game

He's also by far the least PP-reliant forward available. Sort of a Henri Richard lite.

How people would think differently of Ullman if the NHL hadn't had that stupid midseason voting in the mid 60s (Ullman easily led all players in end of season Hart voting in 1964-65, but Bobby Hull beat him out in midseason voting by even more).

There seems to be some question about Ullman defensively. Seems I've heard from excellent to weak. Was he really above average?

The first NHL game I ever attended (1965?), the Red Wings beat the Bruins 1-0 and Ullman was obviously the best player on the ice. But being about 12 years old at the time, I really wasn't capable of critiquing his defensive game. The Wings had the puck most of the time anyway.

 

[Michael Farkas]

To be clearer-ish on Toe Blake, I'm not saying he was bad...but he was a smarter guy with good skill, not great skill. He kind of manufactured a Hart in a weak spot...

Dink Carroll has a lot of columns chronicling him. He's first a winner, second a real impact player is how it reads generally.

Shore had deteriorated, it was against Apps's first Hart vote, it was against Gottselig's only Hart vote in his career, and Earl Robertson...

It's not like it's unprecedented for a guy to get hot (Perry 2011) or sort of work his way into a Hart without being a superstar (Sedin 2010), or get fortunate that a lot of the star power went away (Pratt 1944, Pronger 2000, Theodore 2002)...

Again, not saying he doesn't belong anywhere close to here...that said, I don't expect to see Jamie Benn or even John LeClair any time soon...meaning further that if Normie Ullman is doesn't get enough wheels for not winning a Hart because of voting irregularities, can it not also be true that maybe Toe Blake is getting a lot of mileage out of his here...?

Of no note, he didn't get into the HOF until near the end of his extremely successful coaching career...almost two decades after he retired...

 

[Michael Farkas]

There seems to be some question about Ullman defensively. Seems I've heard from excellent to weak. Was he really above average?

The first NHL game I ever attended (1965?), the Red Wings beat the Bruins 1-0 and Ullman was obviously the best player on the ice. But being about 12 years old at the time, I really wasn't capable of critiquing his defensive game. The Wings had the puck most of the time anyway.

In the games that I've seen of Ullman, I'd say he wasn't terribly noteworthy defensively...there are times when I'd see him come back and support the play well, but it was more positional support than it was really doing the hard work. I find him pretty easy to knock off the puck, so if he's taking the traditional center's defensive abilities and actually taking a guy to the net with him (if he would actually engage in that), he wasn't very effective. You can cover a guy, or you can have a guy...he could cover a guy.

To compare to another guy on the board here, Gilmour was an, "ahhh, no you don't" defensive player. Ullman was a "eh, I had my guy" defensive player from what I've seen...I think his hockey sense is good, I think he could skate, I don't at all find him lazy or anything...but just not terribly tough to play against for the era...I'm not sure if footage exists, but I'd be really curious to see what would happen if Ullman was playing the point of the PP and had to defend even a player like Eddie Shack, just a put-your-head-down-and-go player...I don't think Ullman would want anything to do with that physically, he'd probably try to make a stab at it at some point in the NZ I'd think and then matador him...just my guess...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I hope Serge Savard isn't one of your votes now. Guy Lapointe was a bigger difference maker than Savard.

See, I'm not sure. Now, you're fortunate in the sense that I'm not a voter. But I've debated in my head whether or not Savard was helped or hurt by being a Canadien. Now, if his other choice was California or Atlanta, then no, he was not hurt by being a Canadien. If he was a Boston Bruin, I wonder if we wouldn't consider him to be as good or better than Brad Park (who I'm a big fan of)...

Savard seemed a touch restrained offensively at times and then at other times, I felt that maybe he restrained himself...I have a lot of time for Savard. There are some excellent d-men available right now, I don't know how to sort that out to be honest. I know in my brain that Savard could have won a Norris or been in the Norris conversation at least (like a 2 or a 3, instead of a 6 or whatever he was) if he really applied himself or didn't have other supernovas around him...I don't really know, but I know he didn't really maximize his potential...so I guess you have to pass here, but that was a player that was way better than his numbers in my mind...

 

[MXD]

To be clearer-ish on Toe Blake, I'm not saying he was bad...but he was a smarter guy with good skill, not great skill. He kind of manufactured a Hart in a weak spot...

It's not like it's unprecedented for a guy to get hot (Perry 2011) or sort of work his way into a Hart without being a superstar (Sedin 2010), or get fortunate that a lot of the star power went away (Pratt 1944, Pronger 2000, Theodore 2002)...
Of no note, he didn't get into the HOF until near the end of his extremely successful coaching career...almost two decades after he retired...

That was on the heels of a 2 X AS1 + AS2. Name dropping the likes of Perry, Theodore is misleading, in that it associates Blake with something akin to one hit wonders.

As for the HOF, I wouldn't read much into it. Earl Seibert and Frank Brimsek (better players than Blake) were made to wait a similar period of time, while the HHOF chose to enshrine the like of Sylvio Mantha and Alex Connell (inferior players to their positionnal counterparts Seibert and Brimsek, and to Blake) in the interim.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

See, I'm not sure. Now, you're fortunate in the sense that I'm not a voter. But I've debated in my head whether or not Savard was helped or hurt by being a Canadien. Now, if his other choice was California or Atlanta, then no, he was not hurt by being a Canadien. If he was a Boston Bruin, I wonder if we wouldn't consider him to be as good or better than Brad Park (who I'm a big fan of)...

Savard seemed a touch restrained offensively at times and then at other times, I felt that maybe he restrained himself...I have a lot of time for Savard. There are some excellent d-men available right now, I don't know how to sort that out to be honest. I know in my brain that Savard could have won a Norris or been in the Norris conversation at least (like a 2 or a 3, instead of a 6 or whatever he was) if he really applied himself or didn't have other supernovas around him...I don't really know, but I know he didn't really maximize his potential...so I guess you have to pass here, but that was a player that was way better than his numbers in my mind...

A player that was way better than his numbers seems to be a consensus. Perhaps moreso than any other player in history. I don't think he could have been as good as Brad Park. But his situation was certainly a unique one.

Forgot you are not a voter. But contributions are appreciated.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Was strictly referring to the Hart. Mentioned Benn and LeClair, who had more AS teams in better eras...

Come on MXD, go on offense with Blake, don't just defend against me haha

 

[blogofmike]

In the games that I've seen of Ullman, I'd say he wasn't terribly noteworthy defensively...there are times when I'd see him come back and support the play well, but it was more positional support than it was really doing the hard work. I find him pretty easy to knock off the puck, so if he's taking the traditional center's defensive abilities and actually taking a guy to the net with him (if he would actually engage in that), he wasn't very effective. You can cover a guy, or you can have a guy...he could cover a guy.

To compare to another guy on the board here, Gilmour was an, "ahhh, no you don't" defensive player. Ullman was a "eh, I had my guy" defensive player from what I've seen...I think his hockey sense is good, I think he could skate, I don't at all find him lazy or anything...but just not terribly tough to play against for the era...I'm not sure if footage exists, but I'd be really curious to see what would happen if Ullman was playing the point of the PP and had to defend even a player like Eddie Shack, just a put-your-head-down-and-go player...I don't think Ullman would want anything to do with that physically, he'd probably try to make a stab at it at some point in the NZ I'd think and then matador him...just my guess...

C58 would agree...

Further, to the use of videos and Norm Ullman.

1964 SC Finals game 1,going into OT but Wings are on the PP.



Norm Ullman,last man back at the Leaf blue line. Does the game go to OT?

Watch 2+ minutes. GWG at 19:58, 3rd period by Bob Pulford.

 

[BenchBrawl]

From raw impressions living in Montreal all my life, Toe Blake's legacy as a player isn't as great as Moore, Geoffrion, Joliat, Lach and Cournoyer. Make of that what you will, and other Montrealers can chime in with theirs.

This might be era-dependent, because he's squeezed between the Morenz and Richard eras, but this was also true of Cournoyer, who was squeezed between the Béliveau and Lafleur eras.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I find Gilmour to be more and more overrated due to him playing in Toronto. Gilmour was an above average player until those 2 great seasons in Toronto. After that, he really went back to being a really good 2nd line center. I also will have Doughty ahead of Karlsson, but way below Vasiliev.

From 1994-95 to 1999-00, Gilmour scored 369 points in 415 games (0.89 PTS/GP), which was good for 27th in points and 41st in points per game. At worst, that's still an average first-line player.

 

[MXD]

From raw impressions living in Montreal all my life, Toe Blake's legacy as a player isn't as great as Moore, Geoffrion, Joliat, Lach and Cournoyer. Make of that what you will, and other Montrealers can chime in with theirs.

It's not.
He's also not as good as all of these players save Cournoyer.
Ken Reardon's legacy as a player is nowhere close to Cournoyer, yet he'd be the better player (it's definitely closer than Blake vs Cournoyer) too.

Also, none of the players you mentionned have their career overshadowed by their coaching career (well, Moore was a bit overshadowed by his equipment rental business but let's not get sidetracked)