Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10

[seventieslord]

Hossa, eh?

Great player, but it seems a bit too early for him to be an option. I see him in the same tier as Alfredsson, Robitaille and Recchi. Also, I'm sure a number of people would say Toews > Hossa all-time.

I guess the question is: Was he ever a team's clear-cut best player in his entire career?

In OTT he may have been better than Alfredsson at times, but I don't think he was the face of the franchise. In ATL he had to share the spotlight with Kovalchuk, who may have had more star power. In PIT he obviously wasn't as good as Crosby or Malkin. In DET he was one of a few big name players. In his time with CHI, the team's big three consisted of Toews, Kane and Keith.

I don't think there's any question that he was better than Kovalchuk when they were together in Atlanta. Higher PPG (1.12 to 1.08) despite not getting the ridiculous, league-leading PP time Kovy did, and was +21 those seasons, not -20.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Hossa, eh?

Great player, but it seems a bit too early for him to be an option. I see him in the same tier as Alfredsson, Robitaille and Recchi. Also, I'm sure a number of people would say Toews > Hossa all-time.

I guess the question is: Was he ever a team's clear-cut best player in his entire career?

In OTT he may have been better than Alfredsson at times, but I don't think he was the face of the franchise. In ATL he had to share the spotlight with Kovalchuk, who may have had more star power. In PIT he obviously wasn't as good as Crosby or Malkin. In DET he was one of a few big name players. In his time with CHI, the team's big three consisted of Toews, Kane and Keith.

I don't think we're supposed to compare non-eligible players with those up for the vote but yes, to my mind Kovalchuk was a much more unique talent. His shot alone was ridiculous, easily top ten all time.



Hossa only has two top ten finishes in pts as well compared with Kovy who had five.

But I am a big fan of Kovalchuk.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've already said that I feel like I dropped the ball on Hedman, having him way too low on my initial list. I think it's the longevity issue that kind of messed me up on him. But, when I think about some of the defensemen we've seen in recent years, a list that includes him and Weber, along with the likes of Karlsson, Doughty, and Keith, and I realize that he fits in very well with the other names on that list, he looks good here. I think Weber is an obvious strong candidate, as he's one of the handful of best defensemen without a Norris win. Goodfellow and Barry are strong competitors as well, and they're going to compete for top spots on my list. I've been riding Thompson for a couple of rounds, and I was very high on Stuart last round, but they've got some competition now. Suchy is definitely a top 200 player for me, but it's just not time for him yet.

Honestly, I would have thought that both Laperierre and Kasatonov would have started getting more serious from me at this point, but it's just not in the cards for them right now. I've got a feeling that if we were to do something like this again in a couple of years, this is a round that would stand out as one where we learned some key refining lessons.

I don't think you/we dropped the bar on Hedman. When we did our lists, he was in the middle of what according to the Norris voters was just his 4th elite season. It's 4 elite seasons in a row now, which is really good consistency as a top player. But still, without his 2020 playoffs (which didn't happen yet when we made our lists), I'd think he'd be a fairly easy NR for me. But that Conn Smythe definitely put an exclamation mark on Hedman's career.

____

Edit:

I'll be honest - I found Hedman's short prime (both according to Norris voters and according to seventieslord's post about ice time) to be fairly surprising. Feels like he's been around forever. My sense of passing time has really been screwed up by the pandemic though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Norris/All-Star records of the available candidates

My method of compiling All-Star records for pre-Norris defensemen (Goodfellow) here: Making sense of All Star Defense voting 1931-1943

For the Norris, my cutcoff is "at least one top 3 vote:"

I'm commenting on competition for any top 3 finishes:

Goodfellow: 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 8, 10 (also 3, 4 at center)

When he was 3rd in Center voting in 30-31, he was behind Morenz and Boucher. Goodfellow was also 4th in Hart voting that year.
When he was 3rd in combined D voting in 35-36, he was behind Shore and Babe Siebert.
When he was 2nd in combined D voting in 36-37, he was behind Babe Siebert, ahead of Earl Seibert. Goodfellow was also 3rd in Hart voting that year (behind Babe Siebert and a different defenseman Lionel Conacher)
When he was 2nd in combined D voting in 39-40, he was behind Clapper, ahead of Art Coulter. But he won the Hart Trophy (over Clapper and Coulter)

Laperriere: 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9


When he finished 2nd in 64-65, he was below Pilote and beat out Gadsby.
When he won the Norris in 65-66, he beat out Pilote and Pat Stapleton.

Weber: 2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 7, 8, 10



Weber was runner up in 10-11 to Lidstrom ahead of Chara.
He was runner up in 11-12 to Karlsson ahead of Chara
He was 3rd in 13-14 behind Keith and Chara.

Hedman: 1, 3, 3, 3, 7, 9



Hedman finished 3rd in 16-17 behind Burns/Karlsson.
He won the Norris in 17-18 over Doughty/Subban
He finished 3rd in 18-19 behind Giordano/Burns
He finished 3rd in 19-20 behind Josi/Carlsson

_____________________________

What their records would look like if I "removed" anyone already added to our list. (Note this may be unfair to Hedman, who is competing with guys who haven't completely their legacies):

Goodfellow: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 (also, 1, 3 at center)
Laperriere: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, ? ? would technically be 4th but in reality Laperriere was 9th with only minimal votes
Weber: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
Hedman: 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5

I think this illustrates my point pretty well.

Weber would have a better record record, slightly, but again, it's not a major difference and his postseason record is such an empty bowl, I just can't get there with him. His resume is all regular season.

Laperriere at 22 years old, in his first full year(63/64) and was facing:

32 year old Pierre Pilote
34 year old Tim Horton
25 year old JC Tremblay
33 year old Marcel Pronovost
25 year old Carl Brewer
31 year old Harry Howell
28 year old Moose Vasko

In his first full season he won the Calder, was a 2nd team AS (behind only Pilote and Horton) w/Vasko and got more Norris votes than all but those 3.

Next year he was a 1st team AS with Pilote, finishing runner up for Norris to Pilote, getting more votes than Horton, Gadsby, Pronovost, Tremblay, etc, etc.

Then won his Norris in 66 over Pilote, Stapleton, Tremblay. And he still had 5 more years getting top 9 Norris placements, not bad considering the players who showed up in 67/68 and beyond, and the his lack of offensive numbers.

Plus there is the special teams roles study which paints Laperriere in a glowing light especially at ES and on the PK. Toe Blake and company leaned on him heavily in all situations.

I've heard some talk about the quality of peers being "weaker" during Lappy's time but the rosters you see from 64 through 73/74 tell a different story. As does the voting records already put out.

I think an argument can be made for Goodfellow based on his Hart win, but I don't see Hedman having enough longevity and Weber's lack of playoff data is tough to overlook against his comp here. I'd maybe give Weber more of a look if he separated himself clearly on the Norris register, but even that doesn't happen.

 

[ted2019]

I feel there's been a groundswell of support demanding Hedman's inclusion for a while now. He's probably getting in fast.

I don't even see much sense in discussing him, he seems to have been pre-coronated our #146 player. However, I've always wondered why he never earned more icetime on the Lightning. In the middle of his age 30 season, his career TOI average is just 23:06. Compare that to other elite defensemen by about the same age. Karlsson, Doughty, Weber, Keith - all significantly ahead of him in this regard. And then there's Suter, who may be a TOI outlier due to his unique stamina and the lack of depth on Minnesota's defense for years. But then you haver other comparable role players like Pietrangelo and Josi (who we'd all agree are a step below Hedman in skills and career value) and even a player seen mostly as offensive, Kris Letang, all significantly ahead of Hedman in career TOI. In four of the last five seasons, Hedman has finally been given the TOI befitting a true, elite, all-situations #1 defenseman. But why did it take so long for him to earn "big boy" ice time when it didn't take those other guys long at all?

Those who are clamouring for Hedman's immediate addition to the list aren't necessarily wrong, I haven't thought too hard about where I'll put him but I think he'll get my vote. But this is all based on the last 5 seasons including this one, isn't it? Because before that, he was "just" a 22 minute player with less than half a point per game on his career and a few scattered norris votes.

I love Hedman, but he won't sniff my top 5. He is an elite player now obviously, but it's only been for the past 4 seasons.

 

[ted2019]

I think this illustrates my point pretty well.

Weber would have a better record record, slightly, but again, it's not a major difference and his postseason record is such an empty bowl, I just can't get there with him. His resume is all regular season.

Laperriere at 22 years old, in his first full year(63/64) and was facing:

32 year old Pierre Pilote
34 year old Tim Horton
25 year old JC Tremblay
33 year old Marcel Pronovost
25 year old Carl Brewer
31 year old Harry Howell
28 year old Moose Vasko

In his first full season he won the Calder, was a 2nd team AS (behind only Pilote and Horton) w/Vasko and got more Norris votes than all but those 3.

Next year he was a 1st team AS with Pilote, finishing runner up for Norris to Pilote, getting more votes than Horton, Gadsby, Pronovost, Tremblay, etc, etc.

Then won his Norris in 66 over Pilote, Stapleton, Tremblay. And he still had 5 more years getting top 9 Norris placements, not bad considering the players who showed up in 67/68 and beyond, and the his lack of offensive numbers.

Plus there is the special teams roles study which paints Laperriere in a glowing light especially at ES and on the PK. Toe Blake and company leaned on him heavily in all situations.

I've heard some talk about the quality of peers being "weaker" during Lappy's time but the rosters you see from 64 through 73/74 tell a different story. As does the voting records already put out.

I think an argument can be made for Goodfellow based on his Hart win, but I don't see Hedman having enough longevity and Weber's lack of playoff data is tough to overlook against his comp here. I'd maybe give Weber more of a look if he separated himself clearly on the Norris register, but even that doesn't happen.

Weber had his chance at the Norris when he had Suter on his team. I count Weber as having 5 really good seasons with 1 being elite (11-12). I won't have Weber in my top 5 either I don't think.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think this illustrates my point pretty well.

Weber would have a better record record, slightly, but again, it's not a major difference and his postseason record is such an empty bowl, I just can't get there with him. His resume is all regular season.

Laperriere at 22 years old, in his first full year(63/64) and was facing:

32 year old Pierre Pilote
34 year old Tim Horton
25 year old JC Tremblay
33 year old Marcel Pronovost
25 year old Carl Brewer
31 year old Harry Howell
28 year old Moose Vasko

In his first full season he won the Calder, was a 2nd team AS (behind only Pilote and Horton) w/Vasko and got more Norris votes than all but those 3.

Next year he was a 1st team AS with Pilote, finishing runner up for Norris to Pilote, getting more votes than Horton, Gadsby, Pronovost, Tremblay, etc, etc.

Then won his Norris in 66 over Pilote, Stapleton, Tremblay. And he still had 5 more years getting top 9 Norris placements, not bad considering the players who showed up in 67/68 and beyond, and the his lack of offensive numbers.

Plus there is the special teams roles study which paints Laperriere in a glowing light especially at ES and on the PK. Toe Blake and company leaned on him heavily in all situations.

I've heard some talk about the quality of peers being "weaker" during Lappy's time but the rosters you see from 64 through 73/74 tell a different story. As does the voting records already put out.

I think an argument can be made for Goodfellow based on his Hart win, but I don't see Hedman having enough longevity and Weber's lack of playoff data is tough to overlook against his comp here. I'd maybe give Weber more of a look if he separated himself clearly on the Norris register, but even that doesn't happen.

At first glance, that list of players looks like below average competition, at least a little bit, especially since Tremblay seemed to play a subtle non-physical game that I'd suspect took voters a little while to appreciate. At least a little weaker than what Goodfellow (Shore, Seibert, Clapper) and Weber (Keith, old Lidstrom, young Karlsson, ageless Chara) faced. Hedman is too soon to tell, though I really doubt Brett Burns will be thought of super highly in 10 years, but we'll see.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't think we're supposed to compare non-eligible players with those up for the vote but yes, to my mind Kovalchuk was a much more unique talent. His shot alone was ridiculous, easily top ten all time.



Hossa only has two top ten finishes in pts as well compared with Kovy who had five.

But I am a big fan of Kovalchuk.

You are really kidding yourself if you think Kovy was a better player than Hossa.

 

[ImporterExporter]

At first glance, that list of players looks like below average competition, especially since Tremblay seemed to play a subtle non-physical game that I'd suspect took voters a little while to appreciate. At least a little weaker than what Goodfellow (Shore, Seibert, Clapper) and Weber (Keith, old Lidstrom, young Karlsson, ageless Chara) faced. Hedman is too soon to tell, though I really doubt Brett Burns will be thought of super highly in 10 years, but we'll see.

Only if you look at the first few years though I don't think Pilote, Horton, Tremblay, Brewer, Stapleton, Howell, etc is much different collectively from Weber's era.

Then once you hit the back 3rd of the 60's, the talent really starts to pop, replacing the Pilote's/Horton's.

Consider:

66-67 - Orr shows up
67-68 - Savard shows up
68-69 - Park shows up

I don't think those other guys had any tougher sledding for votes among peers, (Orr, Park, Pilote, Horton, etc, etc,).

Weber started getting real recognition in Lidstrom's age 38 season. Keith, Chara (was in his 30's), Karlsson are no better all time than Park, Pilote (was 32 when Lap won the Norris), Horton (was 34) collectively.

The talent wasn't legendary when Laperriere came into the league but there are a couple of top 20 Dmen all time present and then the greatest ever rolled in and immediately started dominating by 1967.

Goodfellow had a trio of very strong comp's. He's the only guy I'd really consider over Laperriere here but it's more of a utility vs D only player so not a total apples to apples comparison because on strictly D resume's I don't get there w/Goodfellow, mainly because his Hart came after Morenz/Shore were gone/last season and before the Richard era began. I have a lot of respect for players that were good at multiple positions and EG fits that bill.

And again, it's not like any of these guys have outstanding playoffs that dwarf Laperriere's contributions to at least the 68, 69, and 71 teams. Weber's postseason record is just so far behind the other guys.

Goodfellow likely has a 1st team AS in 36-37 because Shore only played 20 games btw. Considering he won the Hart on either side of that season.

I just like how you can look at Laperriere's hardware/postseason recognition, especially being a defense first player, his usage (quantifiable), his contributions in the playoffs, even if it was more sporadic than the regular season, there are still multiple good, full runs on title teams.

He has less holes than the other guys IMO, outside of maybe Goodfellow.

 

[Nick Hansen]

You are really kidding yourself if you think Kovy was a better player than Hossa.

Just promise me you won't be voting for Hossa ahead of Kariya.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just promise me you won't be voting for Hossa ahead of Kariya.

I have them very close.

I'll make no promises.

 

[The Macho King]

At first glance, that list of players looks like below average competition, at least a little bit, especially since Tremblay seemed to play a subtle non-physical game that I'd suspect took voters a little while to appreciate. At least a little weaker than what Goodfellow (Shore, Seibert, Clapper) and Weber (Keith, old Lidstrom, young Karlsson, ageless Chara) faced. Hedman is too soon to tell, though I really doubt Brett Burns will be thought of super highly in 10 years, but we'll see.

One thing with Burns' season is I agree, I don't think his legacy is going to age well. But I don't think that means his performance *that season* won't age well. I think thats a Doug Wilson lightning in a bottle year.

Hedman was the best defenseman in the league that year, but two things worked against him. First (and most obvious), is that was his first season finishing top 3 in the Norris voting. Whether fairly or not, Norris is largely reputation-based so it generally takes awhile for a player to build enough of a rep to win one. Now he has a couple of top 10 finishes before that and a very impressive showing in the '15 playoffs (where if Tampa wins he gets the Smythe in a walk), but Burns and Karlsson were far more established.

The second issue was Tampa missed the playoffs that season. This is one of the things that has been happening when looking at Tampa lately - they look at the team from the TDL of 2018 when they added McDonagh and backdate them being a powerhouse/favorite much further back. But that season Hedman scored 72 points and was 4 points behind Burns (and I believe 2 behind Karlsson), but with Tampa not making the playoffs, that narrative really cut him off. Now why didn't Tampa make the playoffs?

Stamkos tears his meniscus early in the season. Tampa's forward core gets gutted with injuries - guys like Filppula, Tyler Johnson, Ondrej Palat, and Vlad Namestnikov all miss significant time throughout the season or are traded. There was a period of four games around the TDL where Tampa lost through injuries or trade their top 5 Centers.

This was in some ways a blessing in disguise - this allowed for Brayden Point to get a lot more ice time and started his breakout, but he was still a rookie. Also, Nikita Kucherov missed about 10 games and this was his breakout season (85 points - pace for just shy of 100 in a full year). So Hedman put up 72 points with a combination of Nikita Kucherov and Jonathan Drouin as the two best forwards on the team.

One of the reasons I maintain this is the best "third place finish" I can remember is Hedman did all of this as the top defenseman on the team without a second pair to speak of. Jason Garrison anchored the second pair and Braydon Coburn anchored the third. Both would be finished in the NHL as regulars in the next couple of seasons (other notable defensemen include Andrej Sustr - also out of the league soon, Anton Stralman - admittedly a solid player, Jake Dotchin who is out of the league, Luke Witkowski, and Nikita Nesterov).

Despite that, Tampa was one point out of the playoffs.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't have the time to change anyhting else right at this moment, but the OP has been updated to reflect the fact that Tiny Thompson is no longer up for discussion, and Vladimir Petrov now is.

Westex's ballot changed who got in. It was received on time and not forwarded to me.

 

[MXD]

I don't have the time to change anyhting else right at this moment, but the OP has been updated to reflect the fact that Tiny Thompson is no longer up for discussion, and Vladimir Petrov now is.

Westex's ballot changed who got in. It was received on time and not forwarded to me.

I knew it was a possible result. I don't like it. But at least I stood for what felt and was right.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Like Kariya, Petrov, and Goodfellow in this field

Hedman is also going to receive serious consideration from me.

IE really pimping Lappierre makes me at least look at him more, but I really struggle with adding another "dynasty" Habs D

 

[bobholly39]

I don't have the time to change anyhting else right at this moment, but the OP has been updated to reflect the fact that Tiny Thompson is no longer up for discussion, and Vladimir Petrov now is.

Westex's ballot changed who got in. It was received on time and not forwarded to me.

Cool - thanks for update. Caught early enough, so no worries

 

[bobholly39]

I don't get the lack of support for Kariya to be honest. I feel like he's way past due at this point.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A case for Marty Barry.

Goal scoring

While slightly below the highest level of 1930s goal scorers (e.g. Charlie Conacher), Barry was certainly one of the elite of his generation. At his peak he was a top-3 goal scorer and he was solidly top-10 throughout his prime, bearing in mind that many of the guys ahead of him were wingers. Among centers, he places behind only Nels Stewart as a goal scorer during his prime (1930-37). And Stewart bounced around the lineup quite a bit, so it's not entirely certain that Barry wasn't the leading goal-scorer from the actual center position during this period. In the mid-30s, Barry took Boston's 1C position directly over Stewart, bearing in mind they were only 3 years separated in age.

It's one of those "Stastny was the 2nd highest scorer of the 80s" type stats, but one of the feathers in his cap is that he was 1st in points, 1st in assists, and 2nd in goals for the 10-year span from 1930-31 to 1939-40. Yes, those rankings look slightly worse if you shift the timeframe by a year or two -- but only slightly worse (more like 2nd than 1st). He was legitimately a top scorer leaguewide for an entire decade, with only Nels Stewart being in his range as a long-term compiler.

Barry is one of the rare cases where a high-scoring C scores more goals than assists. It's not that he was a bad playmaker (he's tied for 5th in assists during his prime) but he was deadly as a shooter.

High Peak, Strong Prime

His peak season saw him win the 1AS, the retro-Smythe, the Byng, and a 5th place Hart finish. His 5th, 6th, 7th best seasons still had him as a very good top-line centerman.

Notwithstanding his final season before retirement, Barry's only really weak showing came in 1938, when he fell to 27th in scoring (8-team league). Going into the following season, Jack Adams talked about shifting Barry to defense and finally settled on using him as a "center captain", meaning he would play on the 1st line with flexibility to double-shift on whatever line needed a playmaker at the moment. Barry responded with a bounce-back season. If he had played 60 years later, it's conceivable that he might have had a Modano-like second prime as a more rounded defensive presence -- that's the direction he was headed when he called it quits at age 34, which was not out of place for that era.

Consistency

Barry's scoring stayed remarkably consistent under a wide variety of conditions.

• In the early 1930s, playing on the second line behind a peak Cooney Weiland, he was good for a solid 20 goals.
• In the mid-30s he was the pivot of the Bruins' top line and good for 20-25 goals and 35-40 points regardless of whether the team was a contender or an also-ran.
• Traded to Detroit, he immediately led a 1st place team in goal scoring. The following season, he set a new career high in assists as his linemate Larry Aurie led the league in goal scoring. Even when over the hill, he led the Wings in scoring at age 33 (over a prime-aged Syd Howe).

Durability

A big part of Barry's success as a compiler was his iron-man status. At one point he missed only 2 games out of 470, over a span of 10 years. His constant availability in the lineup was a stabilizing factor in what at times were chaotic situations in Boston and Detroit.

Leadership

Barry was one of the "forgotten" captains in Boston that were identified by @Puckstruck. Inexplicably, the Bruins do not recognize this officially. He was also captain in Detroit. Barry was known as a quiet, lead-by-example type. This goes back to his consistency and durability. When a guy is out there in the trenches every night, he doesn't necessarily need to shout in order for others to follow him.

Playoffs

His ATD bio notes that Barry scored as much in the playoffs as the regular season, making him an exception to the rule during his era.

Unlike some of the other 1930s Bruins, Barry was able to break through the "playoff underachiever" label by immediately winning two consecutive Stanley Cups after joining the Wings.

In 1937, Barry led the playoffs in all three scoring categories, winning the retro-Smythe per both the HHOF and THN projects. Given that he scored over 50% more than the next-nearest player (11 - 7), this one has to be up there among the top playoff runs of the era.

Barry also led the 1930 Bruins (as a rookie) and 1933 Bruins in playoff scoring. The black mark on his record is being shut out over 4 games in 1935; the Bruins as a whole scored only 2 goals in that series. Notably, Barry did not receive credit for a secondary assist on one of those goals, the 2OT winner in Game 1. The rest of the series he was shadowed closely by Frank Finnigan and the Bruins as a whole couldn't get anything going.


Summary

Barry is by no means a complete player. He doesn't give you much defense, and his playmaking was probably about average for a top center.

But he does give you a reasonably well-rounded case for this stage of the project: he was a truly elite goal scorer (especially for the center) and the center pivot of some very good lines on very good teams, one of the most durable and consistent players ever, and one of the better playoff performers we'll see in this range.

 

[Professor What]

I don't think you/we dropped the bar on Hedman. When we did our lists, he was in the middle of what according to the Norris voters was just his 4th elite season. It's 4 elite seasons in a row now, which is really good consistency as a top player. But still, without his 2020 playoffs (which didn't happen yet when we made our lists), I'd think he'd be a fairly easy NR for me. But that Conn Smythe definitely put an exclamation mark on Hedman's career.

____

Edit:

I'll be honest - I found Hedman's short prime (both according to Norris voters and according to seventieslord's post about ice time) to be fairly surprising. Feels like he's been around forever. My sense of passing time has really been screwed up by the pandemic though.

Good points, especially when all assembled like that. When you frame it like that, it's very easy to see him being much lower than this, and therefore meaning I might not have missed by much. I guess now the question I have to ask myself is how much that Norris and Smythe swing things. They were worthy wins and should make a difference, but how much? He might be the toughest decision for me at this point.

 

[MXD]

Like Kariya, Petrov, and Goodfellow in this field

Hedman is also going to receive serious consideration from me.

IE really pimping Lappierre makes me at least look at him more, but I really struggle with adding another "dynasty" Habs D

I'll repeat a question I asked on the V9 thread :

Which Canadiens player in his prime during the dynasty for which Laperrière starred, which is the 65-69 dynasty, has been added to the list?

Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard were slipping (very gracefully, but slipping nonetheless) into post-prime AND were part of another dynasty, and Beliveau would obviously have already been voted if he didn't even play a game for the 65-69 dynasty. None of the other 56-60 dynasty players in the list were still playing for the Canadiens at that time. Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe and Jacques Lemaire weren't yet in their primes and weren't even there for the whole 65-69 dynasty, not to mention they're usually not really associated with that dynasty (with cause, I might add), and Lemaire may even not make the list. Rogatien Vachon, Jean-Claude Tremblay, Yvan Cournoyer and Lorne Worsley aren't on the list (yet), and some of them might miss it entierely; also, all of these players save Cournoyer added non-negligible (Worsley) or sizeable (Vachon) or somewhere in between (Tremblay) value while they weren't with the Canadiens. Tony Esposito doesn't count. Claude Provost, Ralph Backstrom, Robert Rousseau and Dick Duff won't make the list.

There are valid reasons to be a bit cold on Laperrière (Hedman, Weber, Barry and Goodfellow being available at the same time is certainly a very good one) at this point. The above isn't one. Nor will it be smart to later on overlook the best WHA defensemen because he ALSO happened to play for Canadiens.

 

[Professor What]

I'll repeat an question I asked on the V9 thread :

Which Canadiens player in his prime during the dynasty for which Laperrière starred, which is the 65-69 dynasty, has been added to the list?

Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard were slipping (very gracefully, but slipping nonetheless) into post-prime AND were part of another dynasty, and Beliveau would obviously have already been voted if he didn't even play a game for the 65-69 dynasty. None of the other 56-60 dynasty players in the list were still playing for the Canadiens at that time. Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe and Jacques Lemaire weren't yet in their primes and weren't even there for the whole 65-69 dynasty, not to mention they're usually not really associated with that dynasty (with cause, I might add), and Lemaire may even not make the list. Rogatien Vachon, Jean-Claude Tremblay, Yvan Cournoyer and Lorne Worsley aren't on the list (yet), and some of them might miss it entierely; also, all of these players save Cournoyer added non-negligible (Worsley) or sizeable (Vachon) or somewhere in between (Tremblay) value while they weren't with the Canadiens. Tony Esposito doesn't count. Claude Provost, Ralph Backstrom, Robert Rousseau and Dick Duff won't make the list.

There are valid reasons to be a bit cold on Laperrière (Hedman, Weber, Barry and Goodfellow being available at the same time is certainly a very good one) at this point. The above isn't one. Nor will it be smart to later on overlook the best WHA defensemen because he ALSO happened to play for Canadiens.

I said earlier that I thought Laperierre was going to look really good coming into this round and that the new competition set him back. Honestly, the competition here is the only reason I can see for holding him back right now. I just don't think the number of players that fit whatever category that are already on the list should affect whether another player in that category makes it. Players should be judged on their own merits, not on who's already or not already on the list.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'll repeat an question I asked on the V9 thread :

Which Canadiens player in his prime during the dynasty for which Laperrière starred, which is the 65-69 dynasty, has been added to the list?

Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard were slipping (very gracefully, but slipping nonetheless) into post-prime AND were part of another dynasty, and Beliveau would obviously have already been voted if he didn't even play a game for the 65-69 dynasty. None of the other 56-60 dynasty players in the list were still playing for the Canadiens at that time. Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe and Jacques Lemaire weren't yet in their primes and weren't even there for the whole 65-69 dynasty, not to mention they're usually not really associated with that dynasty (with cause, I might add), and Lemaire may even not make the list. Rogatien Vachon, Jean-Claude Tremblay, Yvan Cournoyer and Lorne Worsley aren't on the list (yet), and some of them might miss it entierely. Tony Esposito doesn't count. Claude Provost, Ralph Backstrom, Robert Rousseau and Dick Duff won't make the list.

There are valid reasons to be a bit cold on Laperrière (Hedman, Weber, Barry and Goodfellow being available at the same time is certainly a very good one) at this point. The above isn't one.

That's an interesting way to look at it. That dynasty gets overlooked in general, but it's kind of eye-opening to realize we're just now talking about adding the second player from a 4-Cup/5-Final dynasty who actually earned consistent recognition during that time period.

Other official dynasties with player rankings:

80s Oilers (4) - Gretzky (1), Messier (21), Coffey (48), Kurri (76)
80s Islanders (3) - Potvin (18), Trottier (31), Bossy (36)
70s Canadiens (5) - Lafleur (23), Robinson (37), Dryden (46), Savard (119), Lapointe (135)
60s Canadiens (3) - Beliveau (6), H Richard (49), Savard (119)
60s Maple Leafs (7) - Kelly (17), Sawchuk (35), Horton (65), Mahovlich (71), Keon (99), Bower (113), Pronovost (139)
50s Canadiens (7) - Beliveau (6), Harvey (8), Richard (9), Plante (19), H Richard (49), Geoffrion (60), Moore (68)
50s Red Wings (7) - Howe (2), Kelly (17), Sawchuk (35), Lindsay (38), Abel (100), Delvecchio (126), Pronovost (139)
40s Maple Leafs (4) - Apps (45), Kennedy (58), Bentley (77), Broda (83)
20s Senators (6) - Nighbor (20), Clancy (44), Sprague Cleghorn (57), Benedict (74), Denneny (79), Gerard (105)

Now, there's nothing wrong with holding the 60s Habs as the least of these dynasties, and holding Laperriere as the least of the individual players named. We're not Cup-counting here, so there has to be a bit more meat on the bone than just a dynasty membership. Still, it's interesting to note that this may be the odd case where a Habs connection actually works against him.

Dynasty fatigue would make sense if directed at a player like Olmstead, Duff, Lemaire. But Laperriere was arguably the second-most important player of a dynasty. It feels a bit odd to penalize him for that because we're sick of inducting Habs.

 

[ted2019]

Like Kariya, Petrov, and Goodfellow in this field

Hedman is also going to receive serious consideration from me.

IE really pimping Lappierre makes me at least look at him more, but I really struggle with adding another "dynasty" Habs D

What does it matter on what team a player comes from if they are good enough to be voted in? Once again, this is for the top 200 players of all time and not the "we can only have 10 Habs players only and fill the rest in" of all time. I don't understand that reasoning.

 

[ted2019]

I like Ebbie/Kariya/Petrov right off the bat, to go along with Laperriere up high and the rest I have to decide on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A case for Marty Barry.

Goal scoring

While slightly below the highest level of 1930s goal scorers (e.g. Charlie Conacher), Barry was certainly one of the elite of his generation. At his peak he was a top-3 goal scorer and he was solidly top-10 throughout his prime, bearing in mind that many of the guys ahead of him were wingers. Among centers, he places behind only Nels Stewart as a goal scorer during his prime (1930-37). And Stewart bounced around the lineup quite a bit, so it's not entirely certain that Barry wasn't the leading goal-scorer from the actual center position during this period. In the mid-30s, Barry took Boston's 1C position directly over Stewart, bearing in mind they were only 3 years separated in age.

It's one of those "Stastny was the 2nd highest scorer of the 80s" type stats, but one of the feathers in his cap is that he was 1st in points, 1st in assists, and 2nd in goals for the 10-year span from 1930-31 to 1939-40. Yes, those rankings look slightly worse if you shift the timeframe by a year or two -- but only slightly worse (more like 2nd than 1st). He was legitimately a top scorer leaguewide for an entire decade, with only Nels Stewart being in his range as a long-term compiler.

Barry is one of the rare cases where a high-scoring C scores more goals than assists. It's not that he was a bad playmaker (he's tied for 5th in assists during his prime) but he was deadly as a shooter.

High Peak, Strong Prime

His peak season saw him win the 1AS, the retro-Smythe, the Byng, and a 5th place Hart finish. His 5th, 6th, 7th best seasons still had him as a very good top-line centerman.

Notwithstanding his final season before retirement, Barry's only really weak showing came in 1938, when he fell to 27th in scoring (8-team league). Going into the following season, Jack Adams talked about shifting Barry to defense and finally settled on using him as a "center captain", meaning he would play on the 1st line with flexibility to double-shift on whatever line needed a playmaker at the moment. Barry responded with a bounce-back season. If he had played 60 years later, it's conceivable that he might have had a Modano-like second prime as a more rounded defensive presence -- that's the direction he was headed when he called it quits at age 34, which was not out of place for that era.

Consistency

Barry's scoring stayed remarkably consistent under a wide variety of conditions.

• In the early 1930s, playing on the second line behind a peak Cooney Weiland, he was good for a solid 20 goals.
• In the mid-30s he was the pivot of the Bruins' top line and good for 20-25 goals and 35-40 points regardless of whether the team was a contender or an also-ran.
• Traded to Detroit, he immediately led a 1st place team in goal scoring. The following season, he set a new career high in assists as his linemate Larry Aurie led the league in goal scoring. Even when over the hill, he led the Wings in scoring at age 33 (over a prime-aged Syd Howe).

Durability

A big part of Barry's success as a compiler was his iron-man status. At one point he missed only 2 games out of 470, over a span of 10 years. His constant availability in the lineup was a stabilizing factor in what at times were chaotic situations in Boston and Detroit.

Leadership

Barry was one of the "forgotten" captains in Boston that were identified by @Puckstruck. Inexplicably, the Bruins do not recognize this officially. He was also captain in Detroit. Barry was known as a quiet, lead-by-example type. This goes back to his consistency and durability. When a guy is out there in the trenches every night, he doesn't necessarily need to shout in order for others to follow him.

Playoffs

His ATD bio notes that Barry scored as much in the playoffs as the regular season, making him an exception to the rule during his era.

Unlike some of the other 1930s Bruins, Barry was able to break through the "playoff underachiever" label by immediately winning two consecutive Stanley Cups after joining the Wings.

In 1937, Barry led the playoffs in all three scoring categories, winning the retro-Smythe per both the HHOF and THN projects. Given that he scored over 50% more than the next-nearest player (11 - 7), this one has to be up there among the top playoff runs of the era.

Barry also led the 1930 Bruins (as a rookie) and 1933 Bruins in playoff scoring. The black mark on his record is being shut out over 4 games in 1935; the Bruins as a whole scored only 2 goals in that series. Notably, Barry did not receive credit for a secondary assist on one of those goals, the 2OT winner in Game 1. The rest of the series he was shadowed closely by Frank Finnigan and the Bruins as a whole couldn't get anything going.


Summary

Barry is by no means a complete player. He doesn't give you much defense, and his playmaking was probably about average for a top center.

But he does give you a reasonably well-rounded case for this stage of the project: he was a truly elite goal scorer (especially for the center) and the center pivot of some very good lines on very good teams, one of the most durable and consistent players ever, and one of the better playoff performers we'll see in this range.

.
When @Hockey Outsider is able to post his tables, I expect to see Barry having the highest 7-year VsX average this round. In fact, now that Schriner is added, I'm pretty sure that only Steven Stamkos has a higher 7-year average than Barry (and unlike Stamkos, playoffs are a strength for Barry.

Just looking at top 10 finishes, Barry looks so good this round:

Goals

1930-31 NHL 20 (9th)

1931-32 NHL 21 (8th)

1932-33 NHL 24 (3rd)

1933-34 NHL 27 (2nd)

1935-36 NHL 21 (3rd)

1936-37 NHL 17 (10th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Assists

1935-36 NHL 19 (7th)

1936-37 NHL 27 (2nd)

1938-39 NHL 28 (4th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Points

1932-33 NHL 37 (7th)

1933-34 NHL 39 (4th)

1934-35 NHL 40 (8th)

1935-36 NHL 40 (2nd)

1936-37 NHL 44 (3rd)

1938-39 NHL 41 (4th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

(I realize you touched on this, but it's sometimes nice to have it spelled out like that).

And on top of being arguably the best forward this round in the regular season, Barry's also arguably the best playoff performer of the 1930s (the HOH Top Playoff Performers project not even considering Barry was a big timer FAIL IMO, though I realize that omissions will happen the first time something is tried).