Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 4

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
[Mod] but I just wanted to point out that you gave props to five players: forwards who played during your lifetime.

The other ten players are: a goalie, six defensemen, and three forwards who didn't play during your lifetime.

There just might be some biases at play here.

[Mod] I have been watching hockey for over 40 years and studying hockey for longer than that, including many players in this discussion before my time. I don't give a lot of credence to extra old time hockey, when the caliber of players wasn't very good, and goalies definitely were not equipped to stop pucks. That's my bias. Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[Mod] I have been watching hockey for over 40 years and studying hockey for longer than that, including many players in this discussion before my time. I don't give a lot of credence to extra old time hockey, when the caliber of players wasn't very good, and goalies definitely were not equipped to stop pucks. That's my bias. Thank you.

If you don't really like "old time hockey", then why post here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: voyageur
Life got in the way so I haven't been participating, but how do we reconcile Langway's huge reputation vis a vis his performance? 2 Norris' with frankly bad offense in an era of all offense (against a fairly strong group of defenders at that) - I know a lot of that is written off as kind of a PHWA voter rebellion, but I think even factoring that, he has to be viewed as the best pure defender of the early 80s.

Is that good enough to be this high on the list?
 
Even Strength points vs. Special Team points amongst the forwards. (Don't have Special Team numbers for Jackson from 1929-30 to 1932-33)

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Player[/TD][TD]Even Strength[/TD][TD]Special Teams[/TD][TD]Special Teams %[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ron Francis[/TD][TD] 1798[/TD][TD] 758[/TD][TD] 42.1%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Peter Stastny[/TD][TD] 1239[/TD][TD] 480[/TD][TD] 38.7%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Pavel Datsyuk[/TD][TD] 918[/TD][TD] 341[/TD][TD] 37.1%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Pavel Bure[/TD][TD] 779[/TD][TD] 285[/TD][TD] 36.5%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Gilbert Perreault[/TD][TD] 1326[/TD][TD] 444[/TD][TD] 33.4%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Alex Delvecchio[/TD][TD] 1289[/TD][TD] 407[/TD][TD] 31.5%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Doug Bentley[/TD][TD] 543[/TD][TD] 121[/TD][TD] 22.2%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Busher Jackson[/TD][TD] 475[/TD][TD] 53[/TD][TD] 11.1%[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

I think Even Strength should read as Total.
 
Life got in the way so I haven't been participating, but how do we reconcile Langway's huge reputation vis a vis his performance? 2 Norris' with frankly bad offense in an era of all offense (against a fairly strong group of defenders at that) - I know a lot of that is written off as kind of a PHWA voter rebellion, but I think even factoring that, he has to be viewed as the best pure defender of the early 80s.

Is that good enough to be this high on the list?

His Norris trophies were at least somewhat of a reaction by media members who thought they had gone too far in recognizing defensemen who played the "wrong" way: Randy Carlyle and Doug Wilson had just won back-to-back Norrises on the strength of their offensive numbers, and Paul Coffey's star was growing.
 
I believe you were the one who compared them originally as fellow cherry pickers.

I compared them as number 1 ranked to 116 ranked.

Difference is that Gretzky has the best offensive resume ever, while Bure's is fairly middle-of-the-road (except in goals-per-game), compared to who else is available this round.
 
His Norris trophies were at least somewhat of a reaction by media members who thought they had gone too far in recognizing defensemen who played the "wrong" way: Randy Carlyle and Doug Wilson had just won back-to-back Norrises on the strength of their offensive numbers, and Paul Coffey's star was growing.
Yeah I totally acknowledge that and I am happy to concede that he was not the best defensemen in those seasons (which probably goes to some combination of Bourque, Howe, and he who shall not be named because he does not know where the defensive zone is).

But it's a strong era for Dmen, and him being call it the fourth best Dman and the best pure defender based on rep - is that good enough?

I guess I am saying in comparison to BQ and Stewart in a weak era, and Savard/LaPointe who were 2nd and 3rd best on their own team and that's not factoring in guys like Potvin...

I like Langway here. I guess I'm lobbying without lobbying by arguing he should be at the top of this group of Dmen. He doesn't have the postseason success exactly, but the Habs were playing on a friggin all-star team so I don't want to give too much credit to the 5th and 6th best player on a team over a guy who was the best player on his.
 
Difference is that Gretzky has the best offensive resume ever, while Bure's is fairly middle-of-the-road (except in goals-per-game), compared to who else is available this round.

He's not middle-of-the-road offensively in this group, he's clearly above average. If you think he's middle-of-the-road offensively here you're staring yourself blind on this VsX thing. There's also no significant gap offensively between Bure and Busher Jackson, unless one stares oneself blind on VsX (or something).

In this group I would say only Stastny was an overall better point producer than Bure, by a relatively slim margin though when counting in for eras.

By the way, those clips posted in the previous thread of Francis in the 1992 post-season, against the NY Rangers, offensively I was most impressed by Jagr in those clips. How he forced the play, drove the puck to set up goals, and how he drew the penalty (on Beukeboom) that led to the PP that led to Francis' tip-in goal. So if we hold Jagr against Bure (all-star selections), shouldn't we hold him against Francis too? Francis was well above average offensively, but he wasn't cream of the crop good offensively, I think we can all kinda agree on this. Francis has other things going for him (like defense or face-offing ability) for us to not feel the need to pretend that he was better offensively than say Bure.
 
Difference is that Gretzky has the best offensive resume ever, while Bure's is fairly middle-of-the-road (except in goals-per-game), compared to who else is available this round.

Bure's also one of the best goal scorers the game has ever seen. I'm going to put an awful lot of weight into that considering that that's the object of the game, and even more so when considering that he usually did it with a team of scrubs around him. There's nothing middle-of-the-road in that.
 
He's not middle-of-the-road offensively in this group, he's clearly above average. If you think he's middle-of-the-road offensively here you're staring yourself blind on this VsX thing. There's also no significant gap offensively between Bure and Busher Jackson, unless one stares oneself blind on VsX (or something).

In this group I would say only Stastny was an overall better point producer than Bure, by a relatively slim margin though when counting in for eras.

By the way, those clips posted in the previous thread of Francis in the 1992 post-season, against the NY Rangers, offensively I was most impressed by Jagr in those clips. How he forced the play, drove the puck to set up goals, and how he drew the penalty (on Beukeboom) that led to the PP that led to Francis' tip-in goal. So if we hold Jagr against Bure (all-star selections), shouldn't we hold him against Francis too? Francis was well above average offensively, but he wasn't cream of the crop good offensively, I think we can all kinda agree on this. Francis has other things going for him (like defense or face-offing ability) for us to not feel the need to pretend that he was better offensively than say Bure.

I was going to try to say this, but you did it much better.
 
Bure's also one of the best goal scorers the game has ever seen. I'm going to put an awful lot of weight into that considering that that's the object of the game, and even more so when considering that he usually did it with a team of scrubs around him. There's nothing middle-of-the-road in that.

Come on now, outside of scoring goals, how good is his offense?
 
  • Bentley was the backchecker of the Bentley-Bentley-Monsienko line. Good two-way player, voted best hockey player for the first half century of the Hawks.

That's kind of a shallow platitude, isn't it? Mainly because we know he wasn't the best player for the Hawks during that time period -- that would be either Earl Seibert (our #61), Charlie Gardiner (#75), or Max Bentley (#77). There's really no justifying a vote which has those 3 guys behind Doug, even if we ignore what they did outside of Chicago.

The half-century award can be easily explained as
1) a "vote" by only one newspaper
2) coming in 1950, a unique point in time when Doug was coming off his peak season while also leading the franchise in compiled career totals.

It's understandable how, at that moment in time, he could have been seen as the "top Blackhawk" on the basis of career service and recent improvement, but the Hawks as a franchise were defined as a punching bag franchise that rarely got top talent and never held on to it.


You absolutely should not completely dismiss results from 1942-43, as it is incorrect to say there was virtually no competition for awards that season. The league strength was much closer to 1941-42 than to the real war-depleted seasons of 1943-44 and 1944-45, since most of the players had not yet left for the war effort by the spring of 1943.

For example, 16 of the top 20 scorers from 1941-42 played full seasons in 1942-43, and that doesn't even include Max Bentley, Bill Cowley or Elmer Lach, all of whom played partial seasons in 1941-42 and finished in the top 10 in scoring in 1942-43.

In 1943 the NHL had already lost 1/3rd of its players including 13 former or future postseason All Stars, 8 HHOFers, and 3 starting goaltenders.

The missing included:
- Tom Anderson, the reigning Hart winner
- Milt Schmidt, who had previously been a 1AS with a 4th place Hart finish
- Neil Colville, who had twice been a 2AS with a 4th place Hart finish
- Bobby Bauer, who had been 2nd All Star three times
- Woody Dumart, who had been 2nd All Star twice at left wing

Does this mean we give Bentley absolute zero credit for 1943? No, because the NHL wasn't quite the AHL-level exhibition league that it would be the following season. But we absolutely do have to acknowledge that this was probably the weakest post-consolidation season in history, other than the two immediately following. Statistical marks and postseason recognition earned in that context definitely do need to be taxed for that, recognizing that its unlikely those achievements are replicated in a complete league (particularly if the Bruins powerhouse team stays intact).

To your point, though, an example of a season that deserves near-zero credit is 1944, which erases a 1AS, an assist title, and a Hart nomination from Bentley's record.

Quoting myself from over a year ago just to be clear that I'm not tailoring an argument for the sake of influencing this vote:

Bentley's 1943 and especially 1944 were both inflated. 1943 was a war year.

Even in 1943, the league was already missing e.g. Roy Conacher, Bobby Bauer, Milt Schmidt, Neil Colville, Woody Dumart. In the ebb and flow of careers, at least a couple of those guys were due for big seasons -- especially considering how many of them were stacked together with the Bruins. If nothing else, Syl Apps was running away with the title when he broke his leg mid-season.

Bentley was a good player in the middle of his prime, but he was probably peaked closer to a "natural" 3rd-5th type finish in both of those years. It would have been quite the stroke of luck for all of those missing players to simultaneously have down years AND Apps get hurt just in time for him to finish #1.
 
He's not middle-of-the-road offensively in this group, he's clearly above average. If you think he's middle-of-the-road offensively here you're staring yourself blind on this VsX thing. There's also no significant gap offensively between Bure and Busher Jackson, unless one stares oneself blind on VsX (or something).

In this group I would say only Stastny was an overall better point producer than Bure, by a relatively slim margin though when counting in for eras.

By the way, those clips posted in the previous thread of Francis in the 1992 post-season, against the NY Rangers, offensively I was most impressed by Jagr in those clips. How he forced the play, drove the puck to set up goals, and how he drew the penalty (on Beukeboom) that led to the PP that led to Francis' tip-in goal. So if we hold Jagr against Bure (all-star selections), shouldn't we hold him against Francis too? Francis was well above average offensively, but he wasn't cream of the crop good offensively, I think we can all kinda agree on this. Francis has other things going for him (like defense or face-offing ability) for us to not feel the need to pretend that he was better offensively than say Bure.

By 3-year and 4-year VsX, Bure would be 2nd only to Busher Jackson (99.9 to 98.2; 97.1 to 96.0).

By 5-year and 6-year VsX, Bure would be in that tight pack with Bentley and Stastny under Jackson (95.4 to 92.1-92.8; 92.4 to 89.2-90.8).

It’s only when we’re asking for a 7th season from a player who played...

80+: 3 times
74-76: 2 times
63-68: 3 times

...that Bure’s offense looks “middle-of-the-road.” Calling Bure “middle-of-the-road” offensively is just docking him for injury issues a second time.
 
Come on now, outside of scoring goals, how good is his offense?

Wanna talk assists? I'm not about to talk him up as a serious playmaking threat, but to hear the way it's often told, he was better at that than people give him credit for.

1992-93: second on the team in assists with 50, six behind Cliff Ronning
1993-94: led the team in assists with 47, while nobody outside of himself scored more than 26 goals. (Does that team get anywhere near the Finals without him?)
1994-95: tied for the team lead in assists with Jeff Brown
1997-98: led the team in assists with 39, edging out Mark Messier. Messier was second on the team in goals with just 22.
2000-01: led the team in assists with 33, while no one other than himself scored more than 14(!) goals.

When I think of Pavel Bure, I think of a goal scorer every day, Monday through Saturday and then twice on Sunday. But, put into the context of the often woeful teams he played on, his assist numbers aren't as shabby as would probably normally be thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie
He's not middle-of-the-road offensively in this group, he's clearly above average. If you think he's middle-of-the-road offensively here you're staring yourself blind on this VsX thing. There's also no significant gap offensively between Bure and Busher Jackson, unless one stares oneself blind on VsX (or something).

In this group I would say only Stastny was an overall better point producer than Bure, by a relatively slim margin though when counting in for eras.

By the way, those clips posted in the previous thread of Francis in the 1992 post-season, against the NY Rangers, offensively I was most impressed by Jagr in those clips. How he forced the play, drove the puck to set up goals, and how he drew the penalty (on Beukeboom) that led to the PP that led to Francis' tip-in goal. So if we hold Jagr against Bure (all-star selections), shouldn't we hold him against Francis too? Francis was well above average offensively, but he wasn't cream of the crop good offensively, I think we can all kinda agree on this. Francis has other things going for him (like defense or face-offing ability) for us to not feel the need to pretend that he was better offensively than say Bure.

You're acting like VsX is something other than just a forumla that measures of regular season offense. point production.

Again, pretend that VsX had never been created, and just look at their top 10 finishes:

Jackson top 10 points finishes: 1, 2, 5, 5, 7
Bure top 10 points finishes: 2, 3, 5, 7


Jackson top 10 assists: 3, 9, 10
Bure top 10 assists: none

Jackson top 10 goals: 2 3, 3, 4, 6
Bure top 10 goals: 1, 1, 1, 3, 5

Jackson top 10 points per game: 1, 2, 2, 3, 5
Bure top 10 points per game: 3, 7, 7, 8


Jackson top 10 assists per game: 3, 5, 8
Bure top 10 assists per game: none

Jackson top 10 goals per game: 2, 2, 3, 3, 4
Bure top 10 goals per game: 1, 2, 2, 3, 6, 7

In both points and points-per-game, Jackson comes out decisively ahead. Bure was the better goal scorer, but his playmaking is historically unimpressive enough to make Jackson the better point producer. Even on a per-game basis, Bure's point production isn't that great due to lack of assists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey
By 3-year and 4-year VsX, Bure would be 2nd only to Busher Jackson (99.9 to 98.2; 97.1 to 96.0).

By 5-year and 6-year VsX, Bure would be in that tight pack with Bentley and Stastny under Jackson (95.4 to 92.1-92.8; 92.4 to 89.2-90.8).

It’s only when we’re asking for a 7th season from a player who played...

80+: 3 times
74-76: 2 times
63-68: 3 times

...that Bure’s offense looks “middle-of-the-road.” Calling Bure “middle-of-the-road” offensively is just docking him for injury issues a second time.

Again, these are the only times Bure finished top 10 in points-per-game:

1993-94 NHL 1.41 (7th)
1997-98 NHL 1.10 (7th)
1999-00 NHL 1.27 (3rd)
2001-02 NHL 1.01 (8th)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bure's offensive "weakness" has a lot to do with lack of assists, even when healthy.
 
Wanna talk assists? I'm not about to talk him up as a serious playmaking threat, but to hear the way it's often told, he was better at that than people give him credit for.

1992-93: second on the team in assists with 50, six behind Cliff Ronning
1993-94: led the team in assists with 47, while nobody outside of himself scored more than 26 goals. (Does that team get anywhere near the Finals without him?)
1994-95: tied for the team lead in assists with Jeff Brown
1997-98: led the team in assists with 39, edging out Mark Messier. Messier was second on the team in goals with just 22.
2000-01: led the team in assists with 33, while no one other than himself scored more than 14(!) goals.

When I think of Pavel Bure, I think of a goal scorer every day, Monday through Saturday and then twice on Sunday. But, put into the context of the often woeful teams he played on, his assist numbers aren't as shabby as would probably normally be thought.

He also led the team in assists in the 1994 playoffs with 15, with a 16-15-31 stat line. I know some people wants to pretend he was a Pisani in 06 (14-4-18) or C. Lemieux in 95 (13-3-16) type of player, but it's not true. He had a 1.09 PPG ratio in the playoffs and 50% of those points were assists.
 
Bure's offensive "weakness" has a lot to do with lack of assists, even when healthy.

It has as much, if not more to do with who surrounded him. You're making a straightforward point finish comparison between a guy who played on a line with two Hall-of-Famers and a guy that played on some very, very bad teams. I'd be shocked if the guy on the all HOF line didn't blow the other guy out of the water there.

I say that with no intention of belittling Busher at all. He's a highly worthy candidate here. But, he had an advantage in a very important area where Bure was cursed. Supporting cast does make a big differece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie
In both points and points-per-game, Jackson comes out decisively ahead. Bure was the better goal scorer, but his playmaking is historically unimpressive enough to make Jackson the better point producer. Even on a per-game basis, Bure's point production isn't that great due to lack of assists.

Jackson played consistently with the big bomber, whereas the best goal scorer Bure played with on a fairly consistent basis was probably Greg Adams. Also it's iffy to just draw blank era comparisons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Professor What
FWIW Jackson also moved back to play defense later in his career. I can't speak to how good he was in that role (obviously not any kind of star) or what the rationale was for putting him there, but obviously he was a little more rounded than his reputation would suggest. Or at the very least least, became more rounded with the passage of time.

I don't know how much that helps but it does kind of get lost in light of his offensive achievements.
 
Again, these are the only times Bure finished top 10 in points-per-game:

1993-94 NHL 1.41 (7th)
1997-98 NHL 1.10 (7th)
1999-00 NHL 1.27 (3rd)
2001-02 NHL 1.01 (8th)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Bure's offensive "weakness" has a lot to do with lack of assists, even when healthy.

He also finished 7th in raw scoring in 2000-01, getting bumped out of the #10 spot in per-game scoring, so he really has 5 seasons at that level.

Same as Busher Jackson (1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1937).

You essentially have to ignore one of Bure’s 2001 (under points-per-game) or 2002 (under raw points) with no accounting for the change in league dynamics to portray Bure as having one less offensive season of note.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Professor What
Life got in the way so I haven't been participating, but how do we reconcile Langway's huge reputation vis a vis his performance? 2 Norris' with frankly bad offense in an era of all offense (against a fairly strong group of defenders at that) - I know a lot of that is written off as kind of a PHWA voter rebellion, but I think even factoring that, he has to be viewed as the best pure defender of the early 80s.

Is that good enough to be this high on the list?

Lusty bodychecker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad