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

[Dr John Carlson]

The good old days when aunts could just decide that your name was bad and start calling you something else.

Not sure if it means anything, but the segment where Quackenbush specifically mentions that he didn't learn much from Jack Stewart was interesting.

 

[ted2019]

Here's the table.

While Gordie Howe shows up as his most common linemate in 1954-55 and 1956-57, it still doesn't look like he was a full time linemate with Howe. It's not until 1958-59 and then 1961-62 through 1970-71 that he and Howe were more or less full-time linemates.

When he finished 8th in league scoring in 1957-58, he appears to have played with almost every forward at some point.

Alex Delvecchio	ESP	ESP w/Howe	% w/Howe	Linemate 1		Linemate 2
1952-53	42	7	17%	Johnny Wilson	20	Metro Prystai	11	AS2 - LW, 4th in points
1953-54	21	1	5%	Johnny Wilson	11	Metro Prystai	9
1954-55	33	15	45%	Gordie Howe	15	Ted Lindsay	9
1955-56	34	0	0%	Bill Dineen	12	Lorne Ferguson	8	9th in points
1956-57	26	10	38%	Gordie Howe	10	Ted Lindsay	9
1957-58	39	4	10%	Nick Mickoski	7	Jack McIntyre	7	8th in points
1958-59	36	22	61%	Gordie Howe	22	Norm Ullman	15	AS2 - LW, Byng
1959-60	33	11	33%	Norm Ullman	14	Gordie Howe	11
1960-61	47	19	40%	Norm Ullman	20	Gordie Howe	19	10th in points
1961-62	46	29	63%	Gordie Howe	29	Claude Laforge	10	6th in points
1962-63	44	28	64%	Gordie Howe	28	Parker MacDonald	22	8th in points
1963-64	35	22	63%	Gordie Howe	22	Parker MacDonald	14
1964-65	39	26	67%	Gordie Howe	26	Parker MacDonald	11	5th in points
1965-66	43	26	60%	Gordie Howe	26	Norm Ullman	10	7th in points, Byng
1966-67	34	19	56%	Gordie Howe	19	Ted Hampson	9	10th in points
1967-68	56	31	55%	Gordie Howe	31	Dean Prentice	12	8th in points
1968-69	66	47	71%	Gordie Howe	47	Frank Mahovlich	29	7th in points, Byng
1969-70	45	28	62%	Gordie Howe	28	Frank Mahovlich	28
1970-71	36	18	50%	Gordie Howe	18	Frank Mahovlich	12
1971-72	47	0	0%	Mickey Redmond	26	Al Karlander	17
1972-73	45	0	0%	Mickey Redmond	32	Al Karlander	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Do you still have anymore of these tables around???

 

[ted2019]

I still have Quackenbush as my #1 heading into the weekend.
Delvecchio has moved up, especially with the information from overpass.
I'll still have 4 defensemen and a forward in my top 5.

 

[ted2019]

Also, for anyone who wants to take a deeper dive into Quackenbush's career, these are all the THN articles I could find between 1947 and 1957, in chronological order. I haven't gone over them too closely myself but at least now they are out there, for anyone who wants to. A first glance it seems that he was very well-respected as a defender.

These should show up as hi-res files and should be readable - if they got compressed at all, they won't be.

View attachment 392624 View attachment 392625 View attachment 392626 View attachment 392627 View attachment 392628 View attachment 392629 View attachment 392631 View attachment 392632 View attachment 392634 View attachment 392635

View attachment 392624 View attachment 392625 View attachment 392626 View attachment 392627 View attachment 392628 View attachment 392629 View attachment 392631 View attachment 392632 View attachment 392634 View attachment 392635

Nice fingernails.

 

[seventieslord]

Nice fingernails.

I'll send you the number for my manicurist.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

His award recognition already takes the backchecking into consideration.

Yes, it absolutely does do that.

I was referring more about his (regular season) scoring record, which is pretty Perreault-esque, is it not?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Current thoughts (always subject to change)

1. Bill Quackenbush - The best regular season defenseman to not make our initial top 100, and it’s now, what, round 4? He’s been punished enough for his lack of playoff success. Led all NHL defensemen in All-Star voting twice, and finished behind only Kelly and Harvey two more times. Best defensive defenseman of the late 1940s into the beginning of the 1950s, and ranked higher offensively compared to his peer defensemen than Savard, Stewart, and especially Langway.

2. Peter Stastny - Higher than I had him last round, but he just looks good compared to who is left. He might be the best offensive player this round - I think once you take into account a) Stastny likely lost a prime NHL season stuck in Czechoslovakia; b) Stastny played in the most defensive division in the NHL (I believe @MXD pointed this out in an earlier project?), he needs a small mental boost over his base stats. Plus, he had some post-prime years as an actual two-way player, which is nice

3-6- the messy middle. I could honestly put these guys in any order

Alex Delvecchio - The most complete player available this round? Francis was great, but Alex was a better goal scorer. Doesn’t have the peak of some others, but insane longevity, and seemed to put up similar numbers whether or not Gordie Howe was his even strength linemate

Busher Jackson - could be the best offensive player this round, but he had a few warts. Tons of star power though; he was placed as LW on more than one "all-time all-star" list by contemporaries.

Valeri Vasiliev - clearly the next Soviet to go, gets some historical significance votes for being the first Soviet defenseman respected by Canada. Great longevity for his era and style of play too.

Serge Savard - If Delvecchio and Francis are what I would call “elite complementary players,” Savard would be the defenseman version. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Robinson and Lapointe both had their best years when paired with Savard. Savard’s goal differential numbers are absolutely insane, he had pretty good longevity, showed versatility, and has a great playoff record.

7-9 - Maybe a round too soon:

Doug Bentley - Good peak offense, known as a two-way player. Really versatile - led the league in goals as a LW and in assists as a C - I like that. When I started writing this post, I had him in the messy middle but his offense does seem a tad more influenced by his brother than I had initially thought. Even with the Max factor, he'd still be at the top of my list if he had his brother's playoff record.

Gilbert Perreault - His stats were likely hurt by playing home games in the smaller rink at Buffalo. A visually spectacular player, great in international games (like Bure). Better longevity and health than Bure, and that does matter. I feel like he's the next post-expansion center to go after Stastny.

Jack Stewart - the only defenseman in NHL history to be an official All-Star both before and after WW2, and the advent of the Red Line in 1944 changed the way defensemen had to defend forwards by allowed the forward pass between zones. That shows a level of versatility I like. Overall, he loses to Savard in the playoffs, but beats Langway.

I’m considering these guys for #10:

Pavel Datsyuk - Tough guy for me to rank. In the one sense, his career is Gilmour-esque; in another sense, it’s more like Modano or Kopitar. For a very brief period of time, he was the correct answer to the best non-Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin player in the world.

Ron Francis - Maybe I had him a little too low on my initial list. I do prefer Delvecchio, but not by a ton. Francis wasn’t a great goal scorer, and his statistical prime is a little too dependent on playing with a generational talent or two for my liking, but he was a really effective two-way player for a really long time. The downside for Francis is that I experienced his career, and I just can’t picture him doing what (for example) Modano did in Dallas or Kopitar did in LA as a #1C. Or to this round - Datsyuk had a peak Francis couldn’t touch, even if Datsyuk's absolute peak was very short.

Bernie Parent - We just added two more 1970s goalies in Esposito and Holecek, maybe we should wait a couple rounds for another? On the other hand, his peak is just sooo tempting.

Great players but a little too soon for me:

Pavel Bure - IMO, his time is soon, but compared to other forwards this round, his point production is slightly worse than Jackson’s, and his longevity is a lot worse. I prefer Datsyuk’s overall game at his peak. Only 5 seasons in the top 20 in goal scoring (his forte) really says it all - I realize his health was the reason why, but to me, health is important.

Rod Langway - His peak is great and maybe I would appreciate him more if I had been watching him live back then. But he just doesn’t strike me as having the longevity, versatility, or playoffs of Savard or Stewart.

Guy Lapointe - I don’t think he had the impact at even strength as most of the other players this round.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Woof! Look at the recognition those two players had throughout their careers. These aren't world-beaters, heck, not even one person in this project has them as a top-220 player.

This deep into a project, I’m not sure it’s great to have the mentality that placing behind a name that is already ranked (115 players throughout history?) is more significant than placing behind a player who is not ranked but is having a great season.

Unranked players are capable of having greater seasons than ranked players.

We haven’t ranked Jose Theodore, but we did rank Joe Sakic, so for 2002, should we consider a Pearson-nominated Sean Burke season as a 2nd Team All-Star still while treating Mats Sundin as a 1st Team All-Star?

We haven’t ranked Pat LaFontaine, but we did rank Bourque and Chelios, so is Larry Murphy going to be treated as a de facto Norris winner in 1993 while Doug Gilmour is looked down upon for placing behind an unranked player in All-Star voting?

Seriously, the exercise of removing project-ranked players makes Larry Murphy a 3x Norris winner and 5x 1st Team All-Star (should we expedite his candidacy?). It creates an echo chamber for over-valuing players at the same position. Once Quackenbush is added to the list *gasp* Jack Stewart is a 3x Norris winner too! It’s going to be a very big Monday for him when the votes are counted and this exercise dictates he fills the vacuum left by the ranked player.

To me, player removal... kind of a slippery slope, and the way it was used in the 2012 Defenseman Project was reaching the bottom of the hill and hitting every tree - scaring away the dogs who were barking up them butt-first.

We remove Gretzky/Lemieux because they’re ridiculous. We remove non-Canadians because there used to only be Canadians. Now we’re removing ranked-players because we want to give context to... fringe All-Star selections.

Instead what we should be doing is looking at the actual seasons that the players who finished in front of them were having and the players who finished behind them were having and finding context. But I can see why it would be easier to not look at what Gadsby was doing in 1953 and just assume it had to have been more relevant than what Hollett was doing in 1943.

Not better, just easier. But I get it.

What I can’t understand is then taking defenseman All-Star voting (already not great data since it’s not ranked the same as other positions) from years when substantially fewer people voted and in a time frame when Defense was a weaker position (as evidenced in Hart voting), messing with the data even more by removing players, and then looking over at the players from other eras and positions and saying ‘If I made the same concessions for Pavel Bure, he would look even better than Bill Quackenbush, but we have other tools for him, so I won’t.’

 

[BadgerBruce]

Not a voter in this project and not a card-carrying member of any fan base. In other words, I come in peace and without any overt era bias.

I think some posters are selling Gilbert Perreault a bit short and buying the “elegant underachiever” narrative too easily.

With the exception of the 72 Summit series, when he was really just a pup, Perreault always played at or near the top of the lineup for Team Canada in international play and was an automatic roster selection.

Even in 72, young Perreault was the only one of the “5 deserters” Harry Sinden tried to talk out of leaving. In “Hockey Showdown,” Sinden claims that he begged Perreault to stay but didn’t much care about the others. He’d played well when finally given an opportunity to dress for games 4 and 5, putting up points in both games and demonstrating that his wheels were all-world.

Plainly speaking, Perreault had a history of making his linemates better. He made 37 year-old Bobby Hull better, journeyman winger Rene Robert better, and yes, he made young Gretzky and all-world Guy Lafleur better in ‘81. When the games got faster and the competition got stiffer, Perreault stood out even more because he elevated his linemates’ level of play.

The best way I can describe “the Perreault Effect” for people who did not have the pleasure of seeing him play is like this: we often hear about how Sidney Crosby is “hard to play with.” Gilbert Perreault was the kind of guy you’d put with Crosby to solve that problem. He possessed a rare hockey IQ variant that allowed him to read and adjust his game to fit the needs of superstar linemates.

Perreault is inevitably compared to Lafleur and Dionne and found statistically wanting. But ask yourself this: if you are old enough to have seen all three together on the same international stages in 76 and 81, who was the best of the three?

In my view, game in and game out, Perreault was the best Team Canada forward in both CC tournaments. He played half the 76 tournament with Dionne and Bobby Hull as linemates and they became Bowman’s de facto first line. He played half the 81 tournament — up until his fractured lower leg — with Lafleur and Gretzky as his linemates. “The Dream Line,” some called it. After Perreault’s injury, Gretzky and Lafleur each scored one goal in the remaining three games, including goose eggs in the semi-final game win against the US and the final loss against the Soviets.

In NHL play, I believe it is important to point out his competition at the centre ice position: prime Esposito, prime Clarke, prime Dionne, prime Trottier, prime Gretzky, and eventually young Lemieux at the very end. Murderer’s row, in my view.

Gilbert Perreault joined a brand new NHL franchise in 1970-71 and never led the club to victory over the Orr-Esposito Bruins, the Broad Street Bullies, the Habs dynasty, the Islanders dynasty, or the early days of the Oilers dynasty. But for around a decade, he was one of the finest players in the world and he showed this when he played with and against the world’s best.

Rank him as you see fit. But do so within a more revealing context than has so far been presented.

Thanks for listening.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Woof! Look at the recognition those two players had throughout their careers. These aren't world-beaters, heck, not even one person in this project has them as a top-220 player.

I mean... Pratt won the Hart Trophy the very next year after Stewart beat him for 1st Team honors. He made the HOF in that huge group in 1966 (2 years after Jack Stewart; 10 years before Bill Quackenbush).

Pratt wasn’t exactly a nobody in the mid-1940s when Stewart trounced him. And if he’s not a “world-beater”, then what should our expectations have been for Jack Stewart in 1944? If Pratt can win the Hart, and Stewart being better than Pratt isn’t a big deal, then should we be acknowledging that Jack Stewart left a Hart on the table in 1944? I mean, he did place top-5 in Hart voting as soon as he got back to the league.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Current thoughts (always subject to change)
Great players but a little too soon for me:

Pavel Bure - IMO, his time is soon, but compared to other forwards this round, his point production is slightly worse than Jackson’s, and his longevity is a lot worse. I prefer Datsyuk’s overall game at his peak. Only 5 seasons in the top 20 in goal scoring (his forte) really says it all - I realize his health was the reason why, but to me, health is important.

Rod Langway - His peak is great and maybe I would appreciate him more if I had been watching him live back then. But he just doesn’t strike me as having the longevity, versatility, or playoffs of Savard or Stewart.

Guy Lapointe - I don’t think he had the impact at even strength as most of the other players this round.

At this point, these 3 are in my top 5.

I fully understand the Langway thing. Without seeing him play the accolades don't jive with the numbers.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel like we've been so hung up on Quackenbush that until the last page or two we've almost missed the opportunity to talk about Stewart in his own right.

Here are some posts from the 2012 defenseman project, making the case for Stewart without using Quackenbush as the point of reference.

The case for Stewart is that he was a defensive defenseman like Savard and Langway, but that he

1) was more prominent within his own era than Serge Savard (3 1st Team All Stars)

2) had greater longevity as an star player than Rod Langway and contributed to more playoff success (#1 defenseman on the 1943 Cup winner, Red Kelly's partner on the 1950 Cup winner).

Oh, and Dit Clapper has an All-Star record as good or better than Howe, Savard, Lapointe, or Langway if you only look at his time as a defenseman.

Stewart had a very strong 1942-43 season. He led all defencemen in all-star voting.

From the stickied thread:

Total first-team voting points: Jack Stewart 20, Earl Seibert 12, Flash Hollett 9, Jack Crawford 7, Babe Pratt 3, Dit Clapper 1

And Stewart's Wings won the Stanley Cup that season.

Calgary Herald, Jan 23, 1943:

After seeing the quote above, I wondered if Stewart beat out Seibert in all-star voting in part because he played more games. But both played 44 of 50 regular season games, so that wasn't a factor.

A couple of articles from when Stewart retired:

Edmonton Journal, Jan 3, 1951:


Dink Carroll - Montreal Gazette, Jan 4, 1951



As with other star defencemen of his day and earlier, his qualities as an "ice general" were important. Rod Langway might be a modern player who would be considered an "ice general".

Funny how Stewart gets no love because he played in the war years but people forget that he missed 2 prime years in the service during the war. AS both before and after.

Good point. Stewart went into the service directly after maybe his best season, and didn't get to build on his success in leading d-men in all-star voting and winning the Stanley Cup.

He also had to adjust to the addition of the red line during his career, and was an all-star both before and after, as one newspaper quote mentioned.

Jack Stewart

The case for Stewart over Savard

Black Jack Stewart was more promiment within his own era than Serge Savard. He was a 1st Team All Star 3 Times, and was viewed as the best defenseman in hockey in 1943 before he went off to fight in World War 2. True, it was a weaker era, but that's an awfully big difference in recognition. Stewart didn't contribute to as much team success as Serge did, but didn't get to play for the Canadiens. Stewart won 2 Cups and Legends of Hockey noted him as "A devastating hitter, Stewart was at his best in the hardest-fought games."

The case for Stewart over Langway

1) Greater longevity as an elite player relative to era. Stewart was a Postseason All Star for the first time in 1943 and for the last time in 1949. He last played the All Star game in 1950. Articles above indicate that he was still considered a star when he retired in 1951. This represents a 7-9 year period of elite play (interrupted unfortunately by the war). Pretty much all of Langway's accolades happened during the 6 seasons from 1981 to 1986 (all his all-star games, all his top 9 finishes for the Norris). And Langway played during an era when defensemen generally had longer primes.

2) Stewart contributed to more playoff success (#1 defenseman on the 1943 Cup winner, Red Kelly's partner on the 1950 Cup winner). However do note that articles were posted last time that indicated that Langway played very well in the playoffs even when his team lost.

Reposting overpass's research from last round:

WHY JACK STEWART MIGHT BE THE BEST DEFENSEMAN AVAILABLE

1. There is a good argument that his 1942-43 season is the best season by an available defenseman.

Prior to 1942-43, Black Jack Stewart had received a handful of All-Star votes on a few occasions, but in 1942-43 at the age of 25, he emerged as a star. He dominated All-Star voting during the regular season:



He then went on to win the Stanley Cup as Detroit's #1 defenseman.

2. Stewart is the only defenseman to be an All Star both before and after the Red Line was introduced.

Stewart was unable to build off his spectacular 1942-43 season because he left the NHL to serve for two years during World War 2. Stewart returned in 1945-46 and had to adjust to a different style of game: The addition of the Red Line and the new ability of teams to pass forward between zones completely changed the way a defenseman would defend the transitions game. In Stewart's first season back, he was a 2nd Team All Star, and finished 5th in Hart voting (first among all defensemen).

3. Consistently an elite player in his prime

Stewart finished top 5 in All-Star voting every season he played from the ages of 25-32 before retiring due to injuries:

1942-43: 1st in All-Star voting
1943-44: Lost season to World War 2
1944-45: Lost season to World War 2
1945-46: 4th in All Star voting
1946-47: 3rd in All Star voting
1947-48: 2nd in All Star voting
1948-49: 2nd in All Star voting
1949-50: 5th in All Star voting

1949-50 would be Stewart's last full year of hockey and last season in Detroit. He ended his tenure in Detroit by winning his second Cup, this time as the hard-hitting stay at home partner to a young player named Red Kelly. He was 32 years old. He would have two injury-filled seasons in Chicago afterwards before calling it quits for good.

When he retired for the first time in 1951, the Edmonton Journal wrote:


4. Style of Play

Wikipedia has a good article on Black Jack Stewart, with a well-sourced description of his playing style:



Stewart explained how he got his nickname:



Here is a link to quotes posted about him by overpass.

 

[MXD]

That may be hyper simplistic, but there's a good case to be made that, in this group, only one player truly and demonstrably had an effect on anything that happened around him, with all other being to a certain extent somewhat interchangeable.

Hence why Bernard Parent will rank at the very top. No, I'm not writing Bernie. Still pondering for the reminder. Yes, two of his contemporaries were added last round; they were also very long overdue (Holecek) and overdue (Esposito) respectively.

Also, I may have undervalued Jack Stewart coming in (I won't bother looking, but I had him as something of a good candidate starting Round 12 or something like that). He's probably the player that had the biggest upward trend, thanks to everyone's astute observations, though ultimately that will probably bring him from 15th to 13th in that group or something to that effect. I still really don't see what he has on Ching Johnson.

 

[MXD]

2. Peter Stastny - Higher than I had him last round, but he just looks good compared to who is left. He might be the best offensive player this round - I think once you take into account a) Stastny likely lost a prime NHL season stuck in Czechoslovakia; b) Stastny played in the most defensive division in the NHL (I believe @MXD pointed this out in an earlier project?), he needs a small mental boost over his base stats. Plus, he had some post-prime years as an actual two-way player, which is nice

Yep - mostly in relation to Michel Goulet in the wingers project, but the same apply to Stastny (though maybe a bit less as Stastny spent more time of his prime in a somewhat more offense-friendly context).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not a voter in this project and not a card-carrying member of any fan base. In other words, I come in peace and without any overt era bias.

I think some posters are selling Gilbert Perreault a bit short and buying the “elegant underachiever” narrative too easily.

With the exception of the 72 Summit series, when he was really just a pup, Perreault always played at or near the top of the lineup for Team Canada in international play and was an automatic roster selection.

Even in 72, young Perreault was the only one of the “5 deserters” Harry Sinden tried to talk out of leaving. In “Hockey Showdown,” Sinden claims that he begged Perreault to stay but didn’t much care about the others. He’d played well when finally given an opportunity to dress for games 4 and 5, putting up points in both games and demonstrating that his wheels were all-world.

Plainly speaking, Perreault had a history of making his linemates better. He made 37 year-old Bobby Hull better, journeyman winger Rene Robert better, and yes, he made young Gretzky and all-world Guy Lafleur better in ‘81. When the games got faster and the competition got stiffer, Perreault stood out even more because he elevated his linemates’ level of play.

The best way I can describe “the Perreault Effect” for people who did not have the pleasure of seeing him play is like this: we often hear about how Sidney Crosby is “hard to play with.” Gilbert Perreault was the kind of guy you’d put with Crosby to solve that problem. He possessed a rare hockey IQ variant that allowed him to read and adjust his game to fit the needs of superstar linemates.

Perreault is inevitably compared to Lafleur and Dionne and found statistically wanting. But ask yourself this: if you are old enough to have seen all three together on the same international stages in 76 and 81, who was the best of the three?

In my view, game in and game out, Perreault was the best Team Canada forward in both CC tournaments. He played half the 76 tournament with Dionne and Bobby Hull as linemates and they became Bowman’s de facto first line. He played half the 81 tournament — up until his fractured lower leg — with Lafleur and Gretzky as his linemates. “The Dream Line,” some called it. After Perreault’s injury, Gretzky and Lafleur each scored one goal in the remaining three games, including goose eggs in the semi-final game win against the US and the final loss against the Soviets.

In NHL play, I believe it is important to point out his competition at the centre ice position: prime Esposito, prime Clarke, prime Dionne, prime Trottier, prime Gretzky, and eventually young Lemieux at the very end. Murderer’s row, in my view.

Gilbert Perreault joined a brand new NHL franchise in 1970-71 and never led the club to victory over the Orr-Esposito Bruins, the Broad Street Bullies, the Habs dynasty, the Islanders dynasty, or the early days of the Oilers dynasty. But for around a decade, he was one of the finest players in the world and he showed this when he played with and against the world’s best.

Rank him as you see fit. But do so within a more revealing context than has so far been presented.

Thanks for listening.

Certainly Perreault's game was more suited for international play than NHL play. But he definitely elevated his game in those spots.

I think if he jumped to the WHA he'd have scored 200 points per season.

But his plus/minus numbers are disturbing. Though he usually led the Sabres easily in scoring, a 4th place finish on his own team was the highest he ever achieved.

Craig Ramsey's career with Buffalo was just about identical. For 14 seasons they were teammates. But he was a +324 to Perreault's +41 over their careers. Playoffs Ramsay was +5 and Perreault -21.

In 1974-75, the Sabres went to the Cup finals. Perreault put up 96 points in only 68 games. And he was +1. Done Luce was +61, Craig Ramsey +51, Danny Gare +39. There were 4 defensemen over +30. That's really remarkable.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The basic question I keep coming back to with Savard and Lapointe is: if we take these guys off the Habs and put them on let's say the Sabres or the Kings, what do their careers look like? Are we talking about guys who would be winning Norrises in a different environment? Or are we talking about guys who would have been overshadowed by the likes of Robinson and Park and Potvin, and remembered as "pretty good #1" types? Because if it's the latter, that puts their Cup count uncomfortably close to the center of their case.

If we were to vote in Vasiliev, Savard, and Lapointe right now we would be 8 deep in 1970s defensemen. That seems like an awful lot when we're still talking about voting in our first late 1940s guy. Were there really 8 defensemen circa 1975 who were all top-120 players, and peaking almost simultaneously?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes, it absolutely does do that.

I was referring more about his (regular season) scoring record, which is pretty Perreault-esque, is it not?

I haven't done a deep dive on Perreault's numbers, but I have to say every time I look at his on-paper profile, it feels a bit underwhelming. He has a huge reputation but the actual achievements are pretty shallow. Much like Stastny a couple of rounds ago, I came into this one expecting Perreault to rise to the top, and find myself nudging him down because the objective evidence just doesn't look good against the guys we're comparing him to.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That may be hyper simplistic, but there's a good case to be made that, in this group, only one player truly and demonstrably had an effect on anything that happened around him, with all other being to a certain extent somewhat interchangeable.

Hence why Bernard Parent will rank at the very top. No, I'm not writing Bernie. Still pondering for the reminder. Yes, two of his contemporaries were added last round; they were also very long overdue (Holecek) and overdue (Esposito) respectively.

Also, I may have undervalued Jack Stewart coming in (I won't bother looking, but I had him as something of a good candidate starting Round 12 or something like that). He's probably the player that had the biggest upward trend, thanks to everyone's astute observations, though ultimately that will probably bring him from 15th to 13th in that group or something to that effect.

I’ve kinda resigned myself to knowing that the project is going to reflect a different level of esteem for Parent than I do. Maybe the best one or two season peak that his position (the best position) has ever seen, but it’s also not one whose value is necessarily in question. People are just applying different weight to it than I would.

Are his 1969, 1970, and 1978 (years when he was 3rd in save percentage with a starter’s schedule) so irrelevant that even with his 1974 and 1975, he wouldn’t be among this group in terms of best-five seasons? That seems to be the impression I get from people.

In 1969, he had a .925 (17-23-16) while Favell had a .903 (3-12-5). In 1978, he had a .912 (29-6-13) while Stephenson had a .895 (14-10-1). At the very least, those two seem legitimate.

His edge over Favell in 1970 was just .921 to .917, which I don’t think necessarily invalidates the .921; it’s just not as clear-cut as 1969 and 1978.

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD][/TD]
[TD]1st Team[/TD][TD]2nd Team[/TD][TD]Parent[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1969[/TD][TD].928[/TD][TD].911[/TD][TD].925[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1970[/TD][TD].932[/TD][TD].916[/TD][TD].921[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1978[/TD][TD].922[/TD][TD].906[/TD][TD].912[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

But it’s not like he’s not in the All-Star caliber range when he wasn’t an All-Star; we just know voters looked for different things. Those 1st/2nd Team selections in 1969, 1970, and 1978? Three were the league leader in Wins, and two others finished 2nd in Wins.

Maybe if they named six goaltenders on All-Star ballots, he’d have more fringe support like some defensemen. As it stands, finishing 4th in 1969, 4th in 1970, 1st in 1974, 1st in 1975, 5th in 1977, and 5th in 1978 probably isn’t terribly different from the Quackenbush selections before we even consider the playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Maybe if they named six goaltenders on All-Star ballots, he’d have more fringe support like some defensemen. As it stands, finishing 4th in 1969, 4th in 1970, 1st in 1974, 1st in 1975, 5th in 1977, and 5th in 1978 probably isn’t terribly different from the Quackenbush selections before we even consider the playoffs.

Ok, so you do consider being the 5th best goalie in the league in a given season to be equivalent to being the 5th best defenseman? Of course you have a right to do so, but I can't disagree more.

Twice as many defensemen as goalies in the starting lineup.

Plus all the 2nd pairing guys who could have career seasons.

When Parent played, 5th wasn't as virtually meaningless as it would have been in 6 team league, but it was still a really unbalanced league in the 1970s, where the goalies of the really crap teams basically don't count as competition.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I haven't done a deep dive on Perreault's numbers, but I have to say every time I look at his on-paper profile, it feels a bit underwhelming. He has a huge reputation but the actual achievements are pretty shallow. Much like Stastny a couple of rounds ago, I came into this one expecting Perreault to rise to the top, and find myself nudging him down because the objective evidence just doesn't look good against the guys we're comparing him to.

Here is the original @overpass thread that showed Perreault's home-road splits. Gilbert Perreault - home/road splits . Unfortunately, the tables with the actual data were destroyed in the server migration, but it looked like Perreault was probably and slightly disadvantaged by playing his home games in a smaller rink.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The basic question I keep coming back to with Savard and Lapointe is: if we take these guys off the Habs and put them on let's say the Sabres or the Kings, what do their careers look like? Are we talking about guys who would be winning Norrises in a different environment? Or are we talking about guys who would have been overshadowed by the likes of Robinson and Park and Potvin, and remembered as "pretty good #1" types? Because if it's the latter, that puts their Cup count uncomfortably close to the center of their case.

If we were to vote in Vasiliev, Savard, and Lapointe right now we would be 8 deep in 1970s defensemen. That seems like an awful lot when we're still talking about voting in our first late 1940s guy. Were there really 8 defensemen circa 1975 who were all top-120 players, and peaking almost simultaneously?

Lapointe was a first team all-star once and second team 3 times. So there was recognition. And coming in behind only Orr one season and then behind only Orr & Potvin in another.

 

[blogofmike]

Ok, so you do consider being the 5th best goalie in the league in a given season to be equivalent to being the 5th best defenseman? Of course you have a right to do so, but I can't disagree more.

Twice as many defensemen as goalies in the starting lineup.

Plus all the 2nd pairing guys who could have career seasons.

When Parent played, 5th wasn't as virtually meaningless as it would have been in 6 team league, but it was still a really unbalanced league in the 1970s, where the goalies of the really crap teams basically don't count as competition.

5th while playing on an expansion team is pretty good. Parent also delivered some good playoff performances in a losing effort, that may have been more valuable than any playoff Quackenbush ever had.

And 5th goalie vs 5th D is kind of irrelevant. In any season the 5th goalie might be better than the top D, or vice versa.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I mean... Pratt won the Hart Trophy the very next year after Stewart beat him for 1st Team honors. He made the HOF in that huge group in 1966 (2 years after Jack Stewart; 10 years before Bill Quackenbush).

Pratt wasn’t exactly a nobody in the mid-1940s when Stewart trounced him. And if he’s not a “world-beater”, then what should our expectations have been for Jack Stewart in 1944? If Pratt can win the Hart, and Stewart being better than Pratt isn’t a big deal, then should we be acknowledging that Jack Stewart left a Hart on the table in 1944? I mean, he did place top-5 in Hart voting as soon as he got back to the league.

Pratt was a good but fairly unremarkable defensive defenseman who had the reigns taken off and really took advantage of a watered down NHL during the worst of the war years. I mean, credit to Pratt he still beat out some really good players for the 1944 Hart (Cowley was #2), but I don't think he was all that much competition before the war years.

Pratt's All-Star record:
39-40: 7th
41-42: 9th
42-43: 5th (defensemen competition affected by the war more than forwards)
43-44: 1st (bad war year)
44-45: 3rd (bad war year)
45-46: 8th (still recovering from the war)

Somewhat OT, but I found the 1940s Rangers Cup winner to be a fascinating team and a number of years ago read every newspaper article I could find about them. Pratt was in general their 3rd most highly regarded defensemen behind HHOFer in his prime Art Coulter, but also behind Ott Heller.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Ok, so you do consider being the 5th best goalie in the league in a given season to be equivalent to being the 5th best defenseman? Of course you have a right to do so, but I can't disagree more.

Depends on the year. It also depends on whether we accept the All-Star selections themselves as a face value measure of performance.

We know Don Edwards in 1978 was named the 2nd best goaltender not because he had the accompanying success of being a .906 goaltender (lower than his backup’s numbers) but because he played 72 games and had 38 Wins. Vachon and Esposito played 70 and 64. Parent at 49 games is disadvantaged, even if his level of play matches or exceeds theirs.

Goaltending starts are not equal to goaltending performance, but awards voters don’t always draw a distinction. It’s the same discussion as with Bower; we know tandem goaltenders get less support, and it’s something that literally no other position has to deal with.

it was still a really unbalanced league in the 1970s, where the goalies of the really crap teams basically don't count as competition.

So wouldn’t that mean Parent’s 4th place finishes in 1969 and 1970 when he had some of the league’s best numbers are deflated? He was one of the goalies on “the really crap teams” (they were a combined 37-70-45) and yet Parent finished 4th twice in spite of it. For a Defenseman, 4th place is a 2nd Team selection!

 

[quoipourquoi]

Pratt was a good but fairly unremarkable defensive defenseman who had the reigns taken off and really took advantage of a watered down NHL during the worst of the war years. I mean, credit to Pratt he still beat out some really good players for the 1944 Hart (Cowley was #2), but I don't think he was all that much competition before the war years.

Pratt's All-Star record:
39-40: 7th
41-42: 9th
42-43: 5th (defensemen competition affected by the war more than forwards)
43-44: 1st (bad war year)
44-45: 3rd (bad war year)
45-46: 8th (still recovering from the war)

Somewhat OT, but I found the 1940s Rangers Cup winner to be a fascinating team and a number of years ago read every newspaper article I could find about them. Pratt was in general their 3rd most highly regarded defensemen behind HHOFer in his prime Art Coulter, but also behind Ott Heller.

I think Pratt being one year removed from his Hart season is closer proximity to his highest level of play than Gadsby in 1953 was to his. Beating Pratt in 1943 (who wasn’t 5th but was instead the 2nd best Left D depending on one’s evaluation of Hollett being split across Left/Right) should be treated as more significant than beating Gadsby in 1953, even if we see Gadsby as having a better career.

That’s my point. It’s not about who you beat but how they’re playing when you beat them. Pratt and Hollett being far-and-away the top scoring defensemen in 1943 makes beating them significant.