Just looking through some old Flyer records and surprised to see Steve Mason is third in games played and wins in Flyer history and he’s second in all-time Flyer save percentage.

Just looking through some old Flyer records and surprised to see Steve Mason is third in games played and wins in Flyer history and he’s second in all-time Flyer save percentage.
- DraftandDestroy

I thought Mason got a bad rap from some of the fan base. What he did do was to come in and stabilize the position after some turbulent years with Bryzgalov and Leighton. At the same time, it is a bit of an indictment of the team’s recent history at the position.

I don’t think he’d face many shots

But you’re right, team Sweden looks pretty good too. I’m calling foul on Quebec though, Giroux is an Ontario kid and Gatineau is essentially a suburb of Ottawa Ontario, although technically in Quebec.
- DraftandDestroy

But it IS in Quebec, so he qualifies.

I was gonna go with Laughton as a Kelly type.
- MJL

Not so much playing-style, certainly not size or build, etc., but I always thought Scott Laughton bears a similar resemblance to Orest Kindrachuk. They both have those intense, "don't (frank) with me" stares:

Was Desjardins a franchise Dman? No. Was he a legit #1 from 95 to about 2002? Absolutely. He was clearly one of the top 10 Dmen of the late 90s and he’s second only to Mark Howe on the list of best Flyers Dmen of all time.
- BiggE

Absolutely - I would put him about 7-8 on average in that period. There will be years in that span when he was better and years he would be worse. But not top 5.

6 defensemen per team x 28 teams would be 168 not counting healthy scratches, which brings thr actual number close to 200. Top 15 puts him well inside of the top 10% and a few top-5 Norris finishes...yeah, I'd say that makes him "one of the best."
- jmatchett383

Keep in mind that my original comment was posted in terms of the player within the totality of the team, not by himself.

Having said that, I do believe that a 10% equation to being among the best is generous. The reason is that percentages do not translate very well to the term best, especially as the base becomes larger and larger. This is because the term 'among the best' is really limited to a very few, irrespective of how many candidates there are to be in that category. In modern grading, its the A+s, not the As.

Consider all hockey players in a generation who play hockey seriously, starting from high school, the juniors, the minors and the ones who actually make it to the NHL. What is the % of the last group as a fraction of the aggregate? Probably 1%. But that group includes Riley Cote.

Would you say then that Riley Cote was "one of the best hockey players of his generation?"

But it IS in Quebec, so he qualifies.
- bmeltzer

He also identifies strongly as a French Canadian.

Do I really have to explain to you that in the situation of looking at the Norris trophy voting is quite different from a playoff race where only 8 teams make it in? Your analogy is a bad one. Just as bad as your raft analogy. You should quit using analogies. You aren't good at it. That situation does not exist here. Votes are what matter and Desjardins vote totals were well ahead of the next highest finisher. When you finish in the top 5 in Norris trophy voting, you're one of the top defenseman in the league.

No value to your other comments. It's already been established that your comments on both players were incorrect. You can't spin your way out of it.
- MJL

8 teams make it to playoffs by design, 5 players make it to the top 5 in Norris by definition. There is a 9th team that didn't make it, a 6th player who did not make the cut to to the top 5.

Perfect analogy.

And you keep harping on the vote difference total as though it is huge- an average swing of ~1.5% of the votes from Desjardin to next best would have knocked him out of top 5 in 98-99.

Like I said, eked out a top 5 finish.

Btw: The raft was a metaphor not an analogy. Maybe you don't quite understand what these constructs are

Team New Zealand*

Ray Emery

Johnny Oduya - Robert Hagg **

Brashear - Bellamare - Simmonds

*Dork alert
** Higher dork alert

But it IS in Quebec, so he qualifies.
- bmeltzer

Details... details.....

8 teams make it to playoffs by design, 5 players make it to the top 5 in Norris by definition. There is a 9th team that didn't make it, a 6th player who did not make the cut to to the top 5.

Perfect analogy.


- PT21

It's an awful analogy. There are only 8 teams that make the playoffs. Everyone else doesn't make it. There is a legitimate cut there that would make it legitimate to say the 8th team eked in. Not at all the same with the Norris trophy voting. There is no cut. Your arguments are ridiculous. You tried to spin out of the obvious which is that you were completely unaware of how good Desjardins was and that for a number of years he was a legitimate top 5 NHL defenseman. Which you stated that you didn't think he ever was.

And you keep harping on the vote difference total as though it is huge- an average swing of ~1.5% of the votes from Desjardin to next best would have knocked him out of top 5 in 98-99.

Like I said, eked out a top 5 finish.


- PT21

Would've, if and so on and so on. Fantasy on your part and facts not in evidence. It didn't happen. What did happen was that he finished 4th one year and 5th the next year and the he was a significant margin ahead of the next highest finisher in the voting. That is factual.

In 1998/99 Desjardins finished 5th in the voting with a vote percentage of 16.25%. Stevens who finished 6th had a vote percentage of 9.82%. That's significant

In 1999/00 Desjardins finished 4th with a voting percentage of 20.52%. Gonchar finished 5th with a vote percentage of 13.45%. Again a significant difference.

According to you, finishing 4th is eking out a top 5 finish. Your comment that a swing of 1.5% of the vote would've knocked him out is incorrect. Your ignorance continues to shine through.

Btw: The raft was a metaphor not an analogy. Maybe you don't quite understand what these constructs are
- PT21

Irrelevant. Whatever you want to call it, it was stupid and had no reality in fact. You have no facts that support your posts which is why you need to make poop up and use analogies and metaphors.

Keep in mind that my original comment was posted in terms of the player within the totality of the team, not by himself.

Having said that, I do believe that a 10% equation to being among the best is generous. The reason is that percentages do not translate very well to the term best, especially as the base becomes larger and larger. This is because the term 'among the best' is really limited to a very few, irrespective of how many candidates there are to be in that category. In modern grading, its the A+s, not the As.

Consider all hockey players in a generation who play hockey seriously, starting from high school, the juniors, the minors and the ones who actually make it to the NHL. What is the % of the last group as a fraction of the aggregate? Probably 1%. But that group includes Riley Cote.

Would you say then that Riley Cote was "one of the best hockey players of his generation?"
- PT21

This is a bad argument on your part. The context is best in the NHL. Not "one of the best hockey players of his generation."

Now you're trying to spin out of it by including everyone who ever picked up a hockey stick.

"Don't get me wrong. He was surely top 15. But I don't think he was ever top 5 in any given year."
PT21