100 Greatest NHL players

[Ogopogo*]

Ogopogo: first off I'm enjoying all these studies you're posting. I hope you continue to post here.

Now a few points specifically about this player rating system:

- Here are selections for the Conn Smythe trophy for years prior: http://www.hhof.com/html/newsconn.shtml. They were selected by a commitee for the Society for International Hockey Research, from 1918-1964 (so every year is covered). You may want to consider incorparating that data.

- You said you filled in all the blanks for the Hart, Norris and all-stars. I would be very interested to see these results. Can you post them and/or e-mail them to me? Thanks.

- You may want to give a couple of points to the runner-up for the Hart and/or Norris. That was players who are stuck playing alongside legends (ie Brad Park was runner-up for the Norris 6 times, 4 times to Orr) get some more credit.

- My biggest problem with the list is that it doesn't take defense into account. I can't offer any specific suggestions as to how you can improve that, but in evaluating great players defense is crucial. Example: Yzerman and Bure are tied. If defense was taken into account, Bure would fall and Yzerman would rank higher. (However, you could make the argument that voters always take defense into account when making all-star and MVP/Norris selections... not that this would eliminate the problem, but it would reduce its severity)

Again, good work!

And yes, you are correct. My answer is that defense is taken care of by the voters for the all-stars and awards. There really is no other way to account for defense. There is no reliable stat that has been tracked since 1917 nor is there really a stat that can do it. Eyewitnesses are the only thing we can rely on for defense and, the all-stars and awards are what we have.

Again, not perfect but, the best we can do with the available resources.

Thank you for the Conn Smythe projections. If I had Hart and Norris voting results for all time, then we would be really cooking!

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for the all-star and award picks... this is interesting stuff. Good to see Cy Denneny as a 7-time all-star.

Here are the links for Hart and Norris runner-ups if you're curious. Personally I think
including it would improve your formula (but I know adding it in would be a lot of work).
- http://www.bov.ch/hockey/hart.html
- http://www.bov.ch/hockey/norris.html

 

[Habsfan 32]

Very nice list!

 

[BM67]

Norris
1926 Bert McCaffrey
1924 George Boucher

Projected 1st Team All Stars. I will put the 2nd Team in another post.

The positions are :

F
F
F
D
D
G

1st Team

1924
Cy Denneny
Billy Boucher
Aurel Joliat
George Boucher
King Clancy
Georges Vezina

1926
Nels Stewart
Cy Denneny
Carson Cooper
Bert McCaffrey
Hap Day
Alex Connell

Just thought I'd point out that Sprague Cleghorn was the runner-up for the Hart in 1924 and 1926, so he might deserve a spot here somewhere. Mind you Lionel Conacher was a Hart runner-up in 37, and was 2nd all-star.

 

[Leaf Lander]

what about scoring over 100 points? 3 points
getting over 60 assist 3 points
getting 50 goals 3 points
wiining an award 3 points

and leading your team in scoring 4 points

 

[Ogopogo*]

Thanks for the all-star and award picks... this is interesting stuff. Good to see Cy Denneny as a 7-time all-star.

Here are the links for Hart and Norris runner-ups if you're curious. Personally I think
including it would improve your formula (but I know adding it in would be a lot of work).
- http://www.bov.ch/hockey/hart.html
- http://www.bov.ch/hockey/norris.html

Fantastic! I will definitely be doing some tweaking to the system.

Thank you for all of the great resources.


Here are my 2nd team all-star projections:

1918
Newsy Lalonde
Corb Denneny
Didier Pitre
Ken Randall
Bert Corbeau
Harry Holmes

1919
Cy Denneny
Didier Pitre
Alf Skinner
Ken Randall
Eddie Gerard
Georges Vezina

1920
Corb Denneny
Jack Darragh
Reg Noble
Harry Cameron
Bert Corbeau
Ivan Mitchell

1921
Joe Malone
Frank Nighbor
Reg Noble
Harry Mummery
George Boucher
Vernon Forbes

1922
Joe Malone
Corb Denneny
Reg Noble
Leo Reise, Sr.
George Boucher
Georges Vezina

1923
Billy Boucher
Odie Cleghorn
Mickey Roach
Harry Cameron
Eddie Gerard
Georges Vezina

1924
Babe Dye
Billy Burch
Jack Adams
Bert Corbeau
Sprague Cleghorn
Clint Benedict

1925
Howie Morenz
Billy Boucher
Jack Adams
Bert McCaffrey
Edwin Gorman
Vernon Forbes

1926
Jimmy Herberts
Howie Morenz
Jack Adams
Albert Leduc
Lionel Conacher
Roy Worters

1927
Frank Fredrickson
Babe Dye
Ace Bailey
Eddie Shore
Lionel Conacher
Alex Connell

1928
George Hay
Nels Stewart
Art Gagne
Eddie Shore
Ching Johnson
Alex Connell

1929
Howie Morenz
Andy Blair
Frank Boucher
King Clancy
Sylvio Mantha
Tiny Thompson

1930
Bill Cook
Hec Kilrea
Nels Stewart
Sylvio Mantha
Hap Day
Lorne Chabot

 

[tom_servo]

Here are the 100 greatest players of all time:

Greatest careers of all time, possibly.

 

[silver_made*]

The very best of the best produce in the playoffs. The very best of the best lead their team to Cups. It is what separate great players from very good ones. That is not debatable.

You can have the guy who puts up shiny personal offensive numbers for the fantasy team during the regular season. Legends and reputations - among peers and GMs - are etched based on WINNING come springtime.

Mario Lemeiux was a great offensive player for the first seven seasons of his career. He became an all-time great one he LED his team to two straight Cups. Same with Yzerman, Sakic, Stevens, etc.

Its why Bryan Trottier (1425 career points and six Cups) is acknowledged as an all-time great and why Adam Oates (1420 points and no Cups) is not. Its why Joe Sakic (1402 points and two Cups) will be remembered long before Dale Hawerchuk's name (1409 and no Cups).

of course, trottier and sakic carried their squads to cups all by themselves with minimal supporting cast. gretzky winning cups in edmonton had nothing to do w/ kurri, fuhr, messier, coffey, andersson, etc.. and la's inability to win a cup shows how not-'great one' wayne was since the greats carry their teams to cups. makes about as much sense as your comment. there is a reason every guys' name makes its way onto the cup and not just the 'greats.'

so, uh, claude lemieux (3 cups w/ Mont., NJ, Colo.; conn smythe winner) is a 'great,' and hawrchuck and oates aren't? give us a break. you're an isles fan of course, so i know that you are doing your damndest to rationalize gillies' hof inclusion and probably think bob bourne and butch goring belong in their, too, b/c only the 'greats' win cups.

 

[God Bless Canada]

A commendable amount of work. My problem is this, and it's been alluded to several times: it's hard to compare players from eras when the level of talent was different. Case in point: the 1980s. Forwards like Hawerchuk, Savard, Francis and Statsny were handcuffed because they were going against Gretzky, Trottier and Dionne, and then later Lemieux. Yzerman had to battle Gretzky and Lemieux. In my opinion, Francis in his prime would be the best all-round player in the game. Hawerchuk, Savard and Statsny were all considered future Hall-of-Famers by the time they were 30. No players in the NHL today under the age of 30 are consensus future HHOFers. Martin St. Louis, Jose Theodore and Chris Pronger have Hart Trophies and other post-season hardware. Are they better than Hawerchuk, Mike Vernon or Larry Murphy, all of whom never won any, but are all in the Hall or likely headed for the Hall? That's the inherent problem with a system like this. It's better than the dartboard approach that some use.

As for the Stanley Cup argument: it's hard to soar with the eagles, when you're surrounded by turkeys. Nobody in the history of the game would have been able to lead those Winnipeg Jets teams of the 1980s to the Stanley Cup. IMO, it says so much about Hawerchuk that he was able to carry them on his back to a couple of series victories. Lemieux won those Cups in 1991 and 1992 because he was the best player on an incredible team. Think Lemieux in his prime would have been able to take those Pens teams from his first three years in Pittsburgh to the Cup? No. Ray Bourque was unarguably one of the top 4 defencemen of all-time before he won a Cup. (Along with Orr, Harvey and Shore). His place in the history of the game didn't change after he won it, except for giving us a nice feel good story. Marcel Dionne's place in the game wouldn't have changed if he won a Cup. So kudos for not being blinded by the Cup factor.

50-goal and 100-point seasons don't work, either. Look at the numbers that were posted in the '80s. Mike Rogers has three 100-point seasons. Jean Beliveau never had a 100-point season. Back in the Original Six days, 100 point seasons were even more rare than they are today.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is no perfect, fool-proof or even a truly credible system. The only way it works is if you can find unbiased people who have either watched the game for a long time and won't let their emotions get in the way, or younger fans with an incredible understanding of the game. I never saw Rocket Richard play, but I think he's the greatest goal scorer who ever played. Put him in the 1980s, and he'd score over 100 goals a season.

I don't think you'll get many arguments over who belongs in the top 10. (Although I'll argue Ted Lindsay was a better all-round player than Bobby Hull). It's when you get out of the top 10 (Jagr over Lafleur, Yzerman and Sakic's low ranking) that the inherent flaws of this and any other system are revealed.

 

[Trottier]

...Of course, one player can step up and make the difference between winning the cup and losing in the finals... but in order for that player, however good he may be, to have the occasion of making a difference he has to play for a team that is capable of putting all the elements together in order to be competitive enough to reach the finals. If the team is not capable of doing that, there is no way the star player can be blamed if his team can barely make the playoffs and get outshot 50-15 every game in the first round.

I cannot quibble with anything you state in this post, Maseo. I guess what I'm suggesting is that when put in that position (the potential to win), the great ones seize that opportunity.

Others don't.

One example: Heading into last season, was TB favored by many more people to win the Cup than say Philly, Ottawa or Toronto? No. And it's fair to say that at the start of the 2003-04 season many people would have ranked them behind those teams.

Well, come springtime '04, all four teams were in the Cup chase. And Richards and to a lesser extent, Lecavalier, TB's two best skaters delivered. The Roenicks, Sundins, and Hossas - and this is not meant as a slight at them - didn't. At least not to the extent of TB's best player(s).

That playoff performance alone will not make Brad Richards a "great". However, it certainly and justifiably, IMO, burnishes his reputation, in a unique way in which the others named above are yet to attain.

And, while your point about the 20th man on the roster having to perform his role is 100% correct, ultimately, in the playoffs, when everyone is working at their optimum level every night (unlike the regular season), the very best players make the difference. That is, the very best ones who deliver.

Hence reputations are made and just due deserved, IMO.

Marcel Dionne's place in the game wouldn't have changed if he won a Cup.

Marcel Dionne with six Cups (or even one) would be looked at the same as he is today? Likewise, Messier and Trottier with none (instead of six each) would be viewed the same? That's rich!

Yep, don't be blinded by Cups. They're overrated. Be blinded instead by shiny personal stats accumulated on teams that rarely played a pressure game, and never went anywhere. All hail Marcel Dionne and Dale Hawerchuk! And Bernie Federko while we're at it!

Sorry, winning counts for something. And, it's one differentiator - a very valid one - when comparing relatively equal players.

BTW, your top four dmen of all time list is far from etched in stone. Unless of course you saw Eddie Shore (or Harvey for that matter play), and can tell us as much. Pretty odd to conveniently overlook a guy named Potvin. (But then again, he played for that dynasty Stateside who some up north conveniently like to overlook. )

 

[Leaf Lander]

hey now toronto didnt make it to far last time around

one series win makes a big diffference and we had alot of injuries last yr

 

[Trottier]

hey now toronto didnt make it to far last time around

one series win makes a big diffference and we had alot of injuries last yr

Don't get defensive, I like the Leafs. But you bolster my point: your team didn't get it done. Your team, including its best player, was outperformed, albeit barely, by Philly. TB, led by its best player(s), got it done.

BTW, every team has injuries come playoff time. Colorado won the Cup and the last two playoff rounds in '01 without arguably the greatest player on earth (Forsberg). Injuries should never be used as an excuse.

Just my opinion.

 

[Leaf Lander]

i agree the leafswere older and injured
which doesnt work out to a winning formula usually

 

[Masao]

when put in that position (the potential to win), the great ones seize that opportunity.

Others don't.

Well, yes, that is exactly what I mean. When the Rangers acquired Messier they obtained the missing piece to the puzzle. But in order for the missing piece to complete the puzzle, or to make it complete enough to go all the way, the puzzle has to have reached a certain level of completion independently of that missing piece, however big it may be.
You could say that if the Rangers had acquired Vincent Damphousse or Brendan Shanahan instead of Mark Messier, it might not have been enough because they might not have performed the way he did under pressure. This is true. But in the same way, put Messier in the 1994 Senators and there's no way that team reaches the finals no matter how great Messier is.

My point is - if a player like Messier passes is entire carrer on a team like the 1994 Senators (assuming that managment is bad enough to keep the team under 50 points per season for 20 straight years) and thus fails to ever win a Cup, I don't think it is fair to say that he is "not as great" as a player of equal talent who passes 10 years of his carreer on a team that is constantly among the top 5 in the league and wins two cups. Yes, you're going to say that in such a situation he just has to ask for a trade or wait until he becomes a free agent and sign somewhere else... but what if he loves the city or he doesn't want to force his wife and kid to move across america?

 

[pei fan]

OGOPOGO, I have had a chance to take a better look at this thread and I have to
say this is one of the best threads I've seen on these boards especially the "history
of hockey" board. Too often on these boards posters only want to discuss Lemieux's,Yzerman's,Sakic's place in history and in doing so they want to ignore the
feats of the other great players of an earlier era.Your ranking system respects
"history" by using awards ,standing's,and all star selections.That's what these
awards were designed for is to record and remember the greatness of players.
On these boards too much emphasis is placed on total points which isn't a good
basis for ranking at all as it doesn't account for different level of scoring era's nor
does it take into account the fewer games played in yesteryears.This ranking shows the level of dominance a player had in his era. Ofcourse it's not perfect but
IMO it is very good (and you can still fine tune it).

ALSO,I just noticed you are a new member.WELCOME TO HF BOARDS OGOPOGO !
A VERY WELCOME ADDITION INDEED!

 

[#66]

Marcel Dionne with six Cups (or even one) would be looked at the same as he is today? Likewise, Messier and Trottier with none (instead of six each) would be viewed the same? That's rich!

Yep, don't be blinded by Cups. They're overrated. Be blinded instead by shiny personal stats accumulated on teams that rarely played a pressure game, and never went anywhere. All hail Marcel Dionne and Dale Hawerchuk! And Bernie Federko while we're at it!

Sorry, winning counts for something. And, it's one differentiator - a very valid one - when comparing relatively equal players.

BTW, your top four dmen of all time list is far from etched in stone. Unless of course you saw Eddie Shore (or Harvey for that matter play), and can tell us as much. Pretty odd to conveniently overlook a guy named Potvin. (But then again, he played for that dynasty Stateside who some up north conveniently like to overlook. )

For the first time I'm going to have to disagree with you. Gretzky, Lemiuex, Beliveau and other superstars that have gone on to win the cup have had strong supporting casts. There hasn't been an NHL superstar that has single handedly won a cup. Maybe a playoff round here and there but not a championship.

Guys like Federko and Gartner have some very impressive playoff stats. Federko led the NHL in playoff scoring in '86 and didn't even play in the finals. I would say that they did their part in the playoffs but just didn't have the team to advance.

That being said, I think that cups do have to count for something. A player should get accolades for being a great player in high pressure games. Its just that a player that hasn't had the good fortune of being on a cup contending team shouldn't be frowned upon and thought of as a lesser player.

Also good call on Potvin. IMO the second best D-man ever.

 

[pei fan]

Here's some comments on some player ranking's;
Mario Lemieux-this ranking system is going to give less credit to players with
shortened careers.On a per game or per season basis he probably ranks fourth
(although Shore and Richard would be close).But also on that basis Orr would
go to first.Lemieux is a great player but on these boards posters rank him too
high IMO.

Ray Bourque-his high ranking shows the system does recognize the modern players,
the truly great ones at least.Ray played at the highest level for a very long time.
He probably ranks second to only Gordie in his longevity as an elite player.

Andy Bathgate-I don't know how many times I've said on these boards that this is the most under-rated and forgotten player in the history of the game.I'm somewhat
surprised that he ranked so high on this system because the argument posters
make for Yzerman being overshadowed at center can be made far greater in
Bathgates case for right wing.This guy won the Hart when Gordie was in his prime
and also knocked Gordie and The Rocket off the All Star Team a couple of times.

Nick Lidstrom-By far the most underrated player of current players on these boards.
I don't understand the lack of respect he gets.His ranking ties him with another
great defenseman,Pierre Pilote at 32 on the all time list.He desrves that kind of
ranking.

Steve Yzerman-tied for 92nd shows his lack of dominance in the game.Even though
the system gives credit for finishing 2nd to 7th in scoring the system uncovers
one of the biggest myths on this board.Take Lemieux and Gretzky out of the
picture and Yzerman is "very rarely" the next best player. Rarely would he be top
5 with Gretzky and Lemieux out of the picture.Yzerman is by a par 5 the most
over-rated player on this board.By the way he is one of my favorite players
personally.

Peter Forsberg-another player that loses ground because of a shortened
career but still he does get recognized as a top 50 player.The talk on these
boards about whether he is worthy of the hall of fame is ridiculous.

 

[#66]

Oops! I never got a chance to thank you for the great list. Seeing guys like Cowley and Cook getting some respect is great. Just another idea is giving points out to leading the team in scoring. Bonus points for doing it by a wide margin. This would help bring into the picture guys like Federko, Hawerchuk and Ulmer. Its time consuming but players like that should get their due too. This also rewards players for being a great player without having much to work with.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Just thought I'd point out that Sprague Cleghorn was the runner-up for the Hart in 1924 and 1926, so he might deserve a spot here somewhere. Mind you Lionel Conacher was a Hart runner-up in 37, and was 2nd all-star.

Hart runners up is some new data that I was just shown. I did not have that info when I made these picks so, I may end up tweaking them.

 

[Ogopogo*]

what about scoring over 100 points? 3 points
getting over 60 assist 3 points
getting 50 goals 3 points
wiining an award 3 points

and leading your team in scoring 4 points

Using a hard number like 100 points or 50 goals would not work. Players in the 20s had a 24 or 30 game NHL season, there is no way they could ever have achieved 100 points or 50 goals. Leading your team is misleading, as well. Some teams are horrible (I think of the Devils in the mid 80s. Did Mel Bridgman really deserve any greatness credit for leading the team with 62 points?) so that would not really be effective, either.

Many awards are not what I would call "important" awards (Lady Byng, Calder) in terms of measuring greatness so, I would not use them in a system like this. As well, I have the Hart and Norris and I will be factoring in the Conn Smythe which, in addition to the Vezina are the most important awards the NHL gives out. These are useful in measuring greatness.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Ogopogo*]

OGOPOGO, I have had a chance to take a better look at this thread and I have to
say this is one of the best threads I've seen on these boards especially the "history
of hockey" board. Too often on these boards posters only want to discuss Lemieux's,Yzerman's,Sakic's place in history and in doing so they want to ignore the
feats of the other great players of an earlier era.Your ranking system respects
"history" by using awards ,standing's,and all star selections.That's what these
awards were designed for is to record and remember the greatness of players.
On these boards too much emphasis is placed on total points which isn't a good
basis for ranking at all as it doesn't account for different level of scoring era's nor
does it take into account the fewer games played in yesteryears.This ranking shows the level of dominance a player had in his era. Ofcourse it's not perfect but
IMO it is very good (and you can still fine tune it).

ALSO,I just noticed you are a new member.WELCOME TO HF BOARDS OGOPOGO !
A VERY WELCOME ADDITION INDEED!

Thank you for the warm welcome. I have tried the ESPN hockey board and the Sportsnet.ca hockey boards and now I am here. The ESPN board is HORRIBLE. Just some negative grumps that look to bash everything I posted and very few wanted to have some intelligent discussion about it. The Sportsnet.ca board is better and somebody over there told me about this one. I am enjoying HFBoards very much and hope to be around here for a long time.

I LOVE hockey history and with my lists, I simply try to find an accurate way to measure the all-time greats. Too many polls are completely erroneous in my opinion. How in the world can somebody correctly vote for the all time greats (1998 Hockey News top 100) when they haven't seen Howie Morenz, Eddie Shore or Cy Denneny in action? The truth is, they can't. I like to use the stats and evidence available to uncover the truth - or as close to the truth as I can get.

So, as I have said, my system is not perfect and I will tweak things with some of the info and suggestions posted to uncover the truth.

Thank you everybody for the intelligent and informative responses.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Oops! I never got a chance to thank you for the great list. Seeing guys like Cowley and Cook getting some respect is great. Just another idea is giving points out to leading the team in scoring. Bonus points for doing it by a wide margin. This would help bring into the picture guys like Federko, Hawerchuk and Ulmer. Its time consuming but players like that should get their due too. This also rewards players for being a great player without having much to work with.

What the goal of this system is, is to truly recognize the greats and to question those that are overrated. In my opinion, Federko and Hawerchuk are somewhat overrated. They had 100 point seasons in the most offensive era of all time. That doesn't necessarily make them great. To achieve 100 points but end up 13th in the scoring race is not greatness in my opinion. 13 is quite a way down the list. Hawerchuk was greater than Federko, according to my system and I think that Federko is the least qualified player in the Hall of Fame. Great player just not as great as a Hall of Famer should be. JMHO.

Norm Ullman comes in at #92 on my list and I am surprised at just how great he really was. Very impressive.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[DARKSIDE]

I watched Mike Bossy play and he should be much higher, at least higher then Jagar. Bossy was a complete winner and I still believe had he the opportunity to play with the great one, he would have been the NHL's first 100 goal man.

 

[Ogopogo*]

A commendable amount of work. My problem is this, and it's been alluded to several times: it's hard to compare players from eras when the level of talent was different. Case in point: the 1980s. Forwards like Hawerchuk, Savard, Francis and Statsny were handcuffed because they were going against Gretzky, Trottier and Dionne, and then later Lemieux. Yzerman had to battle Gretzky and Lemieux. In my opinion, Francis in his prime would be the best all-round player in the game. Hawerchuk, Savard and Statsny were all considered future Hall-of-Famers by the time they were 30. No players in the NHL today under the age of 30 are consensus future HHOFers. Martin St. Louis, Jose Theodore and Chris Pronger have Hart Trophies and other post-season hardware. Are they better than Hawerchuk, Mike Vernon or Larry Murphy, all of whom never won any, but are all in the Hall or likely headed for the Hall? That's the inherent problem with a system like this. It's better than the dartboard approach that some use.

As for the Stanley Cup argument: it's hard to soar with the eagles, when you're surrounded by turkeys. Nobody in the history of the game would have been able to lead those Winnipeg Jets teams of the 1980s to the Stanley Cup. IMO, it says so much about Hawerchuk that he was able to carry them on his back to a couple of series victories. Lemieux won those Cups in 1991 and 1992 because he was the best player on an incredible team. Think Lemieux in his prime would have been able to take those Pens teams from his first three years in Pittsburgh to the Cup? No. Ray Bourque was unarguably one of the top 4 defencemen of all-time before he won a Cup. (Along with Orr, Harvey and Shore). His place in the history of the game didn't change after he won it, except for giving us a nice feel good story. Marcel Dionne's place in the game wouldn't have changed if he won a Cup. So kudos for not being blinded by the Cup factor.

50-goal and 100-point seasons don't work, either. Look at the numbers that were posted in the '80s. Mike Rogers has three 100-point seasons. Jean Beliveau never had a 100-point season. Back in the Original Six days, 100 point seasons were even more rare than they are today.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is no perfect, fool-proof or even a truly credible system. The only way it works is if you can find unbiased people who have either watched the game for a long time and won't let their emotions get in the way, or younger fans with an incredible understanding of the game. I never saw Rocket Richard play, but I think he's the greatest goal scorer who ever played. Put him in the 1980s, and he'd score over 100 goals a season.

I don't think you'll get many arguments over who belongs in the top 10. (Although I'll argue Ted Lindsay was a better all-round player than Bobby Hull). It's when you get out of the top 10 (Jagr over Lafleur, Yzerman and Sakic's low ranking) that the inherent flaws of this and any other system are revealed.

Like I have said, this system is not perfect and I am constantly working at tweaking things. Although, no matter how much I tweak, I don't think Jagr will move down. Winning 5 scoring titles is something that only the very elite ever do, that is a fantastic accomplishment. Yzerman will probably move up and Sakic, I am not too sure.

This is an unbiased system. If I had my way, the entire roster of the 80s Edmonton Oilers would be in the top 10. They just don't belong there. Richard is accurately portrayed, as well. Richard would be great today - the leading goal scorer without a doubt. 100 goals? Perhaps? But, he is definitely the #3 goal scorer of all time - take a look at my "Greatest Goal Scorers" list.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I watched Mike Bossy play and he should be much higher, at least higher then Jagar. Bossy was a complete winner and I still believe had he the opportunity to play with the great one, he would have been the NHL's first 100 goal man.

Bossy is one that had a career cut short by injury. He probably would have been higher had he played longer. Jagr's 5 scoring titles make him one of the NHL's elite players of all time. I think Jagr's last couple of seasons have made a lot of people forget just how dominant he was during his career.