2009 Top 100 Update Preliminary Discussion Thread

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,293
17,663
Connecticut
Never would have happened in Chicago. Watch those games. Espo just wasn't that good plus he didn't see much PP time.. I guess he would have done much better if he was put on the 3rd line with Hay & Nesterenko. That way he wouldn't have had Hull holding him back.:sarcasm: I give Boston full credit for using Espo effectively.

Did someone say Hull held him back?

My point was that Espo was a scorer on his own, not because he played with Hull, as you stated.
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
15
Canada
www.robotnik.com
So were Gretzky and Lemieux and Coffey.

It appears Bure is real sore spot for you, Mr. Thornton. So this will be my last word on the subject. Pavel Bure scored goals at a rate better than all but 4 other players in NHL history. All of 6 players did better in the playoffs. And he did it in an era that was tough for offensive play. In my way of thinking, this should at the very least make him a solid candidate for the top 100 players ever. The fact that Bure was someone who was worth the price of admission to see play in his prime comes into my thinking also.

He scored those goals at the expense of his team and teammates.

Lemieux and Gretzky brought an offense at least twice as high as Bure's, thus, they could get away with being negligible in their end. Bure's offense did not cover his lack of defensive awareness anywhere near the same manner.

I don't really care what ratio Bure scored at. His style negated era. He would cherry pick his way past the defense by doing figure 8's on his blueline(Not helping his team defend) waiting and hoping the puck was chipped his way so he could break out(Effectively leaving his team in a shorthanded situation in the process. When most of your goals are from breakaways, you don't need to worry about clutching and grabbing. Just beating the goalie. He had great speed and one on one moves. But little in terms of playmaking, and no defensive awareness.

In any case its a moot point, you are right about this likely being our last word on Bure. Bure will not be up for voting in the top 120. Guaranteed. He did not make last years aggregate top 135, let alone top 120, and he never came up for voting. Guys like Hawerchuk, Savard, Gilmour, Ratelle and Oates did not make it(Along with other positions with Langway, Mark Howe, Quackenbush, Boucher, Gerard, Lapointe and Stewart, multiple goalies such as Vezina, Smith, Fuhr and Thompson and several of them would be a gimme in front of Bure, let alone our disagreement over Lindros vs Bure

By the way, we all have to sort through the homerism.....I say Shore revolutionized the game as the first true offensive defenseman in the mid 20s.
Maybe you or others might say it was Cleghorn (albeit to a lesser degree) in the late teens/early 20s.
But how about this from the Canadiens own site:
Harry Cameron was the first true offensive Defenseman, unless you count Cyclone Taylor before he went Rover.
And this was before the forward pass remember. Even Shore did not put up large totals until forward passing was allowed. Cameron However, did.

..........that would be the late 40s........

Funny. Since Shore had a higher ppg than Harvey....in a less offensive era to boot.
Obviously, whoever said Harvey was the first true offensive blueliner was flawed. Even in his own time, Red Kelly was better offensively and before Harvey blossomed.

Shore was not the first true offensive blueliner either, nor was Shore the elite defensively(Although he was considered very good)
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
By the way, we all have to sort through the homerism.....I say Shore revolutionized the game as the first true offensive defenseman in the mid 20s.
Maybe you or others might say it was Cleghorn (albeit to a lesser degree) in the late teens/early 20s.
But how about this from the Canadiens own site:



..........that would be the late 40s........

Funny. Since Shore had a higher ppg than Harvey....in a less offensive era to boot.

Shore as the "first great offensive d-man" is a popular myth.

Defensemen were making rushes up the ice and scoring goals pretty much since the beginning. Mike Grant of the 1890's Montreal Victorias dynasty was famous for his end-to-end dashes. Art Ross and the Patrick brothers followed suit, and Harry Cameron was probably the top offensive blueliner of the pre-consolidation era.

Not sure why Shore has been given that distinction. I was under the same impression for years myself, and was continually surprised to see it written that so-and-so was a rushing defenseman. It became clear that, while Shore was likely the best at what he did, he was hardly the pioneer he's made out to be.

That being said, I'm not intending to discredit Shore.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,777
16,507
Shore as the "first great offensive d-man" is a popular myth.

Defensemen were making rushes up the ice and scoring goals pretty much since the beginning. Mike Grant of the 1890's Montreal Victorias dynasty was famous for his end-to-end dashes. Art Ross and the Patrick brothers followed suit, and Harry Cameron was probably the top offensive blueliner of the pre-consolidation era.

Not sure why Shore has been given that distinction. I was under the same impression for years myself, and was continually surprised to see it written that so-and-so was a rushing defenseman. It became clear that, while Shore was likely the best at what he did, he was hardly the pioneer he's made out to be.

That being said, I'm not intending to discredit Shore.

I didn't meant Cleghorn was the 1st offensive blueliner either... However, the rushing, bull-in-a-China-shop type... didn't were much before him.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Did someone say Hull held him back?

My point was that Espo was a scorer on his own, not because he played with Hull, as you stated.
Guess I misunderstood. Still think playing on the Hull line was the reason he got as many points as he did with Chicago. He was such a one dimensional player then. I really can't see where else he would have fit in. As someone else said the chemistry just wasn't there.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,113
7,179
Regina, SK
I'm finalizing my list today.

Just thought I would mention, for reasons already mentioned many times, if you have Ron Francis or Busher Jackson on your list, take a good long look at Syd Howe.

Canadiens Fan, I'm going to work on dictating out those accounts of the Richard and Shore incidents now. meant to do it Friday night... life intervened.

So why did the 60s era Blackhawks choke so often, when they had (according to the list), 4 top 51 players of all time? Helping your team win is a hockey player's job and should factor heavily into the rankings. (Indeed, it's why Henry Richard is and should be on the list). Right now, I have Hull over Beliveau and Richard, Mikita over Bossy, Hall over Dryden, and Pilote over Horton. And I'm wondering if some of these rankings are wrong. I know one of you (Thornton_19 I think) basically blamed Hall for Chicago's lack of playoff success. If it really was mostly Hall's fault, I might have to rethink ranking him above Dryden, who was always excellent in the playoffs.

Interesting that the 60s Blackhawks are much better represented in the top 100 than the two Montreal and Toronto dynasties of the 60s. I guess Chicago was a team with a few superstars and little depth?

I think it is very hard to pinpoint.

Bobby Hull's playoff PPG is just .01 lower than in the regular season.

Pierre Pilote, a great all-around defenseman whose greatness is primarily due to his offense, and his PPG gets significantly higher in the playoffs.

Mikita's playoff PPG is very similar to his regular season PPG, and the same if you remove his playoffs from age 19, 35, 36, and 37.

Hall takes some flak, but it's not entirely fair. During his Hawks years he faced 34.1 shots per game in the playoffs. The league average during this time was 31.5. He had a .9149 save% in these seasons and the league average was .9168. I would say his very bad playoffs were 1960, 1964, and 1966, while his very good ones were 1959, 1961, and 1965. Was he excellent? I'd say no. But he was consistently average throughout his playoff career, and this average was based on goalies like Plante, Sawchuk, Worsley, and Bower.

I don't have the time at the moment to check their offensive output but I'm thinking they didn't get the secondary scoring they needed, and they allowed too many shots - and it's tough to say who that falls on.

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I figured I'll let you be the judge. Here's the top 10 in offensive production in the Stanley Cup finals by defensemen (or in Kelly's case, players who primarily played D). I found this information in a link in this thread.

Player | GP | G | A | TP
Doug Harvey | 54 | 4 | 31 | 35
Red Kelly | 65 | 11 | 20 | 31
Denis Potvin | 24 | 9 | 19 | 28
Paul Coffey | 33 | 8 | 18 | 26
Bobby Orr | 16 | 8 | 12 | 20
Tim Horton | 33 | 4 | 16 | 20
Larry Robinson | 36 | 5 | 15 | 20
Chris Chelios | 20 | 3 | 16 | 19
Larry Murphy | 18 | 3 | 15 | 18
Brad Park | 16 | 7 | 9 | 16

It's only fair that you count just the finals in which Kelly was a forward, no?
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,113
7,179
Regina, SK
One great thing about The Trail is that it is completely free of bias, influence, or emotion. It makes for a drier read, but one that you can be more confident in as well.

The Trail of the Stanley Cup said:
...In the second period things began to liven up and there was some bumping and boarding for which four minors were awarded, all to Horner, Day, and Blair. Shore, who had been combining heavy checking with rushing, made one of his sorties that finished with him on his back at the Toronto end. When he regained his feet, the play had travelled to the other end but forward Ace Bailey had dropped back to the Toronto defense. There are many versions as to what happened next. Everyone is aware of the comparitively light tap required from a stick on the heels of an unsuspecting stationary player's skates to bring him down. if Shore banged the heels of Bailey's skates as he returned to his end of the ice or shouldered the Leaf player is uncertain. George Hainsworth, the Toronto goaler, was certainly in as good a position as anybody to see what happened and he saw it as a charge. At any rate, bailey went down with a thump striking his head on the iceand for a brief time remained motionless. Red Horner after a brief glance at Bailey skated after Shore. He said a few words to the Boston player and then struck him with a blow to the jaw with his fist. In the general confusion that followed, the unconscious Bailey and stunned Shore were carried from the ice by their teammates...

Taken from the statement read at the inquiry into Richard's incident.

The Trail of the Stanley Cup said:
...Around the 14:00 mark of the 3rd period when Boston was a man short, the Canadien goalkeeper was removed in favour of a sixth forward. Richard skated past Laycoe who high-sticked him on the head. Referee Udvari signalled a penalty to Laycoe but permitted play to continue as Canadiens were still in possession on the puck. Richard skated around the Boston goal and almost to the blueline when the whistle blew. Richard rubbed his hand on his head and indicated to the referee that he had been injured. Suddenly he skated towards Laycoe, who had dropped his stick and gloves, and swinging his stick up with both hands he struck Laycoe with a blow to the shoulder and face. The linesmen grabbed the two players and Richard's stick was taken from him. Richard broke away from linesman Thompson and picking up a loose stick again attacked Laycoe, striking him over the back and breaking the stick. The linesman seized Richard but he got away and seizing another stick, attacked Laycoe for the third time, hitting him on the back. Linesman Thompson seized Richard once more and forcing him to the ice held him there until a Canadien player pushed him away and Richard regained his feet. Richard then struck Thompson two hard blows to the face which raised a swelling. Richard was finally brought under contrl and taken to the first aid room...

After hearing the evidence, president Campbell stated, "I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the attack on Laycoe was not only deliberate but persisted in the face of all authority and, that the referee acted with proper judgment in accordance with the rules in awarding a match penalty. I am also satisfied that Richard did not strike Thompson as a result of mistake or accident as suggested. There is singularly little conflict in the evidence as to important relevant facts. Assistance can also be obtained from an incident that occurred less than three months ago in which the conduct of Richard was almost identical, including his constant resort to the recovery of his stick to pursue an opponent, as well as flouting the authority of the officials. On the previous occasion he was fortunate that teammates and officials were more effective in preventing him from doing injury to anyone and the penalty was more lenient in consequence. At that time he was warned that there must be no further incident. It was too bad that his teammates did not assist officials instead of interfering with them. The time for probationary lenience has passed, whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority of the game does not matter. Richard will be suspended from all games, both league and playoff, for the balance of the current season."
 
Last edited:

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Thanks again to FF for running the show this time.

I just finished my list. As I expected, not a ton of changes. It's going to be a tweaked list, not a revamped list. Part of that is that I'm a pretty stubborn guy, so you're going to have to show me something new for me to advance a guy more than a few spots on my list.

When it is released, there probably won't be many surprises. You guys know me well enough to know what I emphasize.

Some of the older goalies moved up on this list, guys like Benedict, Gardiner and Brimsek, although they will probably be lower on my list than their Round 2 vote. (Especially Benedict. I still haven't found a compelling argument for Benedict over Johnny Bower). A few guys moved down, although with the exception of Babe Dye, I believe everyone in my top 100 from last year made my top 120. A couple more Europeans in my top 120 this time.

Toughest omission from the top 50 was once again Dit Clapper. As much as I think the world of hockey's Mr. Everything, I look at the guys I had towards the bottom of my top 50 - Cook, Conacher, Dionne, Lalonde, Moore, etc - and I couldn't justify Clapper over any of them. I'd love to get guys like Bathgate, Kennedy and Pilote into my top 50, too, but Clapper is the toughest snub when it comes to my top 50.

Toughest omission from the top 100? Three stand out: Leetch, Quackenbush and Ratelle. That's not to say they were 101, 102 and 103. I think we forget just what an incredible player Leetch was at his peak. MVP of the Rangers team that won the organization's first Cup in 54 years. Won two Norris Trophies, including one in 1992 - in that "glory years" time for the Norris. Five-time all-star from 1991 to 1997. Quackenbush has been referred to as the poor-man's Lidstrom. Smart and steady. Only strike against him is relatively weak competition for defencemen in the late 40s. (Lots and lots of good ones. No great ones, as they waited for the guy who would be the next Shore. Then they got two super defencemen in Harvey and Kelly). Ratelle is criminally underrated. I wanted to have him (and Sittler) higher just to get their names on the floor for discussion.

Last year my sentimental vote went to Brendan Shanahan at 119. This year it's Lanny McDonald at 120. (Guys like Theo Fleury, Bryan Hextall Sr. and Carl Brewer were in contention, but Lanny gave me a couple great interviews over the weekend, so I went with him).

Final numbers by position
G: 21 (Eight in top 50, 16 in top 100)
D: 29 (12 in the top 50 and 24 in the top 100)
C: 39 (18 in the top 50 and 34 in the top 100)
RW: 18 (Eight in the top 50 and 15 in the top 100)
LW: 14 (Five in the top 50 and 12 in the top 100)
Note: Clapper was counted as both an RW and a D, due to tremendous success at both positions.
 

Spitfire11

Registered User
Jan 17, 2003
5,048
242
Ontario
I got mine off yesterday, I'm fairly happy with the top 50 but after that I kept going back and forth on the rest, and might have a few questionable choices.

From THN top 50, Horton, Clapper, Mahovlich, Perreault (toughest), Conacher, Coffey, Kurri, Dionne, Park, Hainsworth, Durnan, Bucyk are all out for Hasek, Brodeur, Yzerman, Sakic, Lidstrom, Stevens, Kharlamov, Forsberg, Fetisov, Kennedy, Broda, and Taylor.

Despite a personal bias, Howe tops Orr for #1.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
Some of the older goalies moved up on this list, guys like Benedict, Gardiner and Brimsek, although they will probably be lower on my list than their Round 2 vote. (Especially Benedict. I still haven't found a compelling argument for Benedict over Johnny Bower).

There is little doubt that Benedict was the top netminder of his era, something that surely couldn't be said about Bower. That's pretty compelling in my mind.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,113
7,179
Regina, SK
There is little doubt that Benedict was the top netminder of his era, something that surely couldn't be said about Bower. That's pretty compelling in my mind.

+1.


By the way, I guess I never mentioned when posting the Richard/Shore incidents, that this was done as a way of comparing each player at their worst, and to justify partially why I say Richard was the most unstable player of his time. Not to drag them through the mud.
 

Canadiens Fan

Registered User
Oct 3, 2008
737
8
Taken from the Hockey Hall of Fame website ... offers a little bit more detail than the Trail's account.

Bailey was one of the most popular players ever to skate for the Leafs during his few years in the NHL, but he will forever be linked to one of the worst on-ice accidents in the history of the game. On December 12, 1933, during the second period of a Leafs' visit to Boston Garden, Eddie Shore was checked hard by Leafs defenseman King Clancy while Shore was rushing the puck into the Leafs' end.

As play moved back into Boston territory, Shore, dazed by the hit and full of vengeance, skated wildly toward Bailey, thinking that he was charging Clancy. Shore used his stick to trip Bailey heavily from behind and Ace fell to the ice with a sickening thud. He lost consciousness and began bleeding from the head. Red Horner skated over to the stricken Bailey and, seeing his teammate seriously injured, asked Shore in no uncertain terms just what he'd been thinking. Shore just smiled, prompting a furious Horner to deck him with one punch, knocking him unconscious to the ice.

As Leafs players gathered around Bailey, Bruin trainers looked after Shore, and both men had to be carried off the ice by worried teammates. Shore suffered a three-inch gash to his head, but Bailey's injury was far more serious. He lay in the Bruins dressing room, where Shore, upon regaining consciousness, came over to apologize. "It's all part of the game," Bailey said in forgiveness before convulsing and falling unconscious again.

Bailey was rushed to Audubon Hospital with what seemed to be a fractured skull. But by the following morning, Bailey's condition was grave and the prospect of his death was almost certain. Overnight, he'd suffered cerebral hemorrhaging, and at noon Dr. Donald Munro, a brain specialist, consulted with Ace's wife, Mabel, about a very necessary but dangerous operation. At the same time, Boston homicide detectives were interviewing Shore and other players about the incident and it became known that, in the event of Bailey's death, Shore would be charged with manslaughter.

Bailey was transferred to City Hospital, where Dr. Munro performed two operations to relieve the pressure on his brain. After the second operation, on December 18, Dr. Munro said simply, "His chances of living are very slim," and a priest was called to read Bailey's last rites. His pulse was 160, his temperature almost 106¼ Fahrenheit, and the doctors were reluctant even to measure his life expectancy in minutes. By the very next morning, however, Bailey had miraculously fought off death, and in the ensuing days he grew stronger and stronger. By Christmas, his life was no longer hanging in the balance and Ace was on the road to recovery.

Blame and accusations followed the Shore-Bailey incident. League president Frank Calder absolved the two referees--Odie Cleghorn and Eusebe Daignault--of any breach of responsibility in their handling of the game. But Red Horner blamed Shore for the attack, while Shore protested that he wasn't conscious of what he was doing after being dazed by Horner's check. Meanwhile, Leafs owner Conn Smythe blamed the Boston writers for generating malicious hype leading up to the game and inciting the Boston players to violence.

Calder suspended Horner until January 1, 1934, and barred Shore indefinitely. Shore wasn't permitted to visit Bailey in hospital, but when Boston manager Art Ross managed to gain access to his room, Ace again absolved Shore of any willful wrongdoing. Shore, exhausted and near collapse from both his own injury and his worry over Bailey's condition, went to Bermuda for three weeks to convalesce.

Once it was clear that Bailey would live but would never play again, president Calder announced that Shore would be allowed back to the NHL as of January 28, after an absence of 16 games. Shore's presence in the Boston lineup was vital to the franchise's success. When he played, Boston Garden was routinely sold out. During his suspension, attendance had plummeted to about 6,000 per game.

On January 24, 1934, the NHL's board of governors decided that a special benefit game featuring the Leafs against the best of the rest of the league would be staged in Toronto and the proceeds would go to Bailey and his family. The idea had originally been proposed by Walter Gilhooley, sports editor of the Journal in Montreal, in the form of an open letter to the league. The Leafs' opposition, an "All-Star" team, would be selected by a committee consisting of Frank Calder, Frank Patrick and league director Thomas Arnold.

Prior to the game, held on Valentine's Day 1934, the All-Star players skated onto the ice in their regular team sweaters and had their picture taken as a group. They were then presented with their All-Star uniforms by president Calder, Lester Patrick and Leaf club officials, including Ace Bailey himself. The first in line was goalie Charlie Gardiner, who received his number 1 jersey, and he was followed immediately by number 2, Eddie Shore. An apprehensive silence fell over the Gardens as Shore skated to center ice. But as Bailey extended his hand to the Bruin, the crowd went wild. Bailey's extraordinarily sportsmanlike gesture made clear his forgiveness of Shore.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
Not are eras have equal quality at every position, otherwise a guy like Lidstrom would unanimously be above Potvin, Robinson, and Kelly.

This is true of course, but Benedict was probably tops all-time from the beginning until at least the 30's when guys like Gardiner and Thompson came along. While Bower may have had Sawchuk, Plante, and Hall as very stiff competition, you really can't argue that he (and Worsley for that matter) could possibly be better than 4th/5th in their era as a whole.

To compare a Bower/Benedict debate to Lidstrom, would be like saying you're unconvinced that Lidstrom is better than Serge Savard since he had Orr, Park, and Robinson to contend with, while Lidstrom dominated a weak era for defensemen. Being top dog of a weak era is still better than being fourth banana in a strong one in almost every instance.
 

Stonefly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2007
1,032
3
Ratelle is criminally underrated. I wanted to have him (and Sittler) higher just to get their names on the floor for discussion.

For the most part I liked your list from last year, the players I had seen anyway.
I have to ask you why you feel Ratelle belongs? Very good player but top 120? Just can't see that.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,579
1,105
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
This is true of course, but Benedict was probably tops all-time from the beginning until at least the 30's when guys like Gardiner and Thompson came along. While Bower may have had Sawchuk, Plante, and Hall as very stiff competition, you really can't argue that he (and Worsley for that matter) could possibly be better than 4th/5th in their era as a whole.

To compare a Bower/Benedict debate to Lidstrom, would be like saying you're unconvinced that Lidstrom is better than Serge Savard since he had Orr, Park, and Robinson to contend with, while Lidstrom dominated a weak era for defensemen. Being top dog of a weak era is still better than being fourth banana in a strong one in almost every instance.

Maybe, but Bower was 4th in his era behind 3 guys who are Top 25-30 all-time players. I can't see how it's a black mark against him for that. Is Yzerman being the 3rd best center of his era a black mark against him?
 

Stonefly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2007
1,032
3
To compare a Bower/Benedict debate to Lidstrom, would be like saying you're unconvinced that Lidstrom is better than Serge Savard since he had Orr, Park, and Robinson to contend with, while Lidstrom dominated a weak era for defensemen. Being top dog of a weak era is still better than being fourth banana in a strong one in almost every instance.
Why? If there were 5 better players playing at the same time it doesn't matter that one of them would be 5th. If the 5th place player is better than the first place weak era player than he's still better.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
There is little doubt that Benedict was the top netminder of his era, something that surely couldn't be said about Bower. That's pretty compelling in my mind.
Well, do you think Benedict would have been No. 1 for his era had he played in the late 50s and early 60s? I don't. I don't think he comes close. Better than Plante, Hall or Sawchuk? Absolutely not. He would have been No. 4. Just like Bower was. Do you think Bower would have been No. 1 at Benedict's time? Absolutely he would have been.

Not all eras are equal. Sports are cyclical. The second half of the 80s and much of the 90s gave us tremendous talent at centre and defence. The second half of the 90s and the first half of the 00s gave us outstanding depth at right wing and goaltending. Now there is tremendous depth at centre again, and depth at LW that we haven't seen in decades.
 

pitseleh

Registered User
Jul 30, 2005
19,164
2,613
Vancouver
Maybe, but Bower was 4th in his era behind 3 guys who are Top 25-30 all-time players. I can't see how it's a black mark against him for that. Is Yzerman being the 3rd best center of his era a black mark against him?

While Bower is regarded as the fourth best goalie of his era, he wasn't competing peak to peak with Plante or Sawchuk except maybe a small overlap early during his peak (from about '60-'66). All-Star goalies during three of his five best seasons (when he led the league in SV%) include Charlie Hodge (2x), Roger Crozier, and Gump Worsley. It's probable that without Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante in the league he's a four or five time all-star but I don't think he'd match Benedict's dominance over such a long period of time.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,113
7,179
Regina, SK
Taken from the Hockey Hall of Fame website ... offers a little bit more detail than the Trail's account.

Thank you. Most of that is the aftermath, though, and I was more concerned with what happened on the ice. The two accounts are almost identical in that regard.

1. Longevity
2. relative dominance
3. best player on a dynasty
4. forever changed the way the position is played.


I can't think of a single reason to put Bower over Benedict except that Bower had a better poke check.

...Also, sv% stats unavailable at the time, show Bower to be in all likelihood better than he was given credit for. No such case can be made for Benedict, but that is not his fault.

I have Benedict 22 spots higher, mind you. Just thought I'd point that out.

If all-star teams existed from 1910-1930, it's not far-fetched to say that Benedict would be a ten-time all-star, and I'm not just referrig to NHA/NHL - I mean top-2 across both leagues. No one would have a problem with him being a top-8 goalie then. Again, the lack of awards to judge his resume by, is not his fault.

Maybe, but Bower was 4th in his era behind 3 guys who are Top 25-30 all-time players. I can't see how it's a black mark against him for that. Is Yzerman being the 3rd best center of his era a black mark against him?

You must consider Sakic part of the next generation. :)
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,113
7,179
Regina, SK
I'm submitting my list now. Too late to do anything about it now, but... did anyone else find that there weren't many wingers in the 100-120 range?

My last LW is at #99. My second last RW is at #77 and my last is at #113.

I've got 17 centers between Nighbor at #53 and Delvecchio at #97, which seems like a lot but I guess if my first 17 centers are also in the top-46 that's not such an overrepresentation.... it matches what GBC posted too, so I must be on to something.

Final list:

19 Goalies
14 RW
12 LW
41 C
34 D
 

pitseleh

Registered User
Jul 30, 2005
19,164
2,613
Vancouver
I actually had the opposite seventies - I had a bunch of wingers come up in my 100-120 range but I probably ranked at least a few in there that many people had in their top-100. I may have some of the different multi-position players listed differently too (I just picked one position for each).

Here's how mine brokedown:

Position| Top 50| Top 100| Top 120
C| 15| 34| 36
RW| 9| 15| 19
LW| 3| 9| 15
D| 15| 28| 33
G| 8| 14| 17
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->