Comparing todays stars to the past

[Ogopogo*]

"My GREATEST SCORERS list goes something like this:"

Ogopogo. Amazed that you took the time to rate over 200 players. You really need to get out more. This list makes even less sense than your list of 150 best careers. Presume you had a system of some sort to do it and am curious to hear what it is. By te way does the term scorer mean points or goals.

It means points and it goes like this: Win a scoring title 7 points, finish 2nd 6 points, 3rd = 5, 4th = 4, 5th is 3, 6th is 2 and 7th place is 1 point. Win a scoring title by 25% or more and you get 2 bonus points. Win a scoring title by 50% or more and you get 4 bonus points.

This list is every player that has ever finished in the top 7 in NHL scoring.

BTW, I never get out. I have young kids.

 

[pappyline]

It means points and it goes like this: Win a scoring title 7 points, finish 2nd 6 points, 3rd = 5, 4th = 4, 5th is 3, 6th is 2 and 7th place is 1 point. Win a scoring title by 25% or more and you get 2 bonus points. Win a scoring title by 50% or more and you get 4 bonus points.

This list is every player that has ever finished in the top 7 in NHL scoring.

BTW, I never get out. I have young kids.

Interesting approach but it skews the results to players that had long succeesful "NHL" careers such as Gretzy & Esposito and hurts players with short "NHL" careers such as Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Orr, Lalonde, Malone. Also favors Gretzy with extra points for the aberration years in the 80's. However no system is perfect and it is hard (maybe impossible) to compare players of different eras

 

[Ogopogo*]

Interesting approach but it skews the results to players that had long succeesful "NHL" careers such as Gretzy & Esposito and hurts players with short "NHL" careers such as Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Orr, Lalonde, Malone. Also favors Gretzy with extra points for the aberration years in the 80's. However no system is perfect and it is hard (maybe impossible) to compare players of different eras

Basically, it gives players credit for the number of GREAT scoring seasons they had. Short NHL careers are part of life, can't really give players credit for goals they did not score and passes they did not make.

I disagree that it gives Gretzky an advantage. The bonus is based on a percentage so players like Howe, Cowley and Esposito have all earned the bonus. The reason Gretzky earned more bonus points is because he was more dominant than any player in the history of the NHL - it has nothing to do with his era. That is why it is a percentage, to take away that advantage.

I think this system eliminates the differences in era quite well.

 

[pappyline]

Basically, it gives players credit for the number of GREAT scoring seasons they had. Short NHL careers are part of life, can't really give players credit for goals they did not score and passes they did not make.

I disagree that it gives Gretzky an advantage. The bonus is based on a percentage so players like Howe, Cowley and Esposito have all earned the bonus. The reason Gretzky earned more bonus points is because he was more dominant than any player in the history of the NHL - it has nothing to do with his era. That is why it is a percentage, to take away that advantage.

I think this system eliminates the differences in era quite well.

I disagree with the bonus points of your formula as it does favor players such as Gretzky & Esposito who may have won scoring championships by large margins in some years but this is largely due to their supporting casts and the style of play of those teams. No way Esposito would have had those stats without Orr.

Also if Orr & Hull had as many NHL seasons as those guys, they likely would have had 5 or 6 (at Least) more seasons in in the top 5. Your list should really be Titled Top "NHL" scorers who played for a long time & had a few dominant seasons. Do you really think that Gretzy & Esposito would have been so dominant if they were playing in the original 6 with Orr, Hull, & Howe at their prime. Nice attempt but your logic is faulty.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I disagree with the bonus points of your formula as it does favor players such as Gretzky & Esposito who may have won scoring championships by large margins in some years but this is largely due to their supporting casts and the style of play of those teams. No way Esposito would have had those stats without Orr.

Also if Orr & Hull had as many NHL seasons as those guys, they likely would have had 5 or 6 (at Least) more seasons in in the top 5. Your list should really be Titled Top "NHL" scorers who played for a long time & had a few dominant seasons. Do you really think that Gretzy & Esposito would have been so dominant if they were playing in the original 6 with Orr, Hull, & Howe at their prime. Nice attempt but your logic is faulty.

Sorry Murray, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You overestimate the influence that teammates have on a players numbers. Take a look at Gretzky's first and second seasons on a horrible team. He was tremendous with or without great players around him. Same with Esposito in Chicago. He was becoming a star whether Orr would have been on his team or not. If their supporting casts were the reason for their huge numbers, someone in the supporting cast would have been close to them in points. The reason players like Gretzky and Espo were so far ahead of anyone else on their team and in the league is because they were PHENOMENAL players.

The bottom line is, players EARN their points. They have to make the passes, they have to score the goals. It is wrong to say "it was just because of their teammates". If that were true, no statistics are of any value. All players are a product of their teams. I completely disagree with that notion.

Having a shorter NHL career is sad but, it is life. Who in this world gets paid for work they don't do? If a player puts up the numbers, they get recognized, if a player doesn't he doesn't. Why not just give out the Stanley Cup for 2005 to the team that "should have" won it? Of course, that is foolishness. We don't give "phantom" awards. If you don't play, that is tough.

This is not a "who was the most talented player at his peak" list. It is a list of greatest scoring careers.

The argument that the original six was too tough for players like Gretzky or Esposito is very weak. Hockey is hockey, the NHL is the NHL. There have been tough players in every era and the greats always dominate.

Don't let your bias against Gretzky and Esposito skew your view of their place in history. They are two of the greatest scorers ever and THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DOMINANT IN ANY ERA. Just like Howe, Orr, Richard and Hull.

 

[James Ownz Harper*]

Messier is second all time in points and he is 47th on your list? Behind...NASLUND?!

Messier should be in the top 10, top 5.....


As for Carrers going he should be even better...

Oh well.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Messier is second all time in points and he is 47th on your list? Behind...NASLUND?!

Messier should be in the top 10, top 5.....


As for Carrers going he should be even better...

Oh well.

The thing about Messier is that much of his career point total was of the 60 or 70 points per season variety. Hardly what anyone would call greatness.

My system gives players credit for the GREAT seasons they have had. Messier was not a scorer first and foremost, he was a leader, competitor and he was an excellent scorer too. But, from 1995 - 2004 Messier did nothing to add to his rating. He was a good player but only GREAT seasons get counted in my system.

Naslund has had three GREAT scoring seasons in a row. The degree of greatness in those seasons was slightly ahead of the great scoring seasons that Messier had. Messier was better all-around and that is why he is well ahead of Naslund on the greatest players list. In fact, when I finish tinkering with the system, I suspect Messier will finish higher than #42 on that list.

I am a huge Oilers fan and, consequently, a huge Messier fan. But, facts are facts. His place as the 2nd leading scorer of all time is flawed. He put up big totals by playing a long time during the most offensive era of NHL hockey and the longest regular season schedules ever. The man is NOT the 2nd greatest scorer in the history of the game. He is the 47th greatest scorer and just built big totals by playing a long time. I can say that as a Messier fan that has researched the facts.

 

[pappyline]

Sorry Murray, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You overestimate the influence that teammates have on a players numbers. Take a look at Gretzky's first and second seasons on a horrible team. He was tremendous with or without great players around him. Same with Esposito in Chicago. He was becoming a star whether Orr would have been on his team or not. If their supporting casts were the reason for their huge numbers, someone in the supporting cast would have been close to them in points. The reason players like Gretzky and Espo were so far ahead of anyone else on their team and in the league is because they were PHENOMENAL players.

The bottom line is, players EARN their points. They have to make the passes, they have to score the goals. It is wrong to say "it was just because of their teammates". If that were true, no statistics are of any value. All players are a product of their teams. I completely disagree with that notion.

Having a shorter NHL career is sad but, it is life. Who in this world gets paid for work they don't do? If a player puts up the numbers, they get recognized, if a player doesn't he doesn't. Why not just give out the Stanley Cup for 2005 to the team that "should have" won it? Of course, that is foolishness. We don't give "phantom" awards. If you don't play, that is tough.

This is not a "who was the most talented player at his peak" list. It is a list of greatest scoring careers.

The argument that the original six was too tough for players like Gretzky or Esposito is very weak. Hockey is hockey, the NHL is the NHL. There have been tough players in every era and the greats always dominate.

Don't let your bias against Gretzky and Esposito skew your view of their place in history. They are two of the greatest scorers ever and THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DOMINANT IN ANY ERA. Just like Howe, Orr, Richard and Hull.

Yes, For sure we disagree.

Of course, who you play with & the style of play has an impact on your stats. Gretzy was never expected to backsheck. Esposito played on a line with Bobby Hull on a good Chicago team in the late 60's. His stats went downhill when he didn't play with Hull or Orr.

Not saying that Gretzy was not a great player & would not have been a above average player in the tough original 6 where players had to fight there own battles but he would not have dominated like he did in the watered down NHL of the 80's. A purely offensive slow player like Esposito might not even have made it in the original 6.

Remember Hull was still playing after 72 in the WHA and was the top scorer in the 76 Canada cup.

Your list represents the top point getters in the NHL over their "NHL" careers with with emphasis on "NHL" years they were dominant.

This is fine as far as it goes but is not particularly meaningful. By the way, I have been watching hockey since the 50's. I expect you haven't seen much hockey pre Gretzy.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Yes, For sure we disagree.

Of course, who you play with & the style of play has an impact on your stats. Gretzy was never expected to backsheck. Esposito played on a line with Bobby Hull on a good Chicago team in the late 60's. His stats went downhill when he didn't play with Hull or Orr.

Not saying that Gretzy was not a great player & would not have been a above average player in the tough original 6 where players had to fight there own battles but he would not have dominated like he did in the watered down NHL of the 80's. A purely offensive slow player like Esposito might not even have made it in the original 6.

Remember Hull was still playing after 72 in the WHA and was the top scorer in the 76 Canada cup.

Your list represents the top point getters in the NHL over their "NHL" careers with with emphasis on "NHL" years they were dominant.

This is fine as far as it goes but is not particularly meaningful. By the way, I have been watching hockey since the 50's. I expect you haven't seen much hockey pre Gretzy.

Being older does not necessarily mean you have all the answers and I am a neophyte. I have done plenty of research to supplement the hockey that I have seen. I am well-versed in NHL history and quite capable of anyalyzing across eras. The key is to eliminate personal bias and that results in better analysis.

Hull played in the WHA, even you would have to agree it was an inferior league to the NHL. My WHA scoring analysis tells me that he was the 3rd greatest point scorer during that league's tenure and the greatest goal scorer. That says he was still a very good hockey player but, the bottom line is - it is irrelevant when comparing NHL careers.

Saying the NHL was 'watered down' in the 80s is fine but, it is also irrelevant. Gretzky was the BEST scorer in the league, watered down or not. How does it change anything by adding a few hundred players that would have been in the AHL or worse during the original six? The leading scorer is the leading scorer. Gretzky was still, by far, a better scorer than anyone in the league. Make it a six team league and he still would have been beating Trottier, Bossy and Dionne for the scoring title.

You say that Espo's stats went down hill when he played without Hull and Orr. He was also getting old by that time. Old guys don't score as much as young guys. I don't penalize Espo, or any player, for the team he played on. Like I said before, that would mean that NO stats are valid. They are all influenced by the teammates so throw them all away. There is no way to compare anyone.

A player still has to make the passes and score the goals. If he was truly not that good, he would never have had the ice time it took to accumulate the totals he did. I give the greats the credit they deserve. They did EARN the points.

 

[pappyline]

Being older does not necessarily mean you have all the answers and I am a neophyte. I have done plenty of research to supplement the hockey that I have seen. I am well-versed in NHL history and quite capable of anyalyzing across eras. The key is to eliminate personal bias and that results in better analysis.

Hull played in the WHA, even you would have to agree it was an inferior league to the NHL. My WHA scoring analysis tells me that he was the 3rd greatest point scorer during that league's tenure and the greatest goal scorer. That says he was still a very good hockey player but, the bottom line is - it is irrelevant when comparing NHL careers.

Saying the NHL was 'watered down' in the 80s is fine but, it is also irrelevant. Gretzky was the BEST scorer in the league, watered down or not. How does it change anything by adding a few hundred players that would have been in the AHL or worse during the original six? The leading scorer is the leading scorer. Gretzky was still, by far, a better scorer than anyone in the league. Make it a six team league and he still would have been beating Trottier, Bossy and Dionne for the scoring title.

You say that Espo's stats went down hill when he played without Hull and Orr. He was also getting old by that time. Old guys don't score as much as young guys. I don't penalize Espo, or any player, for the team he played on. Like I said before, that would mean that NO stats are valid. They are all influenced by the teammates so throw them all away. There is no way to compare anyone.

A player still has to make the passes and score the goals. If he was truly not that good, he would never have had the ice time it took to accumulate the totals he did. I give the greats the credit they deserve. They did EARN the points.

Ogopogo, You are making an old guy weary.

You can slice & dice All the stats you want but I can only go by what I have seen. I would not even try to rate players I have not seen. You obviously have a bias toward Gretxy and have set up your rating system that way. It is very difficult to objectively compare players of the watered down NHL to the original 6. I am not saying that being older makes me smarter than you but I have seen a lot more hockey than you have.

I have seen Hull in his prime, I have seen Orr in his prime, I have seen Lemieux in his prime, I have seen Howe in his prime, I have seen Esposito in his prime, and yes I have seen Gretzy in his prime. Hull, Orr & Howe, Lemieux are the best I have ever seen. Gretzy is close and Esposito is not (maybe one of the best garbage goal scorers).

You can play with your stats all you want but they are meaningless. end of story.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogopogo, You are making an old guy weary.

You can slice & dice All the stats you want but I can only go by what I have seen. I would not even try to rate players I have not seen. You obviously have a bias toward Gretxy and have set up your rating system that way. It is very difficult to objectively compare players of the watered down NHL to the original 6. I am not saying that being older makes me smarter than you but I have seen a lot more hockey than you have.

I have seen Hull in his prime, I have seen Orr in his prime, I have seen Lemieux in his prime, I have seen Howe in his prime, I have seen Esposito in his prime, and yes I have seen Gretzy in his prime. Hull, Orr & Howe, Lemieux are the best I have ever seen. Gretzy is close and Esposito is not (maybe one of the best garbage goal scorers).

You can play with your stats all you want but they are meaningless. end of story.

Meaningless to you because you choose that path. So be it.

It is great that you have seen so much hockey but, numbers don't lie. When properly analyzed they tell great truths. I use no bias in my research, I simply look for the facts hidden within the numbers and the eyewitness accounts.

Because you only go by what you have seen, you are filtering hockey history through your own personal bias. You don't like Espo or Gretzky's style so, you consider them less than Orr or Lemieux. That is your right, that is your opinion. Just to tell you, many that watched those same players do not agree with you and the numbers tell a slightly different tale.

You are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[barfy2000]

You are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the discussion.

Agreed. I don't understand some people. I may not agree with every result on the lists, but I'm not about to sit here and whine because Mario isn't #1 on your list or the fact that Chris Pronger is ahead of Peter Forsberg.

You work your *** off to come up with a list that you feel puts a lot of things into perspective for people, and nothing but arguments ever seems to result from it.

I think you should maybe try some sort of disclaimer.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Agreed. I don't understand some people. I may not agree with every result on the lists, but I'm not about to sit here and whine because Mario isn't #1 on your list or the fact that Chris Pronger is ahead of Peter Forsberg.

You work your *** off to come up with a list that you feel puts a lot of things into perspective for people, and nothing but arguments ever seems to result from it.

I think you should maybe try some sort of disclaimer.

In a way that's what makes these boards and especially threads like these interesting. If everybody agreed with everything, it would be boring as hell.

P.S. My top 5 forwards of all time includes Rocket, Howe, Lemieux, Gretzky and Lafleur. Bobby Hull was a great goal scorer, but he wasn't much of a playmaker so that puts him 6th on my all time forwards list. As for all time players a whole, Bobby Orr is number 1 for me.

 

[pappyline]

"P.S. My top 5 forwards of all time includes Rocket....... Bobby Hull was a great goal scorer, but he wasn't much of a playmaker so that puts him 6th ..."

And of course the Rocket was a better playmaker. Rocket-421 assists in 18 seasons. Hull-560 assists in 15 seasons,

One more comment on Stats. They are only a tool and can be compiled and interpreted to support any bias.

 

[chooch*]

"P.S. My top 5 forwards of all time includes Rocket....... Bobby Hull was a great goal scorer, but he wasn't much of a playmaker so that puts him 6th ..."

And of course the Rocket was a better playmaker. Rocket-421 assists in 18 seasons. Hull-560 assists in 15 seasons,

One more comment on Stats. They are only a tool and can be compiled and interpreted to support any bias.

There is obviously a heavy bias amongst the English media (many of whom are paid off and threatened with denied access)and certain parts of canada.

Trottier, Bossy played in the much tougher east and btw so did Lemieux and Orr. That accounts for Bossy's short career and also Lemiuex injuries.

The 1980's were the most watered down era in any sports history. I've done a lot of research to support this.

Imagine the Soviets had come over in 1980 instead of 1990 and played in the weak West. The Soviets like Larionov, M and K playing in the no D West would have obliterated any and all records.

End of story.

 

[Ogopogo*]

There is obviously a heavy bias amongst the English media (many of whom are paid off and threatened with denied access)and certain parts of canada.

Trottier, Bossy played in the much tougher east and btw so did Lemieux and Orr. That accounts for Bossy's short career and also Lemiuex injuries.

The 1980's were the most watered down era in any sports history. I've done a lot of research to support this.

Imagine the Soviets had come over in 1980 instead of 1990 and played in the weak West. The Soviets like Larionov, M and K playing in the no D West would have obliterated any and all records.

End of story.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

"P.S. My top 5 forwards of all time includes Rocket....... Bobby Hull was a great goal scorer, but he wasn't much of a playmaker so that puts him 6th ..."

And of course the Rocket was a better playmaker. Rocket-421 assists in 18 seasons. Hull-560 assists in 15 seasons,

One more comment on Stats. They are only a tool and can be compiled and interpreted to support any bias.

Well... the reason Rocket is in my top 5 is obviously because of his PLAYOFF performances. Hull was not even close to the playoff performer that Rocket was. 6th among forwards is reasonable. And no I'm not just going on stats.. I've been watchin nhl since 1970 and my dad has watched since the 1950-s and we both agree on this.

 

[Sens Rule]

The thing about Messier is that much of his career point total was of the 60 or 70 points per season variety. Hardly what anyone would call greatness.

My system gives players credit for the GREAT seasons they have had. Messier was not a scorer first and foremost, he was a leader, competitor and he was an excellent scorer too. But, from 1995 - 2004 Messier did nothing to add to his rating. He was a good player but only GREAT seasons get counted in my system.

Naslund has had three GREAT scoring seasons in a row. The degree of greatness in those seasons was slightly ahead of the great scoring seasons that Messier had. Messier was better all-around and that is why he is well ahead of Naslund on the greatest players list. In fact, when I finish tinkering with the system, I suspect Messier will finish higher than #42 on that list.

I am a huge Oilers fan and, consequently, a huge Messier fan. But, facts are facts. His place as the 2nd leading scorer of all time is flawed. He put up big totals by playing a long time during the most offensive era of NHL hockey and the longest regular season schedules ever. The man is NOT the 2nd greatest scorer in the history of the game. He is the 47th greatest scorer and just built big totals by playing a long time. I can say that as a Messier fan that has researched the facts.

Messier had 16 great seasons in a ROW!!!!! For a 10-12 year stretch from 1982-1994 or so he was clearly one of the top 5 players in the NHL. I think you aren't counting many of Messiers dominant great seasons as actually great because he finished 8th in scoring instead of 2nd.

Clearly Messier was not the 2nd best scorer of all time and his points totals are padded by a really long career and playing in the highest scoring era. But Naslund has had 4 great seasons while Messier has 15 or 16.

I appreciate your ranking method and it is interesting especially to include the forgotten earlier NHL stars from pre 1950. But I believe that it is impossible to do any kind of greatest list in hockey from purely statistics. Especially if you don't include the playoffs at all. Using purely Stats to rank Baseball greats can be much more effective but Hockey is a completely different sport. The greatness of a player can't be codified in the same way. And in baseball for example in most seasons 2 or 4 teams make the playoffs and played 8-14 games after a 154-162 game season. Only the large minority of players had any extensive playoff experience. In hockey 66%-55% of teams make the playoffs and every single player with any length of career should have quite extensive playoff careers and the playoffs are a significant part of any career. Players can play from 7-28 playoff games in a season after a 70-84 game season. For most of Hockey history 66% of players played in a 2,3 or 4 round playoff system. This can not be discounted. Clearly there needs to be some weighting system to properly compare the outliers like Messier (tons of playoffs) to Dionne (incredible dearth of playoff games despite a long career). That said there is a reason why some players play more games in the playoffs than others and if you are truly an elite star with a long career you should be able to lead your team to SOME kind of playoff success.

Anyway my point is that Messier has had at least 3X the elite great scoring seasons Naslund had and he also has 295 points in 236 playoff games. That is incredible and to not consider that and to rank Messier below Naslund (and then to defend that ranking by saying Naslund has had 3 Great seasons?!?) weakens you ranking system.

I greatly appreciate your rankings and effort and think you got alot of things right. I am just offering my criticism to help you if you decide to tinker with your system.

 

[pappyline]

Well... the reason Rocket is in my top 5 is obviously because of his PLAYOFF performances. Hull was not even close to the playoff performer that Rocket was. 6th among forwards is reasonable. And no I'm not just going on stats.. I've been watchin nhl since 1970 and my dad has watched since the 1950-s and we both agree on this.

 

[pappyline]

If i was a betting man, I would say both you & your father are Montreal fans.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

If i was a betting man, I would say both you & your father are Montreal fans.

Your point? Let's say Ogopogo who is an Oiler fan considers Gretzky as the greatest. Does him being a fan of the team a specific player played for rule out his opinion as bias? Besides this is just my opinion and if I really had a hab bias I would've put Beliveau, Plante, Morenz and Roy ahead of Hull too.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

I disagree with the bonus points of your formula as it does favor players such as Gretzky & Esposito who may have won scoring championships by large margins in some years but this is largely due to their supporting casts and the style of play of those teams. No way Esposito would have had those stats without Orr.

Also if Orr & Hull had as many NHL seasons as those guys, they likely would have had 5 or 6 (at Least) more seasons in in the top 5. Your list should really be Titled Top "NHL" scorers who played for a long time & had a few dominant seasons. Do you really think that Gretzy & Esposito would have been so dominant if they were playing in the original 6 with Orr, Hull, & Howe at their prime. Nice attempt but your logic is faulty.

His logic isn't faulty at all.

His opinion on how good Gretzky and Esposito were is different than yours... That's all...

 

[mattihp]

Since you asked, here is my top 150:

1 Wayne Gretzky
2 Gordie Howe
3 Bobby Orr
4 Mario Lemieux
5 Eddie Shore*
6 Ray Bourque
7 Jean Believeau
8 Bobby Hull
9 Maurice "Rocket" Richard
10 Phil Esposito
11 Stan Mikita
12 Doug Harvey
13 Guy Lafleur
14 Jaromir Jagr
15 Howie Morenz*
16 Paul Coffey
17 Francis "King" Clancy*
18 Leonard "Red" Kelly*
19 Earl Seibert*
20 Andy Bathgate
21 Bill Cowley
22 Bryan Trottier
23 Cy Denneny*
24 Cecil " Babe" Dye*
25 Marcel Dionne
26 Ted Kennedy
27 Syl Apps, Sr.
28 Elmer Lach
29 Bobby Clarke
30 Mike Bossy
31 Denis Potvin
32 Pierre Pilote
33 Larry Robinson
34 Nels Stewart*
35 Milt Schmidt
36 Nicklas Lidstrom
37 Frank Boucher*
38 Lionel Conacher*
39 Joe Sakic
40 Harry Cameron*
41 Brad Park
42 Mark Messier
43 Charlie Conacher
44 Ted Lindsay
45 Al MacInnis
46 Chris Chelios
47 Max Bentley
48 Steve Yzerman
49 Bill Cook*
50 Bernie Geoffrion
51 Doug Bentley
52 Scott Stevens
53 Aurel Joliat*
54 Bill Gadsby
55 Edouard "Newsy" Lalonde*
56 Brett Hull
57 Aubrey "Dit" Clapper*
58 Rod Langway
59 Sprague Cleghorn*
60 Brian Leetch
61 Teemu Selanne
62 Jack Stewart*
63 Borje Salming
64 Sid Abel
65 Ebbie Goodfellow*
66 Adam Oates
67 Hector "Toe" Blake
68 Marty Barry
69 Frank Nighbor*
70 Mark Howe
71 Gord Drillon
72 Tim Horton
73 Chris Pronger
74 Norm Ullman
75 Frank Mahovlich
76 Peter Forsberg
77 David "Sweeney" Schriner
78 Markus Naslund
79 Roy Conacher
80 Harry "Punch" Broadbent*
81 Joe Malone*
82 Ivan "Ching" Johnson*
83 Bill Quackenbush*
84 Doug Gilmour
85 Peter Stastny
86 Dale Hawerchuk
87 Jarome Iginla
88 Pavel Bure
89 Ken Reardon*
90 George Boucher*
91 Reg Noble*
92 Henri Richard
93 Dickie Moore
94 Jacques Laperriere
95 Eric Lindros
96 Denis Savard
97 Clarence "Hap" Day*
98 Syd Howe
99 Sylvio Mantha*
100 Serge Savard
101 Guy Lapointe
102 Bryan Hextall, Sr.
103 Reg "Hooley" Smith
104 Art Coulter
105 Rob Blake
106 Emile "Butch" Bouchard*
107 Jean Ratelle
108 Jack Darragh*
109 Cecil Dillon
110 Ace Bailey*
111 Marcel Pronovost
112 JC Tremblay
113 Doug Wilson
114 Phil Watson
115 Fern Flaman
116 Harvey "Busher" Jackson
117 Ken Randall*
118 Bert Olmstead
119 Ron Francis
120 Alex Delvecchio
121 Walter "Babe" Pratt*
122 Larry Murphy
123 Buddy O'Connor
124 Paul Kariya
125 Sergei Fedorov
126 Albert "Babe" Seibert*
127 Gaye Stewart
128 Pat Lafontaine
129 Tom Anderson
130 Odie Cleghorn*
131 Paul Thompson
132 Eddie Gerard*
133 Gilbert Perreault
134 Lynn Patrick
135 Martin St. Louis
136 Ralph "Cooney" Weiland*
137 Jari Kurri
138 Billy Burch*
139 Joe Primeau
140 Billy Boucher*
141 Dave Keon
142 Paul Ronty
143 William "Flash" Hollett*
144 Bert Corbeau*
145 Lawrence "Baldy" Northcott
146 Carl Brewer
147 Clint Smith
148 Bill White
149 Pat Stapleton
150 Corb Denneny*
151 Phil Housley
152 George "Goldie" Prodgers*
153 John LeClair
154 Tom Johnson

Even Selänne ahead of Kurri XD

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Since people are posting their lists:

Top 50 players of my lifetime

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I narrowed it down to the top 50.

My criteria - essential cutoff is players that I've watched them play their best years approx. 1980 on.

None of the stars of the Habs Cup wins during the late 70's are included. The stars of the Isles dynasty are included. Most borderline player to make the list, Marcel Dionne.

Next, if a player is currently active I do not try and project the future. For the purposes of this list their careers ended last season. I'll do an update after the playoffs this year.

Durability is a factor; therefore I asked myself questions such as: Would I rather have had 580 games of Peter Forsberg or 1,600 games of Larry Murphy ???

Therefore this is not a "Who was best in his prime?" list.

As you'll see very few wingers on my list. IMO the least important position on a hockey team, therefore the least represented on my list. I thought of who would I want to build a team around.

One other point, that I forgot to make. This list only considers playing careers in the NHL, as well as major international best-on-best tournaments. Therefore no Fetisov, Makarov etc. who certainly were good enough to place highly on this list

Enough with the criteria and such, now onto the list:

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Bourque
4. Roy
5. Yzerman
6. Messier
7. Potvin
8. Hasek
9. Bossy
10. Trottier
11. Coffey
12. Sakic
13. Jagr
14. MacInnis
15. Chelios
16. Stevens
17. Hull
18. Stastny
19. Hawerchuk
20. Brodeur
21. Kurri
22. Lidstrom
23. Fuhr
24. B. Smith
25. Leetch
26. Francis
27. Sundin
28. Fedorov
29. Dionne
30. M. Howe
31. Belfour
32. Gilmour
33. Oates
34. Murphy
35. Shanahan
36. Robitaille
37. Langway
38. Forsberg
39. Pronger
40. Recchi
41. Niedermayer
42. Blake
43. Barasso
44. Richter
45. Roenick
46. Modano
47. Lindros
48. Gartner
49. Nieuwendyk
50. Lafontaine


Let the arguments begin .....

 

[Ogopogo*]

Since people are posting their lists:

Top 50 players of my lifetime

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I narrowed it down to the top 50.

My criteria - essential cutoff is players that I've watched them play their best years approx. 1980 on.

None of the stars of the Habs Cup wins during the late 70's are included. The stars of the Isles dynasty are included. Most borderline player to make the list, Marcel Dionne.

Next, if a player is currently active I do not try and project the future. For the purposes of this list their careers ended last season. I'll do an update after the playoffs this year.

Durability is a factor; therefore I asked myself questions such as: Would I rather have had 580 games of Peter Forsberg or 1,600 games of Larry Murphy ???

Therefore this is not a "Who was best in his prime?" list.

As you'll see very few wingers on my list. IMO the least important position on a hockey team, therefore the least represented on my list. I thought of who would I want to build a team around.

One other point, that I forgot to make. This list only considers playing careers in the NHL, as well as major international best-on-best tournaments. Therefore no Fetisov, Makarov etc. who certainly were good enough to place highly on this list

Enough with the criteria and such, now onto the list:

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Bourque
4. Roy
5. Yzerman
6. Messier
7. Potvin
8. Hasek
9. Bossy
10. Trottier
11. Coffey
12. Sakic
13. Jagr
14. MacInnis
15. Chelios
16. Stevens
17. Hull
18. Stastny
19. Hawerchuk
20. Brodeur
21. Kurri
22. Lidstrom
23. Fuhr
24. B. Smith
25. Leetch
26. Francis
27. Sundin
28. Fedorov
29. Dionne
30. M. Howe
31. Belfour
32. Gilmour
33. Oates
34. Murphy
35. Shanahan
36. Robitaille
37. Langway
38. Forsberg
39. Pronger
40. Recchi
41. Niedermayer
42. Blake
43. Barasso
44. Richter
45. Roenick
46. Modano
47. Lindros
48. Gartner
49. Nieuwendyk
50. Lafontaine


Let the arguments begin .....

Good job. I am impressed that you would put forth the effort to make this list. Even if I don't agree with some of your selections, I completely respect your opinion.