HOH Top 60 Wingers of All Time

[Hardyvan123]

context, man, not just counting raw accomplishments. he was at his peak, coming off four straight scoring titles. he had a garbage year by his standards and should have done better. because, again, the standard he set and his historical peers are so high.

no dfferent from bobby hull's '61 season: 5th in goals and 13th in points, but sandwiched between two art rosses and goals titles, including tying rocket's single season record, that is a failure, not an accomplishment. it's his worst season in a 13 year stretch. nobody's pointing to '61 hull when weighing hull vs. rocket vs. jagr.

to restate the point: if you're comparing him to teemu selanne, you can say "jagr finished 5th in scoring in washington while not even trying" and that's a plus for him. he can put up a prime selanne-type season without trying, which is impressive. if you're comparing him to bobby hull and rocket richard, you ask "well why wasn't he trying then?"

Context?

(mod)

1) Yes Jagr went from 1st to 5th but he also played in only 69 games that year when he was 5th with 79 points.

2) All of the top 10 scorers went down dramatically from 00-01 to 01-02

In 01 2 guys tied for 9th with 89 points in 02 the 1,2,3,4,5 scorers had 96,90, 85,80, 79,79

I guess the league collectively took the year off right?

3) Jagr had changed teams and this is important because here is another direct example where a player didn't change teams.

Player X (let's call him that to avoid prejudice) had led the league in scoring 4 straight years by margins of 20,17,24 and 14 points and then dropped to 5th (conveniently for this comparison) in league scoring 13 points behind the leader.

No one, and I mean no one, ever questions how few relevant seasons this player had for the rest of his career but for Jagr that kind of conclusion is somehow acceptable?

But wait one guy is a legend (Gordie Howe) and the other guy (Jagr) we (as a group on the history boards) have a mixed perception of so we write completely opposite narratives of the exact same situation for some bizarre reason.

I'll leave it to others to decide as to why this happens.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Leaving aside the Jagr discussion for a bit (since I don't think what Jagr is currently doing or has recently done has any impact on where he ranks), there are some players that might rise.

Hossa had a decent season + playoffs as a secondary player last year, whether that's enough for him to climb a spot or two is up for debate.

Ovechkin is always a player to watch, but comparing Ovechkin with the usuals (e.g. Bossy) is an ongoing debate that never really stops so it's not a discussion restricted to this thread.

The most interesting case is a player that isn't even on the list, namely Patrick Kane.Patrick Kane is not only a lock to make the list if we re-do it, he might climb a lot of spots, especially if he finishes the year with a Art Ross, possibly a Hart (or at least a strong Hart voting) and also possibly another good playoff run.Lots of ifs but none of this would be very surprising if it happened.

How does Kane look next to Alfredsson if he has such a year?

IMO, Kane probably should have been #60 even when the list was made. Noble ended up #60, basically by default, as the candidates in the last round were so bad - a bunch of 80s and 90s regular season scorers, none of whom really stood out.

daniel sedin was 8th in points last year and has been top ten for most of this season so far, just sayin'.

Heh, interesting. Is he ahead of Kovalchuk by now? My instincts say "no way," but thinking about it, I'm not sure by now.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Context?

(mod)

1) Yes Jagr went from 1st to 5th but he also played in only 69 games that year when he was 5th with 79 points.

2) All of the top 10 scorers went down dramatically from 00-01 to 01-02

In 01 2 guys tied for 9th with 89 points in 02 the 1,2,3,4,5 scorers had 96,90, 85,80, 79,79

I guess the league collectively took the year off right?

3) Jagr had changed teams and this is important because here is another direct example where a player didn't change teams.

Player X (let's call him that to avoid prejudice) had led the league in scoring 4 straight years by margins of 20,17,24 and 14 points and then dropped to 5th (conveniently for this comparison) in league scoring 13 points behind the leader.

No one, and I mean no one, ever questions how few relevant seasons this player had for the rest of his career but for Jagr that kind of conclusion is somehow acceptable?

But wait one guy is a legend (Gordie Howe) and the other guy (Jagr) we (as a group on the history boards) have a mixed perception of so we write completely opposite narratives of the exact same situation for some bizarre reason.

I'll leave it to others to decide as to why this happens.

hardy, man, you're still not getting my point. ima bold it:

context, man, not just counting raw accomplishments. he was at his peak, coming off four straight scoring titles. he had a garbage year by his standards and should have done better. because, again, the standard he set and his historical peers are so high.

no dfferent from bobby hull's '61 season: 5th in goals and 13th in points, but sandwiched between two art rosses and goals titles, including tying rocket's single season record, that is a failure, not an accomplishment. it's his worst season in a 13 year stretch. nobody's pointing to '61 hull when weighing hull vs. rocket vs. jagr.

to restate the point: if you're comparing him to teemu selanne, you can say "jagr finished 5th in scoring in washington while not even trying" and that's a plus for him. he can put up a prime selanne-type season without trying, which is impressive. if you're comparing him to bobby hull and rocket richard, you ask "well why wasn't he trying then?"

also:

jagr won 5 scoring titles and finished 2nd two other times. jagr finished 5th in 2002 and that season diminishes his legacy, rather than bolstering it. jagr's standard is so high and he is so far and away beyond guys like selanne and kurri and recchi and goulet that finishing 27th means basically nothing to his legacy, relative to howe, hull, and rocket.

and let me be crystal clear: my statement that jagr finished 5th and that diminished, rather than bolstered, his legacy is a compliment to jagr, not a diss. it is a testament to how good he was, and what rarefied peers we're comparing him to. i did not take a position on jagr vs. hull vs. rocket vs. lafleur. if anything, my comment supported his place in that elitest of elite company, rather than arguing that he is behind them.

there's no double standard here. as i said, no one points to '61 hull and says "that season is what makes him better than rocket." no one points to howe's 1955 season and says "that 5th place finish, my friend, vaults him above bobby hull." these are nothing seasons for those guys, just like jagr's first washington season is nothing if we're talking about the top 5 wingers ever.

now, if you want to compare jagr to selanne or bathgate, go nuts. we can talk about his washington year 'til the cows come. but i thought we were talking about gordie, hull, and rocket here. i think we'd rather be looking at the eight straight seasons where jagr finished top three (prorating '97), plus that first full new york year.


a few stray things:

No one, and I mean no one, ever questions how few relevant seasons this player had for the rest of his career but for Jagr that kind of conclusion is somehow acceptable?

i don't know what this means. but whatever you're talking about, i don't think i'm doing that.

3) Jagr had changed teams and this is important because here is another direct example where a player didn't change teams.

well, i mean he did worse in years 2 and 3 in washington, so...

{Mod}

 

[MrOT]

Markus Näslund should have been in there. Top 4 in scoring three years in a row. Clearly ahead of Alfredsson.

He´s one of the most overlooked players in NHL history.

 

[Sentinel]

If my calculations are correct, Jagr is narrowing on Gretzky's absolute goal totals. Gretzky has 1072 combined goals (RS+PO, NHL+WHA). Jagr has 936 combined goals (RS+PO, NHL+Extraliga+KHL). Jagr needs 4-5 years

 

[seventieslord]

Markus Näslund should have been in there. Top 4 in scoring three years in a row. Clearly ahead of Alfredsson.

He´s one of the most overlooked players in NHL history.

That's some pretty heavy focus on peak offense and some pretty weak focus on.... well, everything else.

Naslund's three best offensive seasons are about 9% better than Alfredsson's, that is true. But Alfredsson's 4th-13th best seasons were 23% better. He was a top-20 scorer six times to Naslund's three. Alfredsson scored 300 more points in only 100 more career games.

Of course, he was also infinitely better defensively, earning dozens of selke votes over 7 seasons, peaking at 4th in voting. Naslund earned a vote once, as a joke I presume. In the 2006 and 2008 seasons, while finishing 4th and 9th in scoring, Alfredsson also killed more penalties than Naslund did in his entire career.

In the playoffs, even though Alfredsson's not considered a clutch beast, he did score at a rate that was 16% higher, and maintained over more than double the sample size. He captained his team to the 3rd round once and to the finals another time, while Naslund's captaincy in vancouver was seen as a time of choking and playoff underachievement.

But yes, to your credit, you did mention the one plausible reason Naslund could be considered better than Alfredsson.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's some pretty heavy focus on peak offense and some pretty weak focus on.... well, everything else.

Naslund's three best offensive seasons are about 9% better than Alfredsson's, that is true. But Alfredsson's 4th-13th best seasons were 23% better. He was a top-20 scorer six times to Naslund's three. Alfredsson scored 300 more points in only 100 more career games.

Of course, he was also infinitely better defensively, earning dozens of selke votes over 7 seasons, peaking at 4th in voting. Naslund earned a vote once, as a joke I presume. In the 2006 and 2008 seasons, while finishing 4th and 9th in scoring, Alfredsson also killed more penalties than Naslund did in his entire career.

In the playoffs, even though Alfredsson's not considered a clutch beast, he did score at a rate that was 16% higher, and maintained over more than double the sample size. He captained his team to the 3rd round once and to the finals another time, while Naslund's captaincy in vancouver was seen as a time of choking and playoff underachievement.

But yes, to your credit, you did mention the one plausible reason Naslund could be considered better than Alfredsson.

I think Alfie will be considered the better winger but Marcus does get under rated at times.

Like the other poster mentioned top 4 in scoring in the NHL 3 years in a row is a very rare accomplishment, especially for non HHOF guys (and a fair number of guys who made the top 60 wingers list, many of which didn't accomplish that feat even in a smaller 6 team league with less room for variance or chance.

A little bit longer peak or prime or better playoffs then we might be thinking about him differently

Part of that was the huge underachievement of the Canucks in that time frame.

 

[george14]

Brendan Shanahan being the only player in NHL history with over 600 goals and 2000 PIMS seems awful low here. Guys like Kariya ahead of him? Even Marty St. Louis and Iginla being way ahead of him seems wrong. I would disagree.

 

[bigbadhockey]

Wow ... a lot of guys from hockey's early days missing from this thread and discussion. Just sayin' ... ~G

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brendan Shanahan being the only player in NHL history with over 600 goals and 2000 PIMS seems awful low here. Guys like Kariya ahead of him? Even Marty St. Louis and Iginla being way ahead of him seems wrong. I would disagree.

Shanahan was never close to being one of the best players in the league, while St Louis and Iginla were just that for years.

That said, this particular project placed way less emphasis on longevity and consistently than any previous project on this forum (we had some really hardcore Bure fans), which would explain Kariya over Shanny.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow ... a lot of guys from hockey's early days missing from this thread and discussion. Just sayin' ... ~G

Such as?

 

[Epsilon]

Brendan Shanahan being the only player in NHL history with over 600 goals and 2000 PIMS seems awful low here. Guys like Kariya ahead of him? Even Marty St. Louis and Iginla being way ahead of him seems wrong. I would disagree.

This is just a piece of trivia that's heavily era-influenced, and it's not like racking up PIMs is a positive stat.

 

[MXD]

Wow ... a lot of guys from hockey's early days missing from this thread and discussion. Just sayin' ... ~G

Well... the early era wasn't THAT heavy for wingers. Not to mention, rovers were considered centers.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Shanahan was never close to being one of the best players in the league, while St Louis and Iginla were just that for years.

That said, this particular project placed way less emphasis on longevity and consistently than any previous project on this forum (we had some really hardcore Bure fans), which would explain Kariya over Shanny.

So how is Cam Neely not on here?

 

[Theokritos]

So how is Cam Neely not on here?

He's been debated from Vote 10 on. Check out the threads for Vote 10-13, they're linked in the very first post of this thread and contain all the debates and arguments.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So how is Cam Neely not on here?

I think he would have been if he had any amount of health luck.

for instance a healthy 92 and 93 would fit in nicely between goal scoring runs of

36
42
37
55
51
(insert full season here)
(insert full season here)
50

Playing in only 525 of a possible 820 games for the Bruins is what really hurts him but he does have a legit case for top 60 winger as it is IMO.

even more so when one considers that another winger with injury problems is at 18 with basically 2 elite seasons (and 2 more pretty good ones) and 2 elite playoff seasons (along with 5 more good ones on a dynasty).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I see Patrick Kane in the Paul Kariya neiborhood.One of the great individual regular season since the (2005) lock-out.He broke new grounds in his resume, formerly known as a good but not great regular season player but with spectacular playoff resume, now he has an Art Ross and probably a Hart (and a Pearson) if the voters do it right.If so that means he has won all the major individual awards (including the Smythe) except the Rocket.Even for the Rocket, he finished 2nd in goalscoring this year against very tough competition (Ovechkin).

Speaking of Ovechkin, he can rise up to 6th but can't surpass Lafleur due to lack of signature run.He's ''just'' accumulating Richard Trophies against a competition that can't beat him but he's enable to reach new heights or break new grounds on his resume (like a deep playoff run or re-competing for Art Ross).His all around play got better.

His team was among the very best in the last decade, so no excuse there.In his defense they got beat by the champion, but it's his team that was the favorite.

 

[bobholly39]

I see Patrick Kane in the Paul Kariya neiborhood.One of the great individual regular season since the (2005) lock-out.He broke new grounds in his resume, formerly known as a good but not great regular season player but with spectacular playoff resume, now he has an Art Ross and probably a Hart (and a Pearson) if the voters do it right.That means he has won all the major individual awards (including the Smythe) except the Rocket.Even for the Rocket, he finished 2nd in goalscoring this year against very tough competition (Ovechkin).

Speaking of Ovechkin, he can rise up to 6th but can't surpass Lafleur due to lack of signature run.He's ''just'' accumulating Richard Trophies against a competition that can't beat him but he's enable to reach new heights or break new grounds on his resume (like a deep playoff run or re-competing for Art Ross).His all around play got better.

His team was among the very best in the last decade, so no excuse there.In his defense got beat by the champion, but it's his team that should have been following the regular season logic.

I think you are VASTLY undervaluing this accomplishment.

As a comparison: a prime Sidney Crosby lost an Art Ross to an older Sedin. Huh? That's stupid, how in the heck can a prime Sidney Crosby lose an Art Ross to Sedin, a lesser player. But he did, by 3 points. Crosby also didn't win the Art Ross last year, and he probably should have.

There's something really, really special about not only being the best player (or Ovi's case, best goal-scorer) every year but being able to prove it and ensure you finish at the top, year in, year out. Kane had a career year, yet Ovi again found a way to top him in a "slow" year for him.

His consistency actually impresses me a lot. I don't think he needs any type of signature playoff run to beat Lafleur. I think if he has some type of decent longevity he's easily ahead of Lafleur or Bossy.

I also think Ovechkin has a shot at top 4 (ahead of Jagr/Hull/Richard). I think to beat some of those guys he may need a signature playoff run, and maybe more, since their resumes are extremely well-rounded.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think you are VASTLY undervaluing this accomplishment.

As a comparison: a prime Sidney Crosby lost an Art Ross to an older Sedin. Huh? That's stupid, how in the heck can a prime Sidney Crosby lose an Art Ross to Sedin, a lesser player. But he did, by 3 points. Crosby also didn't win the Art Ross last year, and he probably should have.

There's something really, really special about not only being the best player (or Ovi's case, best goal-scorer) every year but being able to prove it and ensure you finish at the top, year in, year out. Kane had a career year, yet Ovi again found a way to top him in a "slow" year for him.

His consistency actually impresses me a lot. I don't think he needs any type of signature playoff run to beat Lafleur. I think if he has some type of decent longevity he's easily ahead of Lafleur or Bossy.

I also think Ovechkin has a shot at top 4 (ahead of Jagr/Hull/Richard). I think to beat some of those guys he may need a signature playoff run, and maybe more, since their resumes are extremely well-rounded.

You basically agreed with me in the bolded.That's why Ovechkin can't crack Lafleur who was a legendary playoff player.

I'm not downplaying or underrating his accomplishments, but at this point they are mostly relevent in a debate about who is the greatest goalscorer of all-time.If he goes on next year and wins another Rocket by scoring 48 goals to someone else's 42 goals, gets 73 points and get bounced in the 2nd or even 3rd round again putting up 0,91 in the playoffs, that's very good, very impressive, but it's more of the same except worst than his prime.He's not beating his own limit or breaking new grounds.He's just replicating his own self again and again, except usually worst than his best.But granted, replicating oneself's again and again is hard especially at his age, but that's all he's doing.I don't put that much weight into that when I compare him to Lafleur or Jagr.

He's not bringing anything new to the table (except solidifying his longevity as a top player) to compete with the very high end resumes (Lafleur, Jagr, Hull, Richard, Howe).

 

[bobholly39]

You basically agreed with me in the bolded.That's why Ovechkin can't crack Lafleur who was a legendary playoff player.

I'm not downplaying or underrating his accomplishments, but at this point they are mostly relevent in a debate about who is the greatest goalscorer of all-time.If he goes on next year and wins another Rocket by scoring 48 goals to someone else's 42 goals, gets 73 points and get bounced in the 2nd or even 3rd round again putting up 0,91 in the playoffs, that's very good, very impressive, but it's more of the same except worst than his prime.He's not beating his own limit or breaking new grounds.He's just replicating his own self again and again, except usually worst than his best.But granted, replicating oneself's again and again is hard especially at his age, but that's all he's doing.I don't put that much weight into that when I compare him to Lafleur or Jagr.

He's not bringing anything new to the table (except solidifying his longevity as a top player) to compete with the very high end resumes (Lafleur, Jagr, Hull, Richard, Howe).

I guess what i'm saying is:

Bossy has serious weaknesses in his resume (no back half to his career). Hence - Ovechkin can totally top him (if he hasn't already) simply by playing longer.

Lafleur also has serious weaknesses in his resume. He had an outstanding prime/peak, but in terms of career numbers and longevity, it's really not what you'd expect. Because of that - I think Ovechkin can again easily top him simply by continuing to accumulate awards/strong regular seasons (if he hasn't already topped him).

Hull/Richard/Jagr - they don't really have any weaknesses in their resume to exploit. Full careers, great primes, peaks and career numbers. To top one of those guys i think Ovechkin will need something more (whether it's a signature playoff run like you implied, or something else such as more Art Ross, or whatever else).

But I think he can enter the #5 position without any big playoff success per se if his regular season resume is strong enough.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I guess what i'm saying is:

Bossy has serious weaknesses in his resume (no back half to his career). Hence - Ovechkin can totally top him (if he hasn't already) simply by playing longer.

Ovechkin is already ahead of Bossy in my book.Bossy's offensive peak cannot compete with Ovechkin's.Bossy is a legendary playoff goalscorer and performer, which is why he's in the conversation in the first place.

Lafleur also has serious weaknesses in his resume. He had an outstanding prime/peak, but in terms of career numbers and longevity, it's really not what you'd expect. Because of that - I think Ovechkin can again easily top him simply by continuing to accumulate awards/strong regular seasons (if he hasn't already topped him).

Strongly disagree (unless those awards are Harts and Art Rosses, then maybe we can talk.If it's just Rocket Trophies again paired with underwhelming playoff production and non-elite point production, meh).We all know Lafleur just has that 6 year peak, but so what? He did everything in those 6 years.And none-stop.

Top Playoff scorers 1975-1980:

player|GP|G|A|P
Guy Lafleur|72|51|59|110
Bobby Clarke|82|25|54|79
Denis Potvin|80|28|49|77
Steve Shutt|72|35|42|77
Jacques Lemaire|69|32|42|74
Bill Barber|82|34|36|70
Reggie Leach|82|47|22|69
Rick MacLeish|65|31|34|65
Brad Park|64|19|43|62
Jean Ratelle|58|24|38|62
Larry Robinson|79|15|47|62

That's what Lafleur did in the playoffs in those 6 years against his competition.Nobody is even remotely close.It's not just a matter of ''having a great team''.This is the type of legendary playoff production we're dealing with.Not to mention I believe Lafleur was a superior offensive talent and so that his prime was better than Ovechkin's, even if not by a lot.

But I think he can enter the #5 position without any big playoff success per se if his regular season resume is strong enough.

Disagree, see above.

Let's not forget that Ovechkin is a member of an undesirable club with Dionne and Weber as the best players never to reach a conference final in the Top 200-300 or so players of all-time.And he's not some 171th, he's an elite player and so his part is important in how his teams are doing.Worst, his teams have generally been pretty good ones.He was never stuck on an expansion type of franchise a la Kovalchuk or Nash.

And sure, when you isolate his production Ovy has been a good playoff performer.But there must be something we can't capture by isolated stats that makes him pretty weak as a go-to guy.In the long run when you keep having opportunities excuses such as ''bad goalies'' or ''team not built for the playoffs'' or ''bad coach'' or ''facing a hot goalie'' are starting to look pretty lame.

 

[bobholly39]

From 2007-2008 until this past season, regular season goals:

Ovechkin 427
Stamkos 312
Perry 300
everyone else, less

Thats some serious dominance too.


Ovechkin also doesn't have a "weak" playoff resume. His per game statistics have always been pretty decent.

For that same stretch (2007-2008 until this year) he has the highest goal per game average in the playoff in the NHL (0.49). Much closer with others being at .48, and .46, but he's still #1.

Ovechkin doesn't have any great playoffs run (especially considering team success) - but it doesn't mean he has a "weak" playoff record.

With decent longevity and a slow drop-off in play in the coming years - I think Ovechkin finishes above both Bossy and Lafleur. He only needs extra heroics to crack the top 4 imo.

 

[BenchBrawl]

From 2007-2008 until this past season, regular season goals:

Ovechkin 427
Stamkos 312
Perry 300
everyone else, less

Thats some serious dominance too.


Ovechkin also doesn't have a "weak" playoff resume. His per game statistics have always been pretty decent.

For that same stretch (2007-2008 until this year) he has the highest goal per game average in the playoff in the NHL (0.49). Much closer with others being at .48, and .46, but he's still #1.

Ovechkin doesn't have any great playoffs run (especially considering team success) - but it doesn't mean he has a "weak" playoff record.

With decent longevity and a slow drop-off in play in the coming years - I think Ovechkin finishes above both Bossy and Lafleur. He only needs extra heroics to crack the top 4 imo.

Yes, but we already know Ovechkin is possibly the greatest goalscorer ever (if only he was in the playoffs).

I never said Ovechkin was weak in the playoffs, but we're not trying to make him rise from 37th to 29th of all-time, you're trying to make him jump over Guy Lafleur.How players of the caliber of Ovechkin and Lafleur perform in the playoffs is extremely important because they are the go-to guys.I know Lafleur had great teams, but watch his stats in the post I made above.He was a crucial part of those great teams.Ovechkin had good teams, not great.But plenty of weaker teams have reached the conference final in those 10 years he was in the league.He could never make it happen.That extra something, that extra whatever he needed to do, be it leadership or a freaking speech between periods.I don't know.But it didn't happen.

You know next year, when Washington ends up with 118 pts in the regular season, I'll still be pretty worried for them in the 1st and 2nd round.I don't trust him as a ''mind'' and ''soul'' to go deep.

 

[bobholly39]

I guess if you want to summarize my argument.

Bossy and Lafleur both have serious weaknesses in their resume (longevity mostly - but it counts when compared to a player with a full career at top level).

Ovechkin won't have any serious weaknesses should he play a full career.

His playoff resume isn't a serious "weakness" - it's maybe not quite up to par to his regular season, but it's not as big a weakness as both Lafleur and Bossy have in their resumes.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I guess if you want to summarize my argument.

Bossy and Lafleur both have serious weaknesses in their resume (longevity mostly - but it counts when compared to a player with a full career at top level).

Ovechkin won't have any serious weaknesses should he play a full career.

His playoff resume isn't a serious "weakness" - it's maybe not quite up to par to his regular season, but it's not as big a weakness as both Lafleur and Bossy have in their resumes.

Well we have reached an impass.For me it is a pretty serious weakness against the players he's being compared to.It's all relative.

I think this weakness is much more serious than lack of longevity too.Longevity is nice but it's not crucial neither.People remember the legends based on their highest and their glory.That's the truth in any field, not just sports.